C. S. Wyatt
January 6, 2004
Noam Chomsky annoys me.
There, I said it — or at least wrote it. Despite shared beliefs, I think some of his commentaries reduce him to the level of his critics. More bluntly: he twists facts to fit his views, just as he accuses others of doing. And I often agree with his goals — but he sees vast, powerful conspiracies where none exist.
Who is Noam Chomsky? Technically, he is a linguist. Practically, he is a philosopher and activist writer representing the far-left in American politics.
Chomsky, Noam (1928-...), an American linguist, originated generative grammar (also known as transformational grammar). Generative grammar is a system for describing precisely the rules that determine all the sentences that can possibly be formed in any language.
Chomsky claims that every human being knows the general principles of language at birth. He thinks these principles exist in every language and make up a universal grammar. Chomsky developed this theory because he disagreed with the idea that children learn to speak merely by imitating others. Learning by imitation, in his view, does not explain how people form sentences that they have never used before. He believes that the hearing of spoken language merely triggers the language ability that a child has from birth.
Avram Noam Chomsky was born in Philadelphia. He graduated from the University of Pennsylvania in 1949 and earned a Ph.D. degree there in 1955. Chomsky joined the faculty of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1955. His books include Syntactic Structures (1957), Aspects of the Theory of Syntax (1965), Language and Mind (1968), and Language and Problems of Knowledge (1988).
World Book Encyclopedia. Contributor: John Lyons, F.B.A., Master, Trinity Hall, Cambridge University.
As a linguist, he is probably brilliant, especially in language development theory. Unfortunately, I have never had the honor of hearing Chomsky discuss language development. As an education student, I heard him discuss nothing but politics and how terrible Ronald Reagan was as a man.
Yes, I have heard Professor Chomsky speak. I have read his works. I know I’m supposed to agree with him, or at least admire his insights into the American media and political system… but I don’t admire him at all. I didn’t think much of him when I was a student, and I think even less of him two decades years later.
My basic issue with Chomsky is that he uses the language and debating methods he claims to dislike. Any opinion is selective. Any debate uses the facts supporting the positions taken. By taking parts of history, parts of society, and presenting them as demonstrative of conditions, Chomsky uses language as propaganda supporting his beliefs. There is nothing wrong with that, but it seems wrong to me to criticize a method while utilizing the same approach to debate.
Consider the text of a speech representative of what I heard in the late 1980s. I cite the transcript from Open Magazine, “The Spectacular Achievements of Propaganda.” I photocopied the article, unfortunately missing the publication date. It followed Chomsky’s 1988 appearance at UCLA and in Malibu, Calif., where he addressed the first Gulf War.
Let’s begin with the first modern government propaganda operation. That was under the Woodrow Wilson Administration.
Why select Wilson? First, propaganda operations are not unique to “modern” governments. Second, if the twentieth century is the marker, there were other propaganda operations predating Wilson in other countries. Japan used government presses to explain why China was a threat. The U.K. used “propaganda” to explain why colonies needed Western (British) culture to save them from savage ways. The Armenian Genocide (1915) was the result of propaganda in Turkey. By selecting a President of the United States, Chomsky leads the reader to infer U.S. propaganda is somehow different, and possibly more vile.
Don't misunderstand. I think Wilson did abuse his power as President. I think Wilson was a horrible man in many ways, and only now are historians documenting his administration fully. It could be argued that Wilson's use of police powers make most modern administrations look timid. People were arrested and imprisoned for questioning Wilson's policies. You either supported Wilson or were deemed "un-American." Once you read about Wilson it is hard not to compare his views on power to those of Richard Nixon. But the facts don't mean that America was unique or even the worst offender when it comes to centralized manipulation / control of the population.
Chomsky’s speech went on to compare U.S. democracy to Leninism. His logic is that because the U.S. government manufactures consent, it does the same as a Marxist/Leninist government. The problem with his argument is that he can make it in the U.S. while he could not make this claim in a Marxist system. While leaders of modern democracies have tried to censor ideas and political parties, they have eventually failed because we have free speech. Senator Joseph McCarthy was brought down by a reporter — not a coup.
If government propaganda were the only speech, I would suggest there is no hope for democracy. But democratic republics have existed since Greece. Open debate does exist, even if it sometimes requires an effort to be heard. It is up to the speaker to persuade others that his or her speech deserves a larger audience.
The liberal democratic theory and Marxism-Leninism are very close in their common ideological assumptions. Maybe there will be a popular revolution, and that will put us into state power; or maybe there won't be, in which case we’ll just work for the people with real power: the business community. But we’ll do the same thing: we’ll drive the stupid masses towards a world that they’re too dumb to understand for themselves.
According to this theory, Chomsky suggests that the “educated elite” in a culture are merely interested in power. Or, if they do have higher ideals and goals for society, they will any power to achieve change. The “elite” assume the public to be too ignorant to understand this future on their own. Any persuasion must be a trick — propaganda.
But what if the public are educated enough to grasp the future? What if it wasn’t manipulation that persuaded the public, but rather the facts and the presentation of the facts? Yes, media methods might be used to sell the arguments, but that does not mean the public ignores the core issue. One might be persuaded to listen, but I hope most people do listen once their attention is granted to a messenger.
Yes, Hitler was persuasive. But the core of his message was already believed by many. We often miss this point in history, but Hitler’s Big Lie was already public misconception. To this day, there are people convinced of a Jewish conspiracy to rule the world. Those people are not manipulated by the message, which they already believe, but they are organized by the messenger. In other words, people sharing beliefs can be united by “propaganda” more easily than they are convinced of a new belief. Hitler’s Big Lie was not new, but his unification of believers was.
Chomsky uses the U.S. Labor Movement of the 1930s to illustrate how the “elites” in the U.S. crushed the “bewildered herd” of working-class Americans via propaganda. Chomsky spoke of the Labor Movement:
That raised two serious problems. For one thing, democracy was malfunctioning. the bewildered herd was actually winning legislative victories, and it’s not supposed to work that way. The other problem was that it was becoming possible for people to organize. People have to be atomized and segregated and alone. They’re not supposed to organize, because then they might be something beyond spectators of action. They might actually be participants if many people with limited resources could get together to enter the political arena.
Yes, business feared the labor movement. The automobile manufacturers used hired guards, police, and even troops to smash strikes. There was a real problem with working conditions. But — and this is important — the labor movement changed and grew through the 1960s. As long as their message had believers, the unions were able to find support.
Today, public employee unions have replaced private-sector unions as political powers. I see no “victory” in that for the anti-union elites. If anything, public unions cost more money and can be more disruptive than industry unions. (Personally, I think of unions as corporations — and the elites are the heads of either unions or corporations.)
Organizing did continue. The message was stronger than any government or business propaganda. Court victories allowed teachers to unionize. Other victories led to “prevailing wage” laws. Overtime protections, limited work weeks, and more were passed into law. Safety regulations and workers compensation insurance continue to expand, as do public employee pension plans. (California’s workers compensation system is outrageously expensive to companies, with minimal benefit to workers. Our pension plans are so generous, counties pay 120% of last salary to some retirees.)
So how did the anti-union forces “win” a propaganda war that actually continues? The battle front changed, but the basics did not. Chomsky’s argument that unions were somehow defeated by corporate America does not seem accurate. There are fewer industrial union members, but more total union members when you count public employee unions. If anything, the conflict is a stalemate.
The message matters. It is easy to heard, no matter what people might claim about media ownership. The challenge is being convincing enough to organize like-minded individuals. If you cannot convince enough people of your position, then other ideas carry the day. Merely because your ideas do not win, you cannot conclude the “winner” manipulated the system. Be honest — debates are seldom based on all facts, they are presentations of selected facts.
Chomsky implies there is a conspiracy to distract and manipulate the public. I believe this opinion, common among both the “left” and “right” in American politics, is held because it, too, insults the masses. It implies “I am smart enough to see the manipulation, but most people are ignorant.” While attacking the “elite” (Chomsky’s term in the speech I cite), he depicts himself as better, more educated, and more aware of this vast media conspiracy. It could not be possible that his ideas and opinions are wrong — if only the public weren’t too manipulated to hear his wisdom!
Both extremes blame “the media” for society. The “right” accuses the media of fostering a secular, amoral, socialist agenda based on the modern notion of no objective morality. The “left” accuses the media of presenting a pro-business, pro-capitalists agenda with no respect for workers, the poor, or social justice. In reality, “the media” are far from monolithic — they rise and fall with the public’s support. Magazines and newspapers fail. Television news presents whatever gets ratings. (“If it bleeds, it leads!”) The sensational, the sexual, the voyeuristic will always dominate society, because people have always engaged in gossip. The small things are easy to relate to than metaphysical discussions. Forget bias in the media — worry about human social bias.
The bewildered herd is a problem. We’ve got to prevent their rage and trampling. We’ve got to distract them. They should be watching the Superbowl or sitcoms or violent movies. Every once in a while you call on them to chant meaningless slogans like “Support our troops.” You’ve got to keep them pretty scared, because unless they’re properly scared and frightened of all kinds of devils that are going to destroy them from outside or inside or somewhere, they may start to think, which is very dangerous, because they’re not competent to think.
I have never met a reporter, a producer, an editor, a writer… no one in “the media” with such a notion of controlling the public. If anything, I have met men and women frustrated that “real news” does not sell. I have met writers wondering why informative works seem to draw the same vocal supporters, but not new readers. The reality is, most people either don’t agree or don’t believe the message is that important to their lives. When a Texas television station experimented with a half-hour of “serious” news, the ratings fell sharply. The media cannot be blamed for people using a remote control.
Would Chomsky suggest we have an hour when only news is aired? When there are no choices that appeal to the prurient interests of humans? A television or radio hour without entertainment. Force the public to “learn” so they are no longer suckers for manipulation?
I can purchase any of a thousand magazines at the local bookstores. I can read most anything I want on the Web. If I want to listen to NPR, KPFA, or another alternative radio station, I can do so. There is no lock preventing me from watching CSPAN or any of a dozen “news” channels on basic cable. Most Americans do have access to a radio for NPR and a television with the Public Broadcasting System, so the argument that the public cannot access these outlets is false. At $2.95 an issue (as of 2004), anyone can afford a copy of The Nation, if they want an alternative to Sports Illustrated or Vogue.
The implication is that people are too lazy or stupid to realize there are alternatives to the nightly news. Chomsky and others would have us believe the public is too ignorant to understand there are a lot of sources for news and information. No, the public simply prefers to watch sitcoms and read the National Enquirer. Why that is, I cannot say.
For a good primer on Chomsky, visit ZMag, at http://www.zmag.org/chomskyarticles.htm and read his diatribes on all that is wrong with America, the republican form of democracy, and the sins of capitalism. He is a great writer and is quite persuasive in presentation. Being a skilled communicator does not make him correct, especially on matters of human nature.
Before I continue my rant, I think it is interesting that the New York Times now criticizes Chomsky’s lack of humility and academic integrity. Chomsky has long stated “facts” without being challenged by other academics. After all, he is Noam Chomsky, and most of the world agrees with him.
In the January 4, 2004, New York Times Book Review, Samantha Power commented on the latest political diatribe of the renowned linguist, Hegemony or Survival: America’s Quest for Global Dominance. It does not surprise me that this work was the leading audio book at the end of 2003 and into the start of 2004.
Most audio copies of the book were purchased by owners of the Apple™ iPod MP3 player. The average income of an iPod owner, according to International Data Corp., approaches $100,000 per year. These are the quintessential members of the “liberal elites” American conservatives decry. Upper-middle class guilt — or at least upper-class guilt — seems to reside within four areas of American culture:
How can I make this assertion? I have worked as a teacher, news reporter, playwright, and computer programmer. Apparently, it is important to have a lot of empathy for the less fortunate in these careers. You must wear this empathy on your sleeve and be willing to actively pledge your support to “liberal” causes and candidates.
For Chomsky, however, these traditional “liberals” are not far enough to the left. Most of them are still capitalists at heart and, worse, loyal Americans interested in promoting the American way of life around the world.
For Chomsky, the world is divided into oppressor and oppressed. America, the prime oppressor, can do no right, while the sins of those categorized as oppressed receive scant mention.
- New York Times; January 4, 2004
It has long seemed to me that Chomsky dislikes all forms of power and superiority — except for the supposed intellectual superiority of his philosophical views. The problem with this is that there will always be some country, political party, and individual with more power than most others. There is no “equality” in existence, nowhere in the universe. Even if we like the notion of equality, it is clearly a myth. Chomsky himself has power — over students, over junior faculty at M.I.T., and even over the left-leaning media.
Countries in dominant positions seek to maintain dominance. Maintaining a lead is what every person seeks to do; it is what all organisms seek to do. Countries are organizations, on a grand scale, with the same tendencies as other organizations of people. Organizations have internal politics and differences, but in the end they seek to dominate other organizations or to at least maintain their current positions.
It is inconceivable, in Chomsky’s view, that American power could be harnessed for good. Thus, the billions of dollars in foreign aid earmarked each year for disaster relief, schools, famine prevention, AIDS treatment, etc. — and the interventions in Kosovo and East Timor — have to be explained away.
- New York Times; January 4, 2004
Even America’s Democrats are part of the global oppression that is America. At least Chomsky is consistent. Korea was Truman’s war, Vietnam began under Kennedy, and Clinton waged war against Serbia. In Chomsky’s opinion, every military action of the United States of America is an act of aggression.
If Chomsky offered evidence of some vast conspiracy, I might take him more seriously. To claim it is all a matter of American culture is nonsense, as the Soviet Union once sought to dominate the world in a far more direct way. History is littered with the ruins of nations set on regional or global domination.
What makes America unique, for now, is that we generally leave nations we have “conquered” and hope they prosper in our model. Maybe that model is wrong, as Chomsky would charge. Still, Japan, Germany, and even the Philippines are examples of America helping nations recover after occupation by American forces. I won’t argue that we have not abused our powers at times. What I do suggest is that our powers are not used to expand the physical borders of this nation… at least not since World War II. We are maturing, thankfully. To dismiss that is to be far too cynical about the American public.
Yet Chomsky does quote ideas suggesting America seeks to expand its boundaries, at least it’s economic boundaries, through force. And whom does he quote? The New York Times states it well:
He relies heavily upon quotations, but rarely identifies the speaker or writer.
…
[One] citation leads only to an earlier book by Chomsky himself.
- Power, Samantha; New York Times; January 4, 2004
If a student were to quote his or her previous papers, I assume Professor Chomsky would fail the student. But, quoting an expert as highly regarded as himself, Chomsky is apparently excused this academic ruse. After all, readers won’t know he is quoting himself if they don’t bother to trace all the endnotes in his books.
Once he has a quotation, from himself or others, Chomsky does not hesitate to commit yet another academic sin — the stating of rhetorical absolutes.
When he agrees with a claim, Chomsky introduces it with the word “uncontroversially” (sic) or credits it to “distinguished authorities.”
- New York Times; January 4, 2004
There are no “uncontroversial” opinions, correcting the adverbial creativity of Chomsky, the noted linguist. (He does take Lewis Carroll to new heights, being a man in control of the language.) All opinions are controversial, if only to a limited extent. Also, journalists and commentators know you name authorities and let the audience determine if the sources are distinguished. For example, if you write that “Nobel-winning economist John Doe” has an opinion, then readers are likely to assume Doe is distinguished — and they know why he is credible.
This is a thinker far too accustomed to preaching to an uncritical choir.
Often he meets official falsehoods with exaggerations of his own.
- Power, Samantha; New York Times; January 4, 2004
Chomsky is so well-regarded by the far-left that few study his writing critically. Those willing to research his statements are considered traitors to the cause, whatever that cause might be. I have encountered colleagues who assume I embrace Chomsky, since I am an artist. Clearly, with my educational background and various vocations, I must assume all that Chomsky says and writes is scripture for the orthodoxy.
Personally, I think Chomsky would be a threat to the logic skills of generations to come if he were not safely secured on a university campus, therefore keeping him isolated from mainstream Americans. Sadly, leftists around the globe see him as the epitome of reason.
…his critiques have come to influence and reflect mainstream opinion elsewhere in the world.
- New York Times; January 4, 2004
If you want to know what a proper French or German liberal “thinks” of American culture and politics, read Chomsky. He is the high-priest of America-loathing Americans. He does not dislike our politicians and corporate leaders — he dares to dislike the very foundations of the American system. Chomsky would not have us be our current Republic, he would much rather us alter our system entirely, perhaps as a parliament with Social Democrats at the helm.
Our system is flawed. All system are. But, Chomsky would seek a rewrite of the Constitution, based on some of his statements. He thinks ideals are possible within a democracy, and that is where he fails. The only ideal that remains pure in a democracy is that the majority will dominate the minority. Hence, we have a republic to protect the minority from tyranny.
Chomsky further suggests that it is easy for a government to protect freedoms while providing for the needs of everyone. (Obviously the balance is done so well in socialist Europe, where deficits and unemployment are staggering problems that hinder innovation.) In truth, balancing the rights of the individual with the needs of society is not simple. Every law, every rule, every regulation limits the rights and freedoms of someone.
Chomsky is wrong to think that individuals within the American government are not thinking seriously about the costs of alliances with repressive regimes; he is also wrong to suggest that it would be easy to get the balance right between liberty and security, or democracy and equality.
- Power, Samantha; New York Times; January 4, 2004
When I was a student during the late 1980s, my professors at the University of Southern California seemed enamored by the essays and speeches of Chomsky. I recall being told how biased reporters were — it was obvious they were all pawns of corporations and capitalism. Any assertion that media owners did not meddle in the news only proved my ignorance of the system.
As a journalism student, and sometimes reporter, I never witnessed anyone from the corporate levels edit a story, kill an assignment, or suggest how reporters cover the news. I wrote editorials and no one told me what to think. Worse, I would have to admit I tilted so far to the left that I was in danger of scraping my ear on the ground. If anything, I would say most of the reporters and commentators I met were as lop-sided as I was.
How lop-sided? We went to Jerry Brown speeches, praised Mike Dukakis, and thought Ronald Reagan was the closest thing to an anti-Christ we anti-religious zealots had ever seen. We were crusaders — that’s why we studied journalism!
And yet, there was Chomsky telling us the media were all tools of the Religious Right, Ronald Reagan, and Corporate Greed.
No, we were tools of the public. That’s right, the public. It’s called circulation. It’s called ratings. It’s called staying in business.
Left-leaning media, and I include Public Broadcasting in that set, speak to those in blind agreement with them. The public wants sensational events, from sex scandals to earthquakes. The details of a federal spending bill bore people to tears. Worse, the details are likely to create more conservatives, not liberals…
{{{ more to follow, along with quotes from Chomsky! }}}
Copyright © 2004 C. S. Wyatt
Updated on: Saturday, 27-Dec-2008 16:40