Why isn't Noam Chomsky hired by the Dem. Party?

[mstrsplinter326]

I know he's radical and all, but I am wondering what the beef is with him. Why isn't he talked about outside of the context of literature? His arguments seem better supported and more complete than any polticians and nearly all other writers. Is there something I am missing? Is he a foriegn citizen? What's the story?

[info being]

1. He doesn't represent the Dem Party

Unfortunately.

[jswordy]

38. ...but he oughta, as much as his name...

...is linked to the Democrats by the radical right. They try to paste us with Chomsky and Moore all the time, to show "how out of touch the liberals are."

Sigh.

So what do we do in response? We RUN from those guys! RUN TO THE RIGHT, little rabbit, RUN TO THE RIGHT!

Heheheheh. Screwy.

[ALago1]

2. Because he'd never take the job.

n/t

[proud patriot]

18. I don't think Chomsky would want the job either

after reading many many Chomsky books , I doubt he'd
take the job .

[SHRED]

3. Yeah he is radical

Because the truth has become radical these days.

[Name removed]

110. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Zhade]

111. Oh, BULLSHIT. Got any evidence of your libelous assertions?

I won't hold my breath.

[Name removed]

115. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Zhade]

121. HAHAHA! That's the BEST you've got?

Please.

http://www.chomsky.info/letters/19890601.htm

(And the post you linked to is unconvincing.)

[Darranar]

122. Um, Chomsky is AGAINST divestment from Israel...

and divestment from Israel STILL isn't anti-semitism.

[d_b]

123. Hahahahahaha. That's fucking classic.

Keep posting your whore-itz bullshit

[ret5hd]

4. his views on corporatism, history, the media, etc...

all scare the bejeebus hell out of even the most liberal dem leaders. The entire psychology of the country is built on the premise that, even when mistaken, we (the country as a whole) are striving towards good.

He destroys this premise, demonstrating the manipulations of the populace by the elites, and in so doing destroys any pretense of our inherent nobility of cause.

Without this pretense, our entire national mythology crumbles.

[papau]

8. true - plus he is busy as hell - but friendly anf helpful as always -

and old folks do slow down (me much more so than Chomsky!)

[jswordy]

39. Without this pretense, our entire national mythology crumbles.

BRILLIANT!

You mean...you mean we really did steal this land from the native Americans, by killing millions of them? I thought we "settled" the "wilderness."

ROFLMFAO!

[jswordy]

41. ..and oh my GAWD...the first-ever Congressional....

....Medals of Honor awarded went to the members of the 7th Cavalry who -- from the rim with Hotchkiss machine guns -- shot dead old Indian men, women and children they had disarmed in a bowl canyon called Wounded Knee? Then left the bodies to freeze, and ultimately contracted to have them dumped in a mass grave?

I AM SHOCKED!!!

[rman]

66. what's your point?

-

[bread_and_roses]

90. oh, well said!

"He destroys this premise, demonstrating the manipulations of the populace by the elites." The last thing we want to think is that we might be manipulated, not free agents acting on the grounds of rational self/community interest...and I include Democrats. Hell, I include myself, but I will entertain the proposition, while the Democratic Party is invested shoring up the myth that it is an actual alternative.

[x_y_no]

5. Easy.

Because the Democratic Party still has aspirations of getting more than 5% of the national vote.

[Dr.Phool]

6. The DLC hire a liberal?

My god! Poor ole Liebermans heart couldn't take it.

[htuttle]

7. The two parties aren't 'the same', but they have the same positions...

...on certain things.

Some of those things are the preservation of international neo-liberal capitalism, preservation of the economic class structure in the US, and monopoly of the two parties over any third party contenders. What I'm referring to here is that conflux of laws and social practices known as 'The System'.

On all those issues, Chomsky has irreconcilable differences with the Democratic party (or the Republicans, for that matter).

When The System is under attack, when the core foundations of our classist society are questioned, you see both parties defend it together. Look at what is happening to Michael Moore, for example (or to anyone who moves too far out of the 'boundaries' -- at least to the left). You are only allowed to ask certain questions.

Interestingly enough, Chomsky urged people to vote for Kerry this last time. He wasn't thrilled about it, but he said that it was the appropriate tactical move, given the situation.

[Zhade]

19. And partisan Dems ignore that fact while decrying his "far leftism".

They couldn't BE more blinded by (somewhat misplaced) loyalty, but there it is.

Excellent post, htuttle!

[nascarblue]

94. They're the same at the national level NT

[Vanje]

9. Because Rush Limbaugh might make fun of him

Its apparently important to Dem movers and shakers that Rush Limbaugh approve of their persons and positions.

