Chomsky and Zinn -- a survey

A factual question:

Who here, who consider themselves liberal or progressive, has

(1) heard of either or both of these men?

(2) read anything by either or both?

(3) been positively influenced by either or both?

Chomsky is regularly voted the world's most popular public intellectual, by the sort of people who take part in such votes. His Wikipedia entry notes that "According to the Arts and Humanities Citation Index in 1992, Chomsky was cited as a source more often than any other living scholar during the 1980–1992 time period, and was the eighth-most cited scholar in any time period.

Beginning with his critique of the Vietnam War in the 1960s, Chomsky has become more widely known—especially internationally—for his media criticism and politics. He is generally considered to be a key intellectual figure within the left wing of United States politics."

Zinn's Peoples History has sold a million copies, and is assigned in --- some, many? -- colleges of education to trainee teachers. The Wikipedia entry on him says that 'Jean-Christophe Agnew, Professor of History and American Studies at Yale University, told the Yale Daily News in May 2007 that Zinn’s historical work is "highly influential and widely used".'

But apparently many educated political people of a liberal or leftist slant have never heard of them, or consider their views wrong, or of little consequence.

So I was wondering, of the people who consider themselves liberal or progressive ... how do you rate these men and their political ideas?

1) Yes.
2) No.
3) Necessarily no.

But after all the talk in this group, you can bet I'm going to check them out. Doug, you may be responsible for increasing their readership. Kinda funny, huh?

Citygirl: Politics is full of ironies. It's about its only consolation.

But you should know that I have a dual-pronged strategy for fighting wishy-washy do-gooder liberalism:

(1) Win as many liberals as possible to sensible politics.

(2) Drive the rest to the Left, the further the better.

Good luck!

1)Yes. After asking the question and all of the hullabaloo in group at this point, I doubt that you're going to get a "no" on this one, Doug.

2)I've read Zinn's People's History of the United States. Never Read anything else by him or any Chomsky.

3)I'll assume that you mean directly influenced. I've mixed feelings about Zinn. Maybe a comment that I made about Tariq Ali's Shadows of the Pomegranate Tree when I read it will give you some idea of my feelings of Zinn. Forgive me if the syntax here, it was a random jotting in my reading journal -

It was pretty good. It seemed slightly Freshman~comp~litesque (ie. Look at the Muslims, they're just like you.) But it's a nice intro to a subject that I'm sorely lacking in knowledge of. I'll definitely pick up the next in the series at some point.

It suffered a bit from the Howard Zinn effect. Ie. Role reversal must be complete when doing revisionist history.

I find that Zinn tends to often be as dogmatic in his belief as anyone else. In Zinn's "alternate history", the savages are all noble and the white man terrible. There's not much nuance.

As a reminder that there are many ways to view the world, I think Zinn is excellent. As John Crowley notes at one point, "There are many histories of the world. Mr. Ali echoes this when he has a character state something along the lines of "Knowledge can be found in a book, wisdom comes from many books."

Do I believe that Zinn should be treated as supplementary reading? Probably not.

As complementary reading? Most definitely. But I believe that any book can be treated as complementary reading.

May we ask the same question of the Conservatives and Ann Coulter? The P&C group seems rather top-heavy with her books. Which should I start with?

1 - yes
2 - no
3 - no

I will be interested in the results of your ad hoc poll.

1) Yes. Both of them.

2) Skimmed Zinn in college. (I just went to our local B&N and they carry Zinn's people's history, and many works by Chomsky.

3) I am more influenced by Zinn's son in law, Jon Kabot-Zinn, who writes about Zen and meditation, and who runs a center for meditation at a hospital in Boston. He is on the major figures in the emerging Buddhist American Community, and if I could I would study meditation and health care with him.

I looked through Chomsky at the bookstore today. In spite of the fact that Doug piqued my interest, I found nothing there I was interested in reading. Chomsky in a nutshell=the US has oppressed many people, directly and indirectly. It is necessary to our system. We should change the system.

Like you, Doug, I don't him trying to make the trains run on time. Or supplying bread to my local bakery.

I wonder how he would get along with Ron Paul?

I've heard of both of them.

I've only read Chomsky, never Zinn, but I've read quite a bit of him.

My opinions are probably colored somewhat by my background in philosophy. I first encountered Chomsky in a phil. mind course, and so was introduced to his cognitive science before I ever discovered his political philosophy. I'm not sure how to say if I've been "influenced positively" by him. I'm not now, nor have I ever been, a "liberal" or a "leftist," nor do I think you have to be to enjoy reading Chomsky. I respect the man, but disagree with him about probably as many issues as I agree with him on. I've found his understandings of international politics and the U.S.'s involvement in certain areas of the world to be illuminating from an historical and socio-political perspective, but also understand that even in these areas there is always room for disagreement. Even where you disagree with his portrayal of something, though, there's something to be gained from reading it & realizing what the views are that are out there.

I think the greatest thing I can say about him is that at least he's not boring, but always fun to read - whether you agree with him or not. (C'mon, doesn't anyone else get off on yelling at books when you disagree with them?!?)

I agree with Chomsky on some things too. He makes mincemeat of the ridiculous PoMos, for example.

And I would far rather deal with someone like him, than with a slimey apologist for, or supporter of, the Gulag.

On Ann Coulter: surely all conservatives have read her. And it would be interesting to see, of those here, who thinks she is barking mad, and who admires her.

(Well, this is me you're talking to...)

1) Yes
2) Yes, a shelf of C and a couple Z.
3) You betcha.

