I'm disappointed by Noam Chomsky. Listen to how he justifies the poor, "exploited" tea partiers:
Surely, Chomsky can't be so blind as to miss that the only "real grievances" of the tea partiers arise from their racism and misogyny. But then again, communists and fascists always felt a very strong attraction to each other, so maybe I shouldn't be so surprised at his affected blindness.
23 comments:
I'm not clear if I heard what Chomsky said differently than you did or if we disagree here.
I thought that Chomsky was insightful in his indictment of "the left" in how we've failed in reaching "middle america" and how The Business class has succeeded in fooling Tea Partyites and others on the Right.
I also think I'd add to Chomsky's words that one must separate "the people" from the Manipulators within the TP Movement.
I'd not give Rush and Ms. P - the benefit of the Doubt as he stated he did regarding sincerity, but I think that a Minor Part of his Message.
Chomsky is right in that "class" is rarely understood by far too many and that The Business Class uses everyone else, while Blaming Government related to their exploitation of us all.
It seems that you should listen all the video before criticizing it...
But because you read Francois Tremblay's blog, you seem to be a open-minded women, and I like it...
And Chomsky is not a communist...
Chomsky is a mix of a liberal social-mediocrat and a left anarchist.
Chomsky believes that what the Tea Partiers are doing has something to do with their opposition to capitalism and the so-called "big government." That's willful blindness of a disturbing quality. They SAY they are against the big government but it's obvious they are not. These people are moved by racism and misogyny, period. As long as the "big government" is racist and anti-women, they support it with all they've got. (If you need reminding about that, look at Bush and Palin).
Anybody who manages to talk for so long about them and not mention racism and misogyny is either a fool (which Chomsky definitely isn't) or intellectually dishonest.
The reason why I never liked Chomsky is his willingness to avoid noticing the facts he doesn't notice. Every time he talked about the Soviet Union, for example, it was exactly like this. He would spew the Soviet propaganda with no concern for the facts. Now, he is choosing to see the Tea Partiers as a possibility for a massive popular mobilization for the progressive causes. In order to do that, he needs to ignore a lot of what is actually going on.
I am disappointed that Chomsky continues to ignore the facts so easily.
David Gendron: I watched the video 3 times just to see if there was some irony I was missing but no such luck.
I like your blog as well.
Je me souviens...
Oh, you speak french? Great! You can comment in English in my blog, too!
Why you like it?
"Chomsky believes that what the Tea Partiers are doing has something to do with their opposition to capitalism and the so-called "big government.""
I agree with him. The large majority of Tea Partiers (i.e. the people) are really motivated by this, but they are fooled by the Tea Party ELITES (the manipulators), who embrace the Corporate Nazi big government.
"I'd not give Rush and Ms. P - the benefit of the Doubt as he stated he did regarding sincerity, but I think that a Minor Part of his Message."
I agree, this part is really disappointing! Clarissa can criticize this.
"That's willful blindness of a disturbing quality. They SAY they are against the big government but it's obvious they are not. These people are moved by racism and misogyny, period. As long as the "big government" is racist and anti-women, they support it with all they've got. (If you need reminding about that, look at Bush and Palin)."
I agree, but this is the game of the MANIPULATORS, not all the people.
"Anybody who manages to talk for so long about them and not mention racism and misogyny is either a fool (which Chomsky definitely isn't) or intellectually dishonest."
Okay, I agree with this. He should have more talked about this in the video. But it's not necessarily because he's not concerned by the racism and the sexism of the Tea Party Manipulators.
"The reason why I never liked Chomsky is his willingness to avoid noticing the facts he doesn't notice. Every time he talked about the Soviet Union, for example, it was exactly like this. He would spew the Soviet propaganda with no concern for the facts."
Me too, I have problem with his "don't smash the state now, smash the capitalism". He doesn't know the difference between markets and capitalism.
In the case of Soviet Union, he was more interested by the so-called "anti-communist" sentiment of the Occidental Imperialist Authorities than trashing against communism, i.e. what Occidental Imperialists did always.
David Gendron: I'm also from Quebec. That's where my family lives. :-) I'm glad you are OK with comments in English. I kind of lost my written French in the years away from Quebec but I still understand everything.
I agree that there is a lot of manipulation going on with the tea party movement. Still, I don't believe that ideology is something that is being imposed on people from "above." People have to consent to the ideologic manipulation on some level. They have to need it for the manipulation to work.
I have tried to get the tea partiers to recognize that Bush Jr. was the one who pushed the bailouts for the banks through the Congress and that his Patriot Act is characteristic of the Big Government they say they fear so much. But it's easier to squeeze blood from stone, seriously.
And I like your blog because you have a great sense of humor.
Merveilleux alors! Incredible!
"Still, I don't believe that ideology is something that is being imposed on people from "above." People have to consent to the ideologic manipulation on some level. They have to need it for the manipulation to work."
I agree, maybe it's the main difference between you and Chomsky here.
"
I have tried to get the tea partiers to recognize that Bush Jr. was the one who pushed the bailouts for the banks through the Congress and that his Patriot Act is characteristic of the Big Government they say they fear so much. But it's easier to squeeze blood from stone, seriously."
Yeah, I'm not surprised by this.
Do you consider you as an anarchist?
"And I like your blog because you have a great sense of humor."
Yeah?
Thank you! :)
I'm sorry to have underestimated you...
Now, I know that I was wrong in my attitude.
"Do you consider you as an anarchist?"
-I have not yet found a political movement that I would feel like joining with no reservations. But I'm always on the lookout for new things I can learn.
"I have not yet found a political movement that I would feel like joining with no reservations."
This is often the case with anarchists.
But there is a lot of varieties of anarchism.
I certainly find racism and various xenophobia within The Tea Party Movement. At the same time, it's ability to survive as long as it has, seems to me to show that it's More than media hype. Media hype certainly helps it.
Movements based upon Fears, as much of the Tea Party Movement is, Usually have core fears that have some Depth to them.
I think that Economic Fears are The Primary Driving Force behind The Tea Party.
Given Many People's combined:
1.) Job related fears and
2.) Loss of Home fears
together with how Both Bush and Obama have seemingly helped The Rich, rather than "working people", it's No Wonder that such a Movement has arisen.
Certainly there is Racism visible within it! Certainly it scapegoats "Government" and "liberals", etc.
This, though, doesn't mean that there are not Legitimate Concerns - that The TP Movement builds upon.
Chomsky is correct in that we on the Left have Not connected beyond our Base and that Right Wing Forces have successfully done so.
Chomsky does focus more upon Class than upon Race, but he certainly does his best, given what he sees. I think he is insightful and helpful!
I heard him speak (live) as the 1st Iraqi "War" began predicting Many Thousands of U.S. casualties. He was obviously very wrong then, but he's not most of the time.
But, geo, how can we connect with these people if they will never relinquish an inch of their homophobic, anti-woman and racist rants? How do you connect with that?
As for their economic grievances, whenever they voice one, they immediately follow it with a rant on how immigrants or "people on welfare" are the mai cause of their financial misery. The only political change they want goes in the Bush direction. They want more of Bush.
C - I don't find things as "simple" as you imply that they are. Connecting with people requires searching for and successfully finding common ground with people. It's rarely easy!
As long as we label people as you are doing and see them as "the enemy" - they tend to see us in similar terms. Meanwhile - those Who Profit - from the Divisions and the TP Movement move ahead causing more problems and/or getting in the way of progress.
While it isn't easy to do, oft times successful people find ties such as through Religion, through Children, sometimes through work relationships or whatever to build bonds and break down barriers.
It isn't sexy or easy, but Gays/Lesbians often need to break down barriers among Hets, People of Color amongst White Folks and many others - who are "Hurt" - reach out to the Dominant Group.
The TP'ists Don't Need us as their allies, though they might gain in some ways if we were allies.
We, on the Left, need to figure out ways to connect strategically and otherwise with some who may help us.
More commonly we lambast and otherwise ridicule others who we feel are "different" and create the divisions where they don't already exist.
We can't "reach" the TP Movement. We could (hopefully) reach some of their membership and serve as a force that helps divide the Movement rather than serving as a scapegoat for many, if not most, of them.
Saying that they are hopeless and tying them to Bush etc. - isn't helpful. Many of them felt betrayed by Bush also, but Obama and the Left are much easier targets now.
The American Left has entertained these hopes of pacifying the conservative base for a very long time. And always to its own detriment. Whenever a Democrat wins the presidency he starts falling all over himself in hopes of making some of these people happy and attracting them to progressive causes. It never works, of course. The progressive agenda gets compromised and eventually diluted to the point of becoming unrecognizable. All the talk of bipartisnaship and centrism is greeted by derision and vitriol by the people it is aimed at pacifying.
There is this huge delusion on the Left that there is a way of connecting with some of these people and getting them on our side. Now Chomsky is participating in that delusion as well. But I don't think that strategy will work. It never has before.
Anotehr thing is that the TPs are in no way a dominant group. This is a very vocal, very angry but still a pretty small group of evangelical fanatics who managed to usurp power in this country for the 8 years of Bush's presidency. This has nothing to do with the economy or anything like that. It's a small minority of religious fascists. They just scream louder than anybody else, that's why people think there are so many of them.
"There is this huge delusion on the Left that there is a way of connecting with some of these people and getting them on our side. Now Chomsky is participating in that delusion as well. But I don't think that strategy will work. It never has before."
I fully agree. Baraque "Uncle Tom" OSama and his pseudo-Mediocratic mob fooled the liberal left like Tea Party is fooling the fiscal conservatives now. And even if you want to connect with them, the political way will never work. Political means mean even more political means. So why could you connect with statist rightists, when they want so bad to play the game of confrontation in their Corporate Nazi propaganda? Even conservatives like Breitbart (and he's right on this) admit that the confrontation is the best way to victory.
Thus...Come on! Join Anarchists! ;)
I agree with part of what you (C) say, and disagree with part of it. Republicans and the Right have a successful habit of dividing and conquering the Democrats.
They pressure them to both the:
A. Middle (where Obama (and others), for example, might as well be a Republican in some areas) - and if one is going to "act like a Republican", why not elect the real thing and
B. "The Left" - where they are labeled as: "radical", "Socialist", "Unamerican" etc.
Obviously - moving to the Middle is a totally lost cause nearly all the time. Healthcare Reform - as it was passed by Congress will fall down in the costs - IF not radically changed in the coming years - a simple example.
Being More Proudly and Clearly - to the Left - is the only way of reaching - TPites and Part of the Right.
Populism - can be effective on the left, though rarely (Texas some years ago the best example of some successes before the recent RightWing waves have demolished it) has it been successful.
The Left needs to reach working people who believe in their religion(s), may be somewhat Homophobic, and similar, But - who share - clear Economic and other related concerns such as related to Education and Healthcare.
To simply write off most people is self-defeating. To look at How people can be reached on issues such as the Economy is really important IF some of the Left is to Ever be more successful. It's track record is horrible, yes!
The alternatives aren't good. We may head into another Republican Era with the 2010 elections - we'll soon see. If so, there may be a reaction against the Right following this, but stalemate and despair may be more likely.
In such a (negative) future, Right Wing Populism - TP'ism - etc. may flourish, even as a minority movement.
It's not an easy path, but I don't see a choice - except related to specific tactics.
There is a way to think about why Chomsky may have a point. We have to go beyond the superficial content of what we are hearing from the Tea Partiers. True, their frustrations are getting expressed in the form of all sorts of nasty things, especially for those of us who don't take the time to interview them and get to the bottom of why they show up to protests. Instead, we tend to caricature them as embodying racist or misogynist tropes, rather than locating a deeper distress with their situation that is getting translated in these manners. If people are seeing the world in ways you or I might think are incredibly distorted, than we wouldn't expect the expression of perhaps legitimate grievances to come out in the more lucid terms we would hope for. Two neighbors might be complaining about not having a job. One of them takes the FOX news lead and interprets her or his situation as the result of what FOX news calls "big government" under Obama. Without necessarily a very subtle or even accurate understanding of the terms they employ, they express a legitimate grievance - unemployment and a failing economy - in all sorts of misguided terms. The point would be to see past the misguided expression to the legitimate grievances they may have.
I'm yet to see any evidence that many Ta Partiers are unemployed. I don't believe for a moment that any if their "grievances" are economic. Fascism has nothing to do with economy.
Post a Comment