[mzmolly]

10. Uhm, because he's NOT a DEMOCRAT?

:think:

[mstrsplinter326]

11. does he have an official party affiliation?

[mzmolly]

20. Well he voted for Nader in the past two elections, so I'd say he's

got a Nader affiliation. ;)

Though I respect Chomsky, I don't know what his role would be since he believes that Democrats are on par with Republicans.

I was thankful that he woke up after 2000 and realized the err of his ways (that Bush was as dangerous as Democrats said) but he still voted for Nader to my understanding.

[htuttle]

22. Bullshit. He endorsed Kerry in 2004

Grudgingly, maybe, but he did it:

Chomsky backs 'Bush-lite' Kerry
Saturday March 20, 2004
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselections2004/story/0,13918,1174017,00.html

Noam Chomsky, the political theorist and leftwing guru, yesterday gave his reluctant endorsement to the Democratic party's presidential contender, John Kerry, calling him "Bush-lite", but a "fraction" better than his rival.

Professor Chomsky - a linguist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology as well as a renowned chronicler of American foreign policy - said there were "small differences" between Senator Kerry and the Republican president. But, in an interview on the Guardian's politics website, he added that those small differences "can translate into large outcomes".

He describes the choice facing US voters in November as "the choice between two factions of the business party". But the Bush administration was so "cruel and savage", it was important to replace it.

He said: "Kerry is sometimes described as 'Bush-lite', which is not inaccurate. But despite the limited differences both domestically and internationally, there are differences. In a system of immense power, small differences can translate into large outcomes."
(more)

[mzmolly]

27. Thanks, I myself have posted this article. But, did you see the update?

http://www.votenader.org/media_press/index.php?cid=86

http://www.counterpunch.org/bates06252004.html

"Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn have stated many times that they favor ousting Bush this election, even if John Kerry is “Bush-lite.” And that stand has been repeatedly used by progressives opposed to Ralph Nader’s campaign.

However, Chomsky and Zinn, both residents of John Kerry’s home state of Massachusetts, say they plan to vote for Ralph Nader."

http://thomasmc.com/0626gb.htm

They both clarified their intent in June of 04. :crazy:

[rman]

58. so what, the end of the story is that voting doesn't really matter

what matters is that we need to fix that.

[mzmolly]

61. Agreed, but your missing the point of the thread. The OP suggested

that "Democrats should *hire* Chomsky."

[rman]

65. Yes that's silly but not because Chomsky voted for Nader.

It's silly because the Dem party wouldn't want him (even though some of the dem voters would want to), and Chomsky wouldn't want the job.
Which is kindof obvious if you know Chomsky a little better.
On the other hand the Dem party did sortof hire (temporarily) another lefty linguist; George Lakoff. http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2003/10/27_lakoff.shtml
He was asked to explain how republicans use language to frame the issues deceptivly, and how to counter that.

[Debs]

74. Of Course

Since Massachusetts was never in doubt for Kerry and helping build a viable third party fits their goals. This does not mean he would not have voted for Kerry if there was a need and it would matter toward replacing Bush

[Freddie Stubbs]

101. That story is reason enough that he is not working for Democrats

[InvisibleBallots]

23. Chomsky supported "ABB" in the last election

and even signed a letter asking Nader not to run.

[mzmolly]

25. True, but then he did a meaculpa clarifying his intent to vote for Nader?

:shrug:

[InvisibleBallots]

26. I don't remember that at all

Chomsky's main point about the elections was that it was mostly a waste of time. It's pointless to get all riled about about someone like Kerry (really) then go back to sleep for the next four years. I think his suggestion was, yes, vote for Kerry since Bush is so bad, but don't pretend that the Presidential election is the most important thing going on in the world, it's not.

[mzmolly]

28. See my post 27.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=1459874&mesg_id=1460071&page=

My main point about Chomsky is that he's not a Democrat. Why hire him to work for the "Democratic Party?"

[TrustingDog]

42. that's my man, Chomsky. tell it like it is - the godawful truth. n/t

[Zhade]

32. Is he in a "safe state"? If so, who cares that he voted for Nader?

It would actually be more consistent with his principles to vote Nader over Kerry, I think, and wouldn't violate his own semi-endorsement of Kerry over b*sh if he were confident Kerry would win big where he lives.

Anyone remember where Chomsky resides?

[mzmolly]

54. I don't care, but I don't think the "Democrats should hire him."

:hi:

Also, there were no really "safe states" in my mind.