As it happens, I seem to be the #1 holder of Chomsky books on LT.

When I was a teenager, I could see the draft looming in my future, with the real possibility that I would be sent to South-East Asia to kill people for no good reason that ANYONE could articulate. And Nixon had been elected because he had a Secret Plan to End the War, so secret that he continued the war for years, while we tried to figure out why our democratically-elected governement wasn't following the expressed wishes of the American people. (By the early '70s, the official reason we were bombing civilians in Viet Nam was the astoundingly circular reason that NVN would not give us a proper accounting of the aircrews they were shooting down. There was no other rationale left on the table.

(Oh, wait - the OTHER stated reason was that we had to continue terror-bombing Viet Nam in order to forestall a bloodbath.)

Neither rationale made any sense, and even as a kid, I noticed this. Chomsky's analysis made sense of this preposterous situation.

(The other other rationale was that we wanted to establish a strong Vietnam that would act to buffer Chinese Communist influence in the region.

Of course, I could see that we were actively fighting against this goal - once the North won, they immediately became the local opponent of Chinese influence in the region...we had spent a decade driving them into Mao's arms.)

A People's History of the United States helped change the field of history. The inclusion of the perspective of ordinary people into 'Names-and-Dates' history has been a great good thing.

I've seen Zinn speak, never managed to cross paths wih Prof. C. I have a degree in Communication, so I also have a nodding acquaintance with his linguistics work. Come to think of it, I've met Chomsky's co-author Ed Herman.

As the #1 holder, I'm wary of being quizzed on the man or his works - I do not consider myself to be an expert, don't want to be considered an expert, I'm just a reader and an informed citizen. That's partially why I've ignored some of Doug's direct challenges that I need to explain Chomsky's thinking. (Hey, just go read him yourself....) :-)

Back in that other Pro-and-Con thread, I had raised the point that most conservatives would not consider the cornerstone of Chomsky's analysis to be in any way controversial: Chomsky points out that the American government is completely in thrall to monied interests: and, as a direct consequence, does not act in the interests of the American polity, or even much listen to the expressed desires of the American electorate.

Really, now: with 70% of the public wanting immediate withdrawal from Iraq, who can say that Prof. Chomsky's analysis is wrong?

On Ann Coulter: surely all conservatives have read her. And it would be interesting to see, of those here, who thinks she is barking mad, and who admires her.

On checking through the ratings that show when looking at the top three titles held by those who are Political Conservatives group, GGChickapee and Oakes are the only two names I recognise. They seem to give the books they've rated four stars. Aside from that, none of the handles seem amazingly familiar to me.

(1) Yes (Chomsky)
(2) Yes (Chomsky)
(3) ? Reading Chomsky was like listening to my dad, which is weird because Dad considers himself a conservative--and not a namby-pamby Progressive Conservative either. But he was career military (Canada), and I think those guys probably view the world with fewer blinders than most of us. They see the bad stuff.

Reading Chomsky was like listening to my dad,

This means that you like Chomsky or no?

But you should know that I have a dual-pronged strategy for fighting wishy-washy do-gooder liberalism:

(1) Win as many liberals as possible to sensible politics.

(2) Drive the rest to the Left, the further the better.

First, thanks for the heads up. I'll make sure my Sensible Politics Filter is set to high.

Second, how's it working out?

> 13 He makes sense to me.

*looks down at target on chest*

1) Yes
2) I'm sure I've read excerpts of Chomsky's linguistics, but never the political works. I haven't read any Zinn that I recall.
3)No, I don't believe so. If anything, Chomsky is way too full of himself for my taste. I remember he came to campus during my freshman year at the Univ. of Miinnesota. The sociology grad students acted like he was the Second Coming, and he probably wouldn't deny it.

1) Yes.

2) Yes. I read Zinn's A People's History of the United States, a number of years ago. I think I've probably also read articles or snippets of articles by Zinn, here and there.

I think I may have read Chomsky at some point in college, some of his stuff on linguistics or communication. If so, I don't remember it. I've also encountered him occasionally in articles or tidbits -- I recall reading some contrarian comments from him in regards to some chimpanzee sign-language program, for instance.

3) Influence? Hard to say. I'll go ahead and be the heretic here and say that, from what I recall of Zinn's People's History, I found some of it to be very interesting. I was particularly interested in the history of women, for example; as well as some of the information about Indians/Native Americans.

E.g., I recall reading about how a Cherokee leader created a written language for the Cherokee and set up a printing press and tribal newspaper. I thought that was very interesting. And, as AsYouKnow_Bob mentioned, definitely held my attention more than the standard "this-guy-died-on-that-date" approach.

If reading -- or enjoying -- the book, lo these many years ago, caused me to loathe my country, avoid my civic duties or become a cheese-eating traitor-monkey, it's news to me.

As Oolon Colluphid would say, Well, that about wraps it up for Zinn and Chomsky. :)

CityGirl: How is it working out? Well, like waiting for the Messiah -- doesn't pay much, but the work is steady.

I admit I get a guilty pleasure from reading Ann Coulter. But then I read her as if she actually means what she says. If she means what she says, then we would have to try all the liberal ex-Presidents for treason. And then Chomsky would try them as war criminals.

Really???

Now, anyone who takes that seriously, I am afraid I cannot take seriously.

1. and 2. Of course.