[sandnsea]

56. Leftists

It's fine to be a leftist but for god's sake I wish these people would identify themselves as such. They hate Democrats as much as they hate Republicans. Some people end up so confused, they end up thinking leftists should be Democratic consultants. :crazy:

[rman]

67. are you saying

Chomsky hates Democrats? The good man has much better things to do other then hating either Republicans or Democrats, or anyone for that matter.
Are you implying dems are not left? Dems are to the left of Repubs aren't they? Or do you mean Repubs are so far to the right that dems can be left of repubs and still be right-wing? In a way you're right in fact, as far as the party leadership goes.

I do agree however that Chomsky as advisor to the Dem party is not realistic. I'd like to see that happen though.

[sandnsea]

70. Dislike, disdain, disregard

Choose your word. Perhaps hate was the incorrect choice.

Other than that, there are leftists. They do not support Democratic ideals or Republican ideals. They are leftists. Some are even further left than European socialists. We need for them to be as powerful a voice as the fundamentalist right. But just as separate, like the moderate Republican does with the fundie. I don't think the majority of Americans will listen to the Democratic Party until that happens. Which isn't to say every liberal or progressive is a leftist, but there are definitely some who rail against the Democratic Party who wouldn't vote for a Democrat if their life depended on it. We need to quit trying to woo those voters just as much as we need to quit trying to woo the fundie. Let them stake their claim in the political arena, loud and clear and separate. Right along side Noam Chomsky who apparently didn't vote Democratic in this election either.

[Zhade]

72. Can you you define "leftist" for us?

Thanks in advance.

[sandnsea]

73. You and I already did that

As I recall. If you didn't like it then, you probably won't like it now.

[Zhade]

80. Oh, sorry, I don't actually recall your definition.

Maybe because I doubt it was as reactionary and flat-out ill-informed as some others here.

Do you recall what thread, at least?

[Darranar]

87. Yes - because Massachusetts was going to Kerry, no question. n/t

[SariesNightly]

12. Because he sees the whole forest..

.. rather than wasting his and the public's precious time analyzing each tree.

---------------

Recognition that control of opinion is the foundation of government goes back at least to David Hume, who held that "the maxim extends to the most despotic and military governments, as well as to the most free and most popular." But a qualification should be added. It is far more important in the more free societies, where obedience cannot be maintained by the lash. It is only natural that the modern institutions of thought control -- frankly called "propaganda" before the word became unfashionable because of totalitarian associations -- should have originated in the most free societies. Britain pioneered with its Ministry of Information: its "task... was to direct the thought of most of the world," particularly of progressive intellectuals in the United States, whose own task was to drive a reluctant public to war and who later took great pride in having done so (they believed). Wilson followed soon after with his Committee on Public Information. Its propaganda successes inspired progressive democratic theorists and the modern public relations industry. Leading participants in the CPI, like Lippmann and Edward Bernays, quite explicitly drew from these achievements of thought control, the new "art of democracy" that is the "very essence of the democratic process." The term "propaganda" became an entry in the Encyclopedia Britannica in 1922, and in the Encyclopedia of Social Sciences a decade later, with Harold Lasswell's scholarly endorsement of the new techniques for controlling the public mind. The methods of the pioneers were particularly significant, Randal Marlin writes in his history of propaganda, because of their "widespread imitation... by Nazi Germany, South Africa, the Soviet Union, and the US Pentagon," though the achievements of the PR industry dwarf them all.

Problems of "population control," to borrow a phrase from counterinsurgency literature, become particularly severe when the governing authorities carry out policies that are opposed by the general public. In that case, the political leadership may be tempted to follow the path taken by the Reagan administration, which established an Office of Public Diplomacy to conduct such programs as Operation Truth to manufacture public consent for its murderous policies in Central America. One high government official described Operation Truth as "a huge psychological operation of the kind the military conducts to influence a population in denied or enemy territory" -- a frank characterization of pervasive attitudes towards the domestic population.
--------------
http://www.chomsky.info/books/hegemony01.htm

[mzmolly]

15. LOL. He's not a Democrat, do you suggest we take up a collection and

hire him to promote Nader?

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[katinmn]

14. He's too honest to belong to a political party

[Zhade]

16. Because he tells the truth about Republicans AND Democrats?

Because he's mostly right about this country's imperialism?

I mean, so many reasons this guy doesn't get recognized for speaking the truth like he does.

[ever_green]

95. exactly.

[WI_DEM]

17. because he isn't a democrat and wouldn't take the job.

[katinmn]

21. one interesting thing

when asked a few years ago if there were ANY US politicians that he respected, he named John Kerry, citing his voting record and honesty.

[itcfish1]

24. I think he is a true

Socialist or communist, The Repukes would have a field day with him

[Debs]

75. solon

I believe he calls himself an anarcho/syndacalist. But speaks often of the nessesity of realy participatory democracy. I dont think he would take any job with Dems mostly because he thinks he can do more from the outside. I dont know but would be loathe to second guess him

[gottaB]

29. google the Faurisson affair

That marks a point when many on the left parted ways with Chomsky. Chomsky has argued that his defense of Faurisson was merely a defense of free speech. Many disagree.

[rman]

31. "Goebels was in favor of freedom of speech for views he liked,

so was Stalin"

"If you believe in freedom of speech, you believe in freedom of speech for views you don't like. Goebels was in favor of freedom of speech for views he liked, so was Stalin. If you are in favor of freedom of speech, then you are in favor of freedom of speech precicely for views you dispise."

"With regard of my defense of people who express utterly offensive views, (many people say) "you are defending this person's views".
I am not, I am defending the right to express them.

The difference is crucial, and the difference has been understood outside of fascist circles since the 18th century."

-- Noam Chomsky

[gottaB]

62. Only a facsist would object to Chomsky's defense of Faurisson?

Pure sophistry.

Chomsky defended Faurisson's right to be an anti-semite, but then he asserted that, so far as he could tell, Faurisson was neither an anti-semite nor a Nazi. So what was he defending really? The right to publish anti-semitic books and not be called an anti-semite?

[rman]

63. Chomsky is very explicit about what he defends

you must try real hard to miss it.

[gottaB]

68. Dishonesty comes in many forms

What Chomsky said:

Let me add a final remark about Faurisson's alleged "anti-Semitism." Note first that even if Faurisson were to be a rabid anti-Semite and fanatic pro-Nazi -- such charges have been presented to me in private correspondence that it would be improper to cite in detail here -- this would have no bearing whatsoever on the legitimacy of the defense of his civil rights. On the contrary, it would make it all the more imperative to defend them since, once again, it has been a truism for years, indeed centuries, that it is precisely in the case of horrendous ideas that the right of free expression must be most vigorously defended; it is easy enough to defend free expression for those who require no such defense. Putting this central issue aside, is it true that Faurisson is an anti-Semite or a neo-Nazi? As noted earlier, I do not know his work very well. But from what I have read -- largely as a result of the nature of the attacks on him -- I find no evidence to support either conclusion. Nor do I find credible evidence in the material that I have read concerning him, either in the public record or in private correspondence. As far as I can determine, he is a relatively apolitical liberal of some sort.

http://www.chomsky.info/articles/19801011.htm

As I said, Chomsky defends Faurisson's right to be an anti-Semite, but then he asserts that Faurisson is neither an anti-Semite nor a Nazi. Why? What's that a defense of, precisely? I'll give you a clue. Chomsky frequently makes the argument that denial of the Holocaust is not anti-Semitic. That is a point *he* chooses to argue, and it is not necessary to a principled defense of an anti-Semite's free speech rights, as Chomsky himself acknowledges in that paragraph.

[rman]

69. you're twisting Chomsky's words

you say: "right to be an anti-Semite"

Chomsky says: "the right of free expression"

That being settled, your clue is irrelevant.

[gottaB]

71. I'm quoting Chomsky verbatim

That being settled, your failure to get a clue is very telling

[Debs]

76. Oh thats bull

I have read with my own two eyes in one of his books where he says that to even enter into the discussion about whether or not there was a holocaust is to lose ones humanity. That seems a far cry from a holocaust denier appology

[gottaB]

96. Chomsky's defense of Faurisson is bullshit.

That is the source of our disagreement.


There is no doubt that the words I quoted belong to Chomsky. In that piece he argued that his views on the Holocaust were diametrically opposed to Faurisson's. He also argued that Faurisson was neither an anti-Semite nor a Nazi, but a "relatively apolitical liberal of some sort." That second argument caught many people's attention, and I think if you cared to indulge in a little introspection, you'd find that it has caught you by surprise as well.

How could it be that Chomsky regards a Holocaust denier as a relatively apolitical liberal of some sort? Could Chomsky be arguing that denial of the Holocaust is not inherently an anti-Semitic undertaking, one enmeshed in totalitarian political ideologies, most notably Nazism? Well, in fact, he does argue that. He has also said, "I see no anti-Semitic implication in the denial of the existence in gas chambers or even in the denial of the Holocaust." His explanation for that is as follows:

The "statement" to which you refer is a distortion of something that I wrote in a personal letter 11 years ago, when I was asked whether the fact that a person denies the existence of gas chambers does not prove that he is an anti-Semite. I wrote back what every sane person knows: no, of course it does not. A person might believe that Hitler exterminated 6 million Jews in some other way without being an anti-Semite. Since the point is trivial and disputed by no one, I do not know why we are discussing it.

In that context, I made a further point: even denial of the Holocaust would not prove that a person is an anti-Semite. I presume that that point too is not subject to contention. Thus if a person ignorant of modern history were told of the Holocaust and refused to believe that humans are capable of such monstrous acts, we would not conclude that he is an anti-Semite. That suffices to establish the point at issue.

The point is considerably more general. Denial of monstrous atrocities, whatever their scale, does not in itself suffice to prove that those who deny them are racists vis-a-vis the victims. I am sure you agree with this point, which everyone constantly accepts. Thus, in the journal of the American Jewish Congress, a representative of ASI writes that stories about Hitler's anti-gypsy genocide are an "exploded fiction." In fact, as one can learn from the scholarly literature (also Wiesenthal, Vidal-Naquet, etc.), Hitler's treatment of the gypsies was on a par with his slaughter of Jews. But we do not conclude from these facts alone that the AJC and ASI are anti-gypsy racists. Similarly, numerous scholars deny that the Armenian genocide took place, and some people, like Elie Wiesel, make extraordinary efforts to prevent any commemoration or even discussion of it. Until the last few years, despite overwhelming evidence before their eyes, scholars denied the slaughter of some 10 million native Americans in North America and perhaps 100 million on the continent. Recent studies of US opinion show that the median estimate of Vietnamese casualties is 100,000, about 1/20 of the official figure and probably 1\30 or 1\40 of the actual figure. The reason is that that is the fare they have been fed by the propaganda apparatus (media, journals of opinion, intellectuals, etc., "scholarship," etc.) for 20 years. We (at least I) do not conclude from that fact alone that virtually the whole country consists of anti-Vietnamese racists. I leave it to you to draw the obvious analogies.

http://chomsky.info/letters/1989----.htm

That's a specious argument in my view. If you're capable of discussing it, fine, let's discuss it.


It is the responsibility of intellectuals to speak the truth and to expose lies.

[rman]

98. no point in running around in circles

you stick to your interpretation of Chomsky, i'll stick to mine.

It is not yours nor anyone else's call to decide what an intellectual's responsibility should be.

"Goebels was in favor of freedom of speech for views he liked, so was Stalin" - Chomsky

[gottaB]

99. Intellectual responsibility--the quote is Chomsky's

eom

[rman]

100. ...

Chomsky does expose lies. For one there's the lie of sorts that there should be no freedom of speech for certain viewpoints, Chomsky in a way does exposes that lie by taking a principal stance (imo the only possible honest stance) on freedom of speech.
Also Chomsky does not support the lie that there was no holocaust.

It seems that you think suppression of lies about the holocaust is more important then freedom of speech. So much so that according to you freedom of speech should be suspended in case of lies about the holocaust. It seems you would only be satisfied regarding this issue if Chomsky would not defend freedom of speech in this case - in other words if there would be no freedom of speech in this case - that's where you disagree with Chomsky and many others.

I'd say the solution to lies is to expose them for what they are by means of discussion, not to suppress them.


"Goebbels was in favor of freedom of speech for views he liked, so was Stalin." -- Chomsky

[Zhade]

113. DAMN good post!

NT!

[Name removed]

117. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[d_b]

124. Nicely put

[Debs]

103. I think the logic is pretty clear

His own examples make sense to me. Are most Americans racists because they dont accept the vast slaughter of the American Indians. I do know people, good people, that still tell me our giving them smallpox blankets was a mistake and there were very few attrocities against them. They are not racists, just want to think the best about their government. Is the denial that we helped purpetrate the slaughter in Nicaragua evidence of some venal motive? People can be misguided without that nessasarily meaning they are motivated by racism. I believe in the old quote 'never ascribe to venality that which can be ascribed to blatant stupidity'. The bottom line here is that Chomskys defense was about defending free expression. When that is done it always offends some. Feel free to be one of those. I remember when the ACLU defended the Nazi's right to march in Skokie Ill. They were right but it still offended me. I got over it

[Zhade]

112. Some Dems deny atrocities being committed in Iraq.

Does this automatically mean those Dems are anti-Muslim? Could it not just make them blind to reality, or too afraid to accept it?

It's been such fun watching you (poorly) twist Chomsky's words. You deserve a medal!

[w4rma]

30. Because he has no clue about how to get enough folks to fix the problems

He understands alot about the corporatism but he has no clue about how to stop it and quell it. You can't win elections by attacking everyone including the candidate most likey to change things, even slightly, for the better.

He also supports DOING things BEFORE there is enough popular support to do those things without backlash. He's authoritarian in this respect.

He understands power, but does not know how to gain it and keep it.

[rman]

34. nor does anyone else

Chomsky argues it's not a matter of "getting enough people together". Once enough people see the problem, people will fix it. After all it's "the people" who are responsible, not any one particular individual.

All this rallying behind a charismatic leader has done us no good so far. Centralization of power is exactly what is the problem.

[w4rma]

37. He also has no clue about how to summarize himself so that regular

folks understand what he thinks and repeat that to other folks who don't read so much.

[Forkboy]

46. I had to remind myself this post was about Chomsky and not Kerry

[mstrsplinter326]

47. I disagree

He shouldn't have to pander to a culture of ignorance. It's one thing not to be able to read, but it's another to squander that ability.

The man drafts policy for a living, he's not going to morph into Michael Moore any time soon

[KittyWampus]

59. Culture Of Ignorance? LOL! Verbosity And Inability To Express Oneself

in a concise manner doesn't mean others are 'ignorant'.

I graduated from University in 4 years with 2 majors... I am certainly NOT ignorant nor incapable of reading philosophical & theoretical works.

There's an old saying that goes somethingi like, 'the best test of how well you know your subject is how well you can teach it to others.'.

For instance, Paul Krugman is a leader in Economics and he has the gift of making complex economic theories easily understood by using analogies.

Windbags like Chomsky are illustrations of authors and thinkers who really do NOT fully understand the Big Picture and are thus incapable of expressing it to others.

[Zhade]

114. I have absolutely zero problems understanding Chomsky.

And I'm not the sharpest knife in the drawer. No dummy, but no intellectual, either.

Personally, I think he communicates just fine. And what he communicates is far closer to the truth than either Dem or Repub leaders. :shrug:

[rman]

51. i'm regular and i understand him

thing is that his thoughts are unconventional, so it takes a bit getting used to it. the single requirement is that you're curious about things political and social.

[Debs]

77. I also am regular

I have very little college, and probably twenty or so Chomsky books and have no problem understanding him. If he is such an unintelligable windbag why has he gotten over 90 books published? Also he has some small books based on interviews like For the common good or the prosperous few and the restless many where he summerizes very well, those are the books I recommend to my friends who are not the political junkie I am

[Darranar]

89. Oh, well. I'd prefer an intellectual argument to a soundbite any day. n/t

[d_b]

125. Hell yea

[buddhamama]

97. I am a regular folk

who reads Chomsky. I am reading "Hegemony or Survival" at present. I can understand and, summarize him, to relay to others.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

33. Because he has principles which are forbidden by the DLC/DNC.

Gotta get those "moderate"(R) votes by appealing to the lowest common denominators, i.e., "God, Guts, Guns".

Not to mention that he's an intellectual and can't relate to the comic book culture of Joe Six-pack. Tsk, tsk.

[w4rma]

35. I think you accidentally hit on it: "can't relate to … {regular} Joes" nt

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

44. Thank God.

At least there are a few people of character who don't pander and patronize to the lowest common denominator. It helps spare the goose population from politicians posing as "just one of the guys."

[rman]

52. he does have high regard for common sense / 'horse sense'

he is convinced 'the common man' can figure out what he has figured out.

Why do you think so many people who have never even heard of Chomsky are so very sceptical of the media and politics?

[messiah]

36. Um because the Dem

party does'nt want to fight. He's to far to the left for republicans so democrats dont like him, kind of stupid if you ask me.

[ieoeja]

40. Incompetence

[theboss]

43. Two reasons I can see.

1. He's not a Democrat. That would appear to be a pre-requisite to me.

2. He's a real prick. Even people that agree with him, don't necessarily like him.

[TrustingDog]

50. and Dems do not accept pricks into their party? right?

lol. thanks for the laugh.

there's no way noam would join the corrupt 2 party system we have - so too bad if you don't want him, bet he's cryin' about now.

[Zhade]

116. He's a prick? Odd, never saw that myself.

Not a Chomskyite here, just like the guy's work. He never came off as a prick to me. :shrug:

[Zynx]

45. What could he possibly do for us?

[Debs]

78. Gee

What could one of the worlds most brilliant men do for democrats if he had the inclination.

[Zynx]

84. What great political thoughts does Chomsky have?

[Debs]

88. I think

The point he makes so often that a more participatory democracy is no longer something we want but nessasary to our survival, would qualify. That being said I dont think of him as a politician or political theorist.His analysis of political dynamics, media, foreign policy, are brilliant I dont think this is in dispute. Its not like we are talking about running him for office or even having him write policy platforms. And its in the area of analysis that he could be invaluable to Dems. Not that he is ever going to work for dems. I do stand by my original statement though, if someone is really asking what COULD Chomsky do for Dems, I mean no one questions the mans brilliance, obviously he could help

[jonnyblitz]

48. LMFAO. you haven't read much Chomsly have you? OR

you are SERIOUSLY deluded about the Democratic party. HAHAHA. He wouldnt be caught DEAD...oh nevermind..

[mstrsplinter326]

57. either way you slice it

It's not a laughing matter.

[Bo]

49. Chomsky is not known in the south....

[rman]

53. Chomsky on Kerry, Kerry on CIA narcotics trade

Chomsky: "...it was about the Vietnam obsession in the campaign, you know, swift boat, that kind of stuff. Actually, Vietnam doesn't arise in the campaign. I mean, I haven't seen anybody ask, "What was John Kerry doing deep in the Delta in 1969?" You know, seven years after Kennedy had started bombing it, it had been demolished. It was subjected to chemical warfare. Right at the period of the peak of U.S. atrocities after seven years of war, what was he doing there deep in the south? You know, no North Vietnamese within hundreds of miles, (...) Has anybody ever -- has that come up? That's not even a question. The most people will talk about is My Lai, which was like a footnote."

<snip>

AMY GOODMAN: "John Kerry has said when he left Yale and went to Vietnam, he already had serious questions about it, but felt that if the U.S. was going to fight there, that he should do it. Have you heard the speech he gave in 1971, the speech about atrocities? And what do you think about that?"

NOAM CHOMSKY: "He was quite right. I was working pretty closely with Vietnam veterans at the time, and he was in the group. I didn't happen to know him, and he wasn't by any means the most active or involved, but they all knew it. The investigations that went on at the time, the winter soldier and other war crimes investigations, quite a number of which I attended, gave detailed information, almost all of which has been independently verified, of major atrocities, and they weren't discussing the worst ones."

The Life and Times of Noam Chomsky: A Brief History of America's Leading Dissident
http://www.democracynow.org/static/chomskymit.shtml


The fact that Kerry was in Vietnam in a place that had already been demolished doesn't mean the Swift Boat Liars for the Truth were right. Kerry did his duty and deserves every medal he got.
It's just that there is more up with that then what is presented in the mass media.

Kerry knows more besides the fact that My Lai was "like a footnote" (meaning much worse than that happened at the time):


"We were complicit as a country, in narcotics traffic at the same time as we're spending countless dollars in this country as we try to get rid of this problem. It's mind-boggling.
I don't know if we got the worst intelligence system in the world, i don't know if we have the best and they knew it all, and just overlooked it.
But no matter how you look at it, something's wrong. Something is really wrong out there."
-- John Kerry, Iran Contra Hearings, 1987

from the documentary "Crack The C.I.A."
http://www.archive.org/download/ctc/ctc_256kb.mov (32MB, 9min)
http://mysite.verizon.net/res7dhyg/slaverevolt.html

[KittyWampus]

60. Goodman & Chomsky Together. Oy, They Could Fit That Much Ego

and intellectual rigidity in one room?

Both Goodman AND Chomsky look at the world through their preconcieved framework.

They are both so close minded, in their own way, it's kind of sad.

[rman]

64. That must be why both are so popular.

Got anything else besides ad hominems?

[Zhade]

118. Look in the mirror. You're describing yourself here.

You sure seem to have a thing against informed observers who happen to notice the problem with Dems as well as Repubs.

[NAO]

55. Chomsky has been "Excommunicated by the Illuminati"

Those are his words. He's not refereeing to the infamous Bavarian Cabal, but to anyone, on either side of the issues, that is in the mainstream - that includes the Democratic Party.

Chomsky is just too radical to be hired by anyone in 'the system'.

I'd love to see Chomsky get a cable news show like "Scarborough" or "Countdown", but I know that will never happpen...

[d_b]

126. That would be great.

Chomsky country.

[Pepperbelly]

79. hire him for what? nt

[Uzybone]

81. He is a rambler

and is hard to understand when he goes on and on about some minutae. Many people in this country thought Kerry and Gore failed to be consince, how the hell would they listen to Chomsky?

Brilliant man, but not cut out for American politics as it currently stands.

[Zhade]

119. Sad commentary on American politics, methinks.

NT!

[Selatius]

82. The Democratic Party is too corrupt at the head to allow him

The so-called leaders of the party would never allow Chomsky into a prominent position to spread his message, nor would they accept an anarcho-syndicalist who would challenge the very concept of centralizing power as seen in government today. He would sooner try and build a business co-op than accept the order of power in this country as is, which is what happens when one accepts corporations and merely tries to regulate them (an apparently losing game) as opposed to abolishing an institution built to make a profit. His principles are a threat to the status quo, and ladies and gentlemen, the status quo is far from acceptable.

As far as economic policy is concerned, Chomsky has more in common with the likes of David Cobb and Dennis Kucinich, not John Kerry and certainly not Bush and Co. Does Chomsky see a point for the WTO? Does he see a point for NAFTA for that matter? Indeed, many Democratic congressmen voted for NAFTA to begin, not to mention their implied or even explicit support of WTO policies. The rest of the party is either centrist or even right-leaning on economic policy.

Chomsky and the DNC/DLC are almost mutually exclusive. Chomsky's ideas are too incompatible with the vested, monied interests in Congress today in both parties.

[rocktop15]

83. Chomsky is a gift to people who enjoy the TRUTH and enjoy THINKING.

I am a 19 year old college student majoring in Poly-Sci and the first time I heard about Noam was on Bill Maher's show where he was a guest. Bill asked him what he thought was the real reason for the US invading Iraq---it was at this point, my mind was finally opened. Fuck the WMD's, the supposed threat that Saddam offered, etc. He told Bill this war was about the US keeping control of their hegemonic status, installing more military bases, gaining control of, what many in power called the "greatest energy resource in the world," etc.

I have read three of Chomsky's books and I can easily understand them. Whoever said Chomsky is an asshole apparently doesn't know much about the guy. I have emailed him on multiple occasions and he has responded back with kind, generous remarks thanking me for my praise of his works.

It is true that if the Democrats wanted to put Chomsky in a prominent role, they would get less than 5% of the vote (Chomsky would refuse regardless.)

Chomsky's books all have one cohesive theme---WE can take the power back if we want to by organizing---then acting. He talks at great length about the massive protests surrounding the Iraq War this time around and says how this was an unprecedented event.

Just look at what the media did to Howard Dean. Dean was, by far, the best candidate and he could have won. He had a massive group of activists that were backing him. This scared the corporate elite so the media fucked him over with the "yell." And it worked brilliantly.

[Zhade]

120. Bashing those who actually seek truth is a hobby for some "Dems".

Great post, I hope you're representative of your age bracket!

Interesting that you point out Chomsky's "you have the power" thinking, and contrast it with Dean (I agree with most of your conclusions). Dean wouldn't have gotten a mere 5%, so why would Chomsky with the same message? The media and Republicans would have trashed either.

I'll bet Chomsky could even get 10% (!) if he ran (which he wouldn't, but anyway).

Again, great post.

[ProudDad]

85. Chomsky and Lakoff

Chomsky for the facts -- the background and connections.

Lakoff for the long term strategy.

But they won't, they're in it for the bucks just like the pukes.

[Darranar]

86. Chomsky probably wouldn't agree to it, even if they wanted him...

which they don't, because of the interests that the Party leadership represents at the core.

[jpgray]

91. Chomsky, like Nader, is mediocre at best in advancing his ideas

Incidentally, his works concerning the US mostly amount to criticism of existing and historical policy--he doesn't have many substantial writings that would show the way to a more equitable system for our country. He does a good job showing us what we shouldn't do, but he has much less on what we should do and how we get there from here. The latter is what we need most right now. A good critic is important to have, but we need someone who will build and create something new. Chomsky isn't it--he's an important voice, but he can't bring his ideas to a majority of Americans. He will never be able to.

[bobbieinok]

92. in the 60s-70s Chomsky was seen by many as someone who

constantly criticized Israel's policies......that's not acceptable in contemporary US

(I don't know what the situation, the view is today)

Lakoff and Chomsky, 2 linguists......before Chomsky became known for his political analysis/commentary he was a noted linguist....the originator of transformational generative grammar

he was a professor at MIT ..... much of his linguistic research was supported by grants from the US Department of Defense

[nascarblue]

93. He's a genious, but the way the media has set up politics...

...he wouldn't survive. Look at the way Jon Stewart was treated when he begged Crossfire to "please, please" force politicians to really debate instead of their silly screaming chicken display.

[John_H]

102. LOL! Yeah, that's the ticket! Hire an academic to win races!!!!

Then again, he couldn't do a lot worse than the children we have running them now.

[Zynx]

104. If everyone saw us as the party of Noam Chomsky, we would win 30% of the

vote.

[Darranar]

105. Instead of 25%? n/t

[Zynx]

106. We win 45-48% of the vote currently.

You may be refering to the idea that we get half of the half that does vote, but if you are going to play that game I'm not going to bother.

[Darranar]

107. The point is, we aren't doing very well...

at getting our message out if half the population doesn't bother to vote at all, and a quarter votes Republican.

Perhaps change is necessary?

[Zynx]

108. You honestly think those who don't vote are clamoring for someone like

Chomsky?

[Darranar]

109. That's not what I said. I said change is necessary...

so far, the only change we've seen is of the DLC sort - be more positive, be less harsh - and it hasn't worked.

Perhaps a different path would be advisable.