This was covered in my one post in the last debate, and... if anyone is interested, they can open that thread and read what I posted there (Message #28; for added background: when I was still in high school (class of '01), I purchased two of Zinn's books, You Can't Be Neutral on a Moving Train and A People's History of the United States, and six of Chomsky's, two of which remain unread. Since then, I have purchased two more of Chomsky's books: one of which, the Chomsky-Foucault Debate, was picked up due to my interest in Michel Foucault's views on power).

3. To a very minimal degree.

For genuine left-wingers (that is, anyone to the left of Senator Feingold), Chomsky simply must be read. He's going to discussed, and, unless you want to appear the fool, you should know where you stand in relationship to him. As I am a Social Democrat*, and am neither an economic liberal nor a mere social liberal, it should not be surprising that I fell into this category at a young age.

Does Chomsky occasionally raise very interesting points? Yes. Are some of his specific criticisms valid? Certainly. As for the question at hand, it should be noted that, before I graduated from high school, I had deduced that I was no Chomskite. His politics, that is the Libertarian Socialism which he pines for, appears, from my perspective, to be a direct call for the reestablishment of the anarcho-syndicalist movements of yore.

Needless to say, while Social Democrats have little trouble admiring the anarcho-syndicalists who fought against--and lost to--the forces of Fascism and Stalinism, we are, on most issues, at daggers drawn. We march in some of the same protests, and read a number of the same books; beyond that, there is little common ground.

As for Zinn, well, I will repeat that I think that his major work should be considered "to be complementary to other historical studies." I will also repeat my belief that it is a good thing that there are authors out there who frankly want "the world to know about the little pockets of American progressivism that have existed, and the fate that they ultimately faced;" finally, I would like to repeat my belief that it is good that there are authors out there who want "to highlight the struggles faced by minorities throughout American history."

I am no pacifist. I have little time for people who argue that war is never the right choice. That said, I have little doubt that I would agree with Zinn on more (but by no means all) occasions than I would with you (Doug) on America's numerous military interventions during the 20th century...

*In brief, a left-wing Statist who: a) believes in progressive societal change via the establishment of a strong welfare state through conventional electoral politics; b) categorically rejects the deterministic cult of the free market which is worshiped by a small majority of liberals and a large majority of conservatives.

We need to argue these things, but I shall wait for another thread to do so.

1. yes
2. yes - both
3. yes - We've been over this before but Chomsky has added significantly to linguistics if not politics, and Zinn is a healthy angry polemicist with a short shelf life - usually outgrown by graduate school.

(As a librarian I find that most people who walk around with dog-eared copies of Chomsky haven't actually read him, but keep the books as talismans of sorts...)

(As a librarian I find that most people who walk around with dog-eared copies of Chomsky haven't actually read him, but keep the books as talismans of sorts...)

(Ssshhh! That's to cruise for girls...)l

Oh, yes, it is also handy in a bar, when waiting for your drink... a Chomsky tonic.

1) Yes (both)

2) Read some of Chomsky's work in linguistics in college (many years ago; I don't remember titles) but none of his political works. I have heard Chomsky a few (2 or 3) times on NPR, but have not seen him in person. Can't figure out if he actually believes everything he says, or if he is just trying to be provocative.

Browsed Zinn's People's History in a bookstore, but it didn't pass the 50-page test. I like the idea that Zinn presents neglected perspectives (I recently determined that 12% of my library is shared with no other LT users), but his writing didn't capture my interest. My TBR list is already too long, and Powell's already gets too much of my paycheck.

3) I suppose it would be fair to say that Chomsky has influenced the way I study languages. Otherwise, no.

Edited to close italics

Yes but only on LTs political forums nearly always by Doug

No and No.

Not interested to either. I'm not a Liberal because someone else tells me what a Liberal should think about certain policies, I'm so (or mostly so depending on the policy in question) because that's what I've thought about the matter. Many policies I have no clear thoughts about because I'm not interested in them.

1. Yes

2. I've read a very limited amount of Chomsky, but it's mostly because I prefer listening to him. There are a large number of CDs of his lectures available, and I find him to be a more compelling speaker than author. I haven't gotten around to Zinn as of yet, but I probably will at some point.

3. Chomsky has certainly influenced my political outlook in many ways, but not to push me towards a more liberal outlook. I would say he's influenced me to have a more realistic view of American politics.

I’m a fairly heavy duty liberal and I have read both Chomsky and Zinn. I enjoyed both but enjoyed Chomsky more. I was in awe of The Big C when I first heard him speak. I felt as though someone had reached into the dark corners of my thoughts and congealed my views on the media for me. After that I was all about C. Tried to find things by him and read them. However, the more I read the more I began to feel about Chomsky the way I feel about communism. I LOVE the idea of communism. It’s brilliant. If only it would actually work in real life… Chomsky is also brilliant and I love his ideas, but often I think his ideas are just fantasy. They don’t pan out in reality. While I believe that many of our American President have acted in ways which are illegal, inappropriate, immoral, or unethical, I also believe that the kind people who are drawn to this kind of power will generally be the kind to engage in this kind of behavior. The best we can hope for is to set enough checks and balances in place that it will be difficult for people in power to take it too far.

(I don’t want to start a new argument within this thread, but this is why I really don’t like what our current president has tried to do with the balance of power. Regardless of if I like Bush or not, I don’t like that he keeps trying to give the executive branch more and more power. Even if Bush is fine the next president or the next or the next and so on may not have enough ethics to avoid the temptation of abuse.)

So, has Chomsky influenced me? Yes he has. Then again I also use Chomsky against Chomsky and try try get at his motivations for what he says and look at how he may be trying to manipulate.

I think this is a really interesting thread. Why doesn't someone from among you liberals start a similar one for us cons to answer, with repect to one or more of your bête noires among our authors?

Short of Codyed and yourself, I don't know how many of the Cons would come to play if we posted a "Coulter, Hannity and O'Reilly survey."

So what's our tally on the survey so far?

I make it about fifty liberals out of fifty-three who believe everything they read in Chomsky and Zinn. It'll be on Fox News this weekend.

Doug at #28: Why doesn't someone from among you liberals start a similar one for us cons to answer?

Well, to be blunt, I'd be afraid that such a project would attract 'undesireables'.

Chomsky is a major-league intellectual who revolutionized his field; Steyn is a movie reviewer.

Zinn is a history professor; Bill O'Reilly is a carnival barker.

And so on down the line. Come to think of it, I'm not entirely sure that I would want to know why somebody reads She Whose Name I Refuse To Even Type. (Neither am I entirely sure how sarcasic/ironic I'm being...)

So, I guess I'm afraid that the fans of the popular conservative authors would swamp this forum.

Edited because my keyboard is dying

1. yes.
2. Chomsky barely and not enough to really grasp what he's getting at (I've read one book, but it was pretty minor... and pretty awful IMO)

Actually most of what I know of both of them comes from DemocracyNow.org. Amy Goodman loves them both, esp. Chomsky, and they get quoted quite a bit on the show.

3. Hard to answer, since I haven't really read them. Indirectly, Chomsky has probably pushed me left through DemocracyNow.org - the show has been a huge influence on me for about 9 years now.

Bob: I have heard that there are one or two intellectuals on the conservative side, but you are correct that they do not put forward the conservative equivalent of the nutty and ridiculous ideas of Zinn and Chomsky. I didn't think it would be fair to you to compare our serious thinkers with those two guys.

1. I've heard of Chomsky, but not Zinn.

2. I've read a booklet titled What Uncle Sam really wants, Deterring democracy, and Hegemony or survival. I've read about Manufacturing consent, which I always thought was a book but LibraryThing hasn't heard of it.

3. That depends on what the meaning of "positive" is. His works have instilled in me the basic assumption that government is not to be trusted, that any justification for government policy is a lie, and that there are no trustworthy sources of news.

This has left me unable to function politically, since I have no way of knowing what's really going on or why, and I'm not inclined to go find out for myself.

Fortunately, living in Finland is reconditioning me somewhat. Finland is, allegedly, the least corrupt country in the world. (But can I trust that index?)

Amtep: You just have not read enough of Chomsky. There have been governments to which he was inclined to give the benefit of the doubt. We shall discover which governments these were in future discussions.

The Finns are splendid people, by the way. And ferocious in defense of their freedom. When their concepts of their freedom clashed, the results were tragic: see here. Warning: you will never view your nice civilized Finnish friends in quite the same light again.

“But you should know that I have a dual-pronged strategy for fighting wishy-washy do-gooder liberalism:

(1) Win as many liberals as possible to sensible politics.

(2) Drive the rest to the Left, the further the better.” - Doug1943

Just because someone can concede that Chomsky and/or Zinn have valid points on some issues, doesn’t mean that the person is in the extreme left or “nutty”. I’ve actually heard more people on your side of the issues claim that the press cannot be trusted because it is biased. Hell the republicans tried to subtly undermine National Public Radio because they perceived it as too liberal. NPR is one of the few news sources which actually try’s at all to be balanced. So, does this mean that all those republican who think the media is too liberal are nuts? You may not like what Chomsky and Zinn have to say, but that doesn’t invalidate everything they say.

Your way of approaching this argument is quite insincere. The start of the thread sounded like a legitimate request to see the way some of us try to expand our perspectives. Once enough people had responded you then begin to indicate that in your eyes people who find ANY validity in these ideas are idiots. If your intent was to do this then you should have been up front about it and you should have used the conservative group to do it. It was my understanding that this group was started to promote discussion not insult. If that was your intent then you should have titled the thread "How many Liberals are silly enough to read the stupidity of..."

Oh, and you should know that I will fight belligerent, hostile, war minded conservatives by trying to get them to show the complete silliness behind the idea that guns are a good solution to terrorism. It ought to be so obvious by now that our militant behavior has only increased the number of terrorists in the world and made us more enemies not less.

Inkdrinker: In future threads I promise to go into the actual views of Zinn/Chomsky.

But when I have begun to discuss this topic in other threads, Arctic-Stranger immediately assures me that these authors are of little consequence, barely known among liberals, not taken seriously, etc.

This seemed unlikely to me. So I decided to do a little poll to see if he was right. And I think the results show he is not.

You are a living example: If you think that guns should not be a central part of the "solution" to terrorism, you are exhibiting the same sort of thinking that Howard Zinn engages in when he thinks that war was not a good way to deal with Naziism.

I know from experience that the proper, liberal, peaceful way to deal with terrorism and Nazi-ism is like the unspeakable name of God. We will never learn what it is, only that it is much nicer than killing people.

So it is with no hope whatsoever of getting an answer that I ask: just what is the gunless way of dealing with terrorism?

#38: I think it's the one described in this article: The Logic of Suicide Terrorism. It's an interview about a book, Dying to win.

Quote:

The central fact is that overwhelmingly suicide-terrorist attacks are not driven by religion as much as they are by a clear strategic objective: to compel modern democracies to withdraw military forces from the territory that the terrorists view as their homeland. From Lebanon to Sri Lanka to Chechnya to Kashmir to the West Bank, every major suicide-terrorist campaign—over 95 percent of all the incidents—has had as its central objective to compel a democratic state to withdraw.

Withdrawing American military forces from the middle east ought to do it.

This withdrawal will include Afghanistan, I presume.

And would you care to speculate on what then follows?

" Arctic-Stranger immediately assures me that these authors are of little consequence, barely known among liberals, not taken seriously, etc.

This seemed unlikely to me. So I decided to do a little poll to see if he was right. And I think the results show he is not.
"

I make it about 8 to each side - nearly all have heard of them, many have broused or skimmed one work, but only 50% have read more than 1 book thoroughly.

So you are both right - Liberals do pay some attention to them, but not much.

Okay, I'm a liberal and

1) Yes, I've heard of Chomsky and Zinn
2) I've read one of Chomsky's political books, but I don't remember anything about it, not even the title. All I remember is that I found it rather boring.
3) So I guess the answer must be no

I really just wanted to post here so I could post this link, which I thought Doug might find amusing.

http://www.mcsweeneys.net/2003/04/22fellowship.html

I don't say that there is never a time for war. I would argue that terrorism will not be defeated by war. The Nazi regime is a perfect example of a time for war. However, terrorist have almost nothing in common with Germany in the years around World War II. Going to war against Nazi Germany didn't inspire people everywhere to join their cause. It didn't create small satellite groups around the world willing to complete suicide missions to bolster the Nazi cause.

However, our attack on Iraq has done exactly these things and will continue to do it. I'm not necessarily saying we should withdraw. I wish it were that simple. I'm saying that I we shouldn't have gone in in the first place. The world is not a better place because of our attack. Yes we did rid the world of a nasty leader, but what we created in his place isn't exactly better for the people of Iraq and it definitely hasn't made us any safer.

The Nazis were in some ways a much simpler problem to solve. We had a country to fight not something that amounts to a ghost in the wind. In WWII we had a ruthless war hound who was attacking countries which were our friends. The enemy was clear in WWII. With terrorism, the enemy could be anyone anywhere. Attacking other countries will not do it. A big part of what inspires terrorist to target us is the terrorist perception that US gets its nose in to other countries business. It seems fairly obvious to me that attacking Iraq isn’t going to lessen this perception.

The way I see it, the only way you can fight terrorism with guns is if you are going to be as ruthless as Saddam. Unless we’re willing to nuke a country, poison children, rape, burn at the stake and so on, you’re not going to intimidate terrorists. Even with those tactics I doubt you’ll have an effect on the suicide bomber types.

I heard someone on the radio the other day say we need to rename the War on Terror, because calling it a war inclines people towards military solutions. He didn't suggest any alternative name, though.

Bush's Booboo?

No,that's Iraq.... or is it Katrina? or Gonzalez? or...

Akiyama: Ha ha ha!!! Brilliant. On the strength of that, I tried to subscribe to McSweeney's but with the overseas postage it comes to near $100, so I shall rely on you to post links here from time to time for the really good things in it.

Inkdrinker: The funny thing is, I agree with you. And so do many conservatives, including that wing of the conservative movement liberals love to hate the most, the neo-conservatives.

Whether the invasion of Iraq was a good idea or not, and in the way it was done in particular, is a logically-separate question from whether or not we have a stake in removing such regimes in general.

I don't want to rehearse here the arguments about "draining the swamp" etc. Suffice it to say that the idea that we can only "contain" Islamism, by running a repeat of our Cold War against Communism, where we supported any regime which was anti-Communist, including some pretty unpleasant ones, is widely seen as inadequate by many conservatives. Not that they have much to offer in the way of a well worked-out positive strategy against Islamism, though.

In fact, I would go so far as to say that such an approach is, in effect, the current default position of most American liberals.

I too am perplexed by what to do, exactly. I do think that our actions in Korea may bear revisiting.

There, we initially fought an old-fashioned killing-war. We supported a pretty nasty regime, too. But we also poured in money to build up South Korea, with a heavy emphasis on education. I have just been reading about this in a book by a liberal economist, called Dictating Development. He is not particularly sympathetic to the neo-liberal (i.e. free market) approach to Third World economic development but he seems to know what he is talking about, and his account of our success story in South Korea is fascinating.

Anyway, in the war on terror I think we should appropriate a slogan from those consummate terrorists, the Provisional IRA: The Ballot AND the Bullet.

I’ve heard it said or read before (not sure where) the neo-conservatives and radical Islamic terrorist basically sprout from the same philosophy. The idea being that in order to control large groups of people leaders must give the masses a common fear. Through fear the group will come together and be much more pliant to request/requirements from their leaders.

The US neo-cons solved this problem for many decades with the cold war and now the “War on Terror”. The radical Islamic solves this problem by point to western culture as the corruptors of the world and the US as the ultimate corruptor.

You think the Cold War was a neo-con plot?

Given that the neo-cons did not even exist as a group before about 1970, and that the principal architects of our Cold War policy were liberals, not conservatives, that is indeed imputing huge powers to them. Or did you mean by "neo-Cons," the Illuminati?

I'm not saying they created it. I'm saying they manipulate and use. They didn't create terrorism either but they sure are good at using that fear.

We should not fear terrorism? We should not have feared Communism? Nazi ism?

We should not have feared Communism at the level we did and terrorism is much the same way. It's being manipulated and blown out of porportion. Yes 9/11 was horrible, but that doesn't mean we start abandoning our civil rights, attack a country which had nothing to do with it, snub our friends and allies world over. In fact pissing off a large portion of the world was the opposite of what we should have done. The way to fight terrorism is have more people in your corner not less. The more the terrorist become an isolated group and become more and more of the fringe the less powerful they are.

This era will be looked back on with the same kind of shame we have for our WWII internment camps, McCarthyism, and such.

The Nazi remark is uncalled for as I already said I WWII was a just war.

i was at the book store last night, thinking that if Chomsky was such a big deal, I ought to read him (any recommendations on where to start?) and there were two other guy in the political section.

Guy #1: Look at this book on gun control. They take my gun away, they better have a bigger gun.
Guy #2: Pry it from my cold, dead fingers.
Guy #1: Here's one by some weenie who doesn't like war.
Guy #2: F*#king liberals.
Guy #1: Man, I love Ann Coulter. She totally rocks.
Guy #2: There are so many good books here...{picks up a book, looks at it and gives it to Guy#1} Look at this book, man.
Guy #1: Dude, this book has no pictures!

True conversation. I added it, and actually took out things that most people would not believe they actually said.

Hey, that was me and Cody!

regarding Iraq and 9/11 and over-reactions or bad reactions...

Just after 9/11 the US had universal support around the world to do a lot of things. Keep in mind that hundreds of Arabs were among the dead, at least that is what the headlines were showing in Kuwait (per the looming tower). So, even the Muslim world did not approve.

This support included general international support of the invasion of Afghanistan. (against the Chomsky-ish ideas above.)

Then the US invaded Iraq - little terrorist danger, and no WMD's. Support for the US evaporated.

Then Iran actually considered developing Nuclear weapons. The US has protested, but the UN has not been so accommodating. We are now planning an invasion of Iran - so the grapevine says.

So two extreme options
- the chomsky-ish option, don't invade Afghanistan or Iraq.
- Bush - invade both countries.

Result:
CHOMSKY AS PRESIDENT (in some strange alternative universe)
1) al-qaida still exists, but, maybe support dwindles. The historical reference is the Muslim Brotherhood in authoritarian Egypt. After egregious attacks, the Muslim Brotherhood has seen it's numbers dwindle to almost nothing. But, then it builds up again. Saudi Arabian unofficial funding probably drops somewhat. Yemen probably doesn't change.
2) Afghanistan suffers under the Taliban
3) Iraq suffers under Hussein - of course they have things like power and water; and several hundred thousand now dead would still be alive. And there is not "bomb a day" (quote care of Mrs. Bush). And Iraq is not a serious danger to anyone.
3b) the US hasn't spend hundreds of billions on Iraq
4) Iran likely doesn't expand their nuclear program, or they do so under universal condemnation. This danger looms larger to the world. But then if the US let the Taliban go, will they stand up,under a Chomsky, to Iran ?
5) another terrorist attack will happen ...
6) The entire US blames Chomsky for everything, esp. 9/11

BUSH AS PRESIDENT
1) al-qaida and other terrorist groups have huge recruitment. Actually recruitment is probably almost unlimited now. But no safe house. They run loose in Afghanistan and Pakistan and, now, Iraq. Unofficial funding from Saudi Arabia probably has spiked. Yemen probably hasn't changed.
2) Afghanistan suffers under Taliban attack and (another) difficult war
3) Iraq - infrastructure is largely crippled. Hundreds of thousands are dead. Anti-US feeling is livid. And, "that one bomb a day." It's now the worlds best terrorist training ground.
(side note 1: 2007 has has the highest US soldier deaths in Iraq: http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/11/07/155209 ).
(side note 2: did anyone see the article about the State department forcing employees to got to Iraq)
4) Iran nuclear program proceeds and Russia and China are hesitant to condemn. US seriously considers an invasion - although the resources of men and money is unclear. Iraq and Afghanistan has already cost a great deal
5) another terrorist attack will happen... they will train in Iraq, maybe fight in Afghanstan, and will be funded by Saudi Arabia. They might just get their hands on nuclear weapons care of Iran or Pakistan
6) Bush get re-elected in 2004. Only liberals think he is the worst president ever.

So, remind me again, which was worse? With Chomsky the US looks really soft but has saved 100's of billions of $$$ and 100's of thousands of lives. The Bush the opposite has occurred, plus, really, the terrorist threat is almost certainly worse under Bush. But, either way, the terrorist thread looms.

And, just for the record: GORE AS PRESIDENT
1.) Afghanistan is attacked and we see horror stories everyday in the news papers six years later. The US is blamed by liberals. But, the war has international support.
2.) support for al-qaida has dwindled. They have no safe house. They run loose in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Unofficial funding from Saudi Arabia has severely shrunk. Yemen probably hasn't changed.
3) Iraq - see chomsky above
3b) the US hasn't spend hundreds of billions on Iraq
4) Iran hasn't changed. They don't dare start a nuclear program.
5) another terrorist attack will happen...
6) The entire US thinks Gore was the worst president ever, an arrogant useless president who allowed 9/11 to happen and made a big fuss over the petty little global warming thing.

Ooga-booga. Me love goiter woman.

*scratches armpits*

Alternative history is a lot like my addiction to Starbucks coffee. It's satisfying to a degree, but, ultimately, wasteful (in terms of time and effort) and unnecessary.

> 53, Arctic-Stranger "if Chomsky was such a big deal, I ought to read him (any recommendations on where to start?)"

Chomsky speaks well, but transcripts are always difficult to read. Unfortunately, his writing style is dry and academic (probably the style he uses for linguistic articles in his day job). Best to look for a book in which someone else has compiled and edited Chomsky's material? I think that's why I settled on Hegemony & Survival.

Those who wish to try to find out what Chomsky believes may wish to consult Radical Priorities, edited by C.P.Otero, a fellow linguist, who provides a lengthy (about fifty pages) introduction describing Chomsky's political thought. Some of the topics Otero, summarizing Chomsky, addresses are:

"The nature of human nature"
"Libertarianism vs liberalism"
"Socialism vs Capitalism"
"Anarchosyndicalism vs atavism"

I found them vacuous, but at least they are discussed.

Another Chomsky book of special interest is Objectivity and Liberal Scholarship, which attacks liberal scholars on two topics: Vietnam, and the role of the anarchists and anarchosyndicalists in the Spanish Civil War.

#57 codyed ... good summary, but I had fun with the post.

#53 Arctic Stranger: I'm not finding Chomsky dry at all - Failed States: The Abuse Of Power And The Assault On Democracy

....."the world's hegemonic power accords itself the right to wage war at will, under a doctrine of 'anticipatory self-defense' with unstated bounds. International law, treaties, and rules of world order are sternly imposed on others with much self-righteous posturing, but dismissed as irrelevant for the United States - a longstanding practice, driven to new depths by the Reagan and Bush II administrations."

The Reagan Administration was particularly reprehensible, what with its invasion of the Peoples Republic of Grenada and overthrow of the revolutionary New Jewel Movement government there.

"Civil conflict gradually broke out between Eric Gairy’s government and some opposition parties including the New Jewel Movement (NJM). Gairy’s party won elections in 1976 but the opposition did not accept the result. In 1979, the New Jewel Movement under Maurice Bishop launched a successful armed revolution against the government. Maurice Bishop suspended the constitution and declared a People’s Revolutionary Government. All parties except the NJM were banned and elections were never held to legitimize the change.

A dispute later struggle developed between Bishop and certain high-ranking members of the NJM. Party members including Bernard Coard demanded that Bishop either step down or enter into a power sharing arrangement. The dispute eventually led to Bishop being illegally deposed and placed under house arrest. These actions led to street demonstrations in various parts of the island. Bishop was eventually freed by a large demonstration in the capital. Soon after, he was captured and executed by soldiers along with seven others including cabinet ministers of the government.

After the execution of Bishop, the People’s Revolutionary Army formed a military government with General Hudson Austin as chairman. The army declared a four-day total curfew during which it said that anyone leaving their home without approval would be shot on sight.

Six days after the execution of Bishop, the island was invaded by forces from the United States."

Just terrible. I understand Chomsky was inconsolable.

Now, as a result of the wicked American imperialist intervention,

"The Parliament consists of a Senate (thirteen members) and a House of Representatives (fifteen members). The senators are appointed by the government and the opposition, while the representatives are elected by the population for five-year terms. With 48% of the votes and eight seats in the 2003 election, the New National Party remains the largest party in Grenada. The largest opposition party is the National Democratic Congress with 45.6% of the votes and seven seats."

Of course, as Chomsky knows, democracy under capitalism is an illusion.

And the masses groan under the penury of imperialist exploitation. The Economist Intelligence Unit reports that " Grenada is classified as an upper-middle-income economy, with GDP per head of US$12,847 in 2005. Following strong growth and falling unemployment in the late 1990s, economic performance has been erratic over the past five years owing to adverse shocks. In 2001 the economy contracted by 3.5% as ..."

Of course, had the evil Americans not intervened, Grenada might now be enjoying the blessings of Socialism, like the happy Cubans and North Koreans.

Source.

But when I have begun to discuss this topic in other threads, Arctic-Stranger immediately assures me that these authors are of little consequence, barely known among liberals, not taken seriously, etc.

This seemed unlikely to me. So I decided to do a little poll to see if he was right. And I think the results show he is not.

That's funny, Doug. It seems to me that most of the people that have described themselves as liberal in this thread have claimed little influence from either author.

Well, it depends on how you define "little". In any case, let us assume you are correct, and my fading memory and desire to see what I want to see have made me say something incorrect.

Then we will need to look at other sources of evidence for their influence on the liberal movement, souces which may have more validity than this poll of a dozen self-selected people or so.

Let me offer this as an illumination: I suspect that Ann Coulter does not exercise much influence on the conservatives who post here, possibly for the same reason that only AsYouknowBob seems to be an enthusiastic Believer in Chomsky/Zinn.

But I would not, on that account, claim she is negligible influence on American conservatism overall. To claim that would fly in the face of her book sales, the thousands of approving posts and blog entries about her we could collect, her invitations to speak at conservative gatherings, etc.

I would be embarrassed to do so, but I would have to admit -- do have to admit -- that she is in fact an influential figure among people on my side of the barricades.

Now I believe that simlar analysis for Chomsky/Zinn will reveal the same thing, no matter how uncomfortable that makes liberals here feel.

I'm not sure how valid a mechanism this might be for determining influence or popularity, but using the search terms "Chomsky" and "Coulter" on Amazon brings up Hegemony or Survival: America's Quest for Global Dominance and If Democrats Had Any Brains, They'd Be Republicans respectively as the first find in Amazon's Top Search.

Chomsky's book is ranked #3659 while Coulter's is ranked #68. Then again, Chomsky's most popular book on LT lists 837 copies, while Coulter lists 285 copies.

Whether either of these things are good indicators of influence/popularity is entirely up for grabs. They may just say much more about the users of Amazon and LT than about anything else.

I have on several much rougher rightwing websites posted the links to conservative critques of Coulter, and expressed my own disdain for her.

The response is a shocked silence, as if I had farted in church.

I suppose those who like her but are smart enough to know that she is full of s**t, think that she cannot really mean what she says. And anyway, she is On Our Side. And she is a taboo-breaker.

I suppose liberals who like Zinn/Chomsky but don't accept their insane conclusions, like the idea that they are taboo-breakers.

There's no accounting for taste.

So here's a question for you...

How much of our (meaning you and I) disparity in the belief in Chomsky/Zinn's influence do you think is attributed to the fact that I'm in the U.S. while you're not? Do you think that Coulter is a more American phenomenon while Chomsky might have greater global appeal?

This might help explain the disparity between the Amazon numbers and the LT numbers.

I see while checking the same numbers on Amazon UK, that Coulter's book is ranked 51,542 while Chomsky is only ever so slightly lower at 6,606. (Edit: Ever so slightly lower than his U.S. numbers.)

And if we assume (maybe a rather large assumption) that Amazon sales numbers in some way translate to popularity/influence, it would seem that someone along the lines of Paul Krugman would be the better Liberal analogue of Ann Coulter in the U.S. with his The Conscience of a Liberal ranked at 71 in U.S. Amazon sales.

Edit: Amazon UK shows the same book listed at 16,566.

Chomsky is very influential among the anti-American intelligentsia (there is no other kind) abroad. I doubt Zinn is as well known, because they have no interest in American history.

Part of my belief is shaped by lots of arguments on line I have had with liberals/leftists on a couple of dozen discussion boards over the past three years.

But probably the major influence on me is that I saw a whole generation of young liberal activists, initially motivated by the desire for justice for Black people and opposition to the Vietnam war, move smoothly and rapidly to become supporters of , or at least apologists for, totalitarianism.

There is a rich tradition of democratic American radicalism: the IWW, Eugene Debs ... but these young people all became admirers of one variety or another of Gulag-meister. That probably could not happen again, the Gulag-meisters having proved such huge failures.

But it revealed to me that liberalism has no inner core of beliefs,which it can oppose to other varieties of (anti-democratic) radicalism, but is rather a collection of generous feelings towards the oppressed, plus an individualist fixation on abstract "rights".

Anyway, it makes a good ake-off point for some interesting arguements.

plus an individualist fixation on abstract "rights".

That's rather funny. I've started Modern Liberty : And the Limits of Government by Charles Fried and he uses the term "individuality made normative" as his definition of Liberty. However, he argues that "equality" and "community" are probably the two most potent rivals to the term...

Yes. It's one of the central problems, or contradictions, of modern society, from our point of view. A free society tends to generate forces which undermine it.

Doug #64: that only AsYouknowBob seems to be an enthusiastic Believer in Chomsky/Zinn.

Hey,wait a minute. All I've said about Chomsky is back at #10. Someplace I said that the perspective of Zinn's People's History... is valuable.

Nobody in this discussion has taken issue with that central tenet of Chomsky's thought. Even Doug has said (and yes, it's at #9 - I don't want to ever again be falsely accused of misrepresenting you) that there are aspects of Chomsky's thought that you can agree with.

Given the recent behavior we've seen on this group - somebody went nuts because they thought I was attributing a belief to Doug - I would hope that Doug would be a bit more careful about calling me a "Believer" (with a capital B") .

I'm the number one holder of books by Chomsky. But I'm also the number one holder of books by Michael Harrington. And I'm also the number one holder of books by Poul Anderson. (No doubt, there are many other authors for which this is true.) And yes, I readily admit that I have found things of value in Chomsky. But I find being characterized as a capital-B "Believer" to be an unsophisticated description. I'm just sayin'.

Okay, perhaps that was a bit provocative.

Anyway, we can argue about Chomsky, and Zinn, in separate threads in the future.

Thanks, Doug.

I take mild exception partially because I was worrying about the reactions that you might get: suppose somebody had burst in with a "How dare you accuse Bob of believing N?", where N is some controvery that Chomsky's been in the middle of.

(And I suppose partially because I have the free-thinker's aversion to the word "Believer".... )

Yes. I had pondered using the phrase "True Believer" but toned it down a bit.

I would like to provoke several furious threads, with a half a dozen people madly posting, and the thread growing by two or three new posts every five minutes ... so that we can overcome the Green Dragon.

But although I have done my bit with several provocative posts and a couple of threads designed to light liberal fuses ... no one wants to play.

What do I have to do?

Accuse liberals of being Communist child-molesters who want to turn us all into nameless inmates of the Gulag?

Now that's just what I believe, of course... but I would rather not have to come right out and say it.

Well, I view "Pro and Con" - and LT's "Talk" in general, I suppose - as more like my old college stammtisch, where we drop by and shoot the breeze with whoever's there, talking wherever the conversation leads.

Because, after all, intelligent conversation is one of the great pleasures of life.

Ha ha, typical naive liberal. Little do you know that we conservatives caucus once a week and plan our posting campaign for the next seven days. I'm just now typing up this weeks mass email with individual assignments, complete with dates, talking points, and names of liberals to attack personally. Operation Barbarossa, we call it.

Ahem. Don't you mean Operation Barbara Rosa?

Cody: Occasionally I like to stoke liberals' worst fears about us. Now return to your duties. Befehl ist Befehl, nicht wahr?.

Umm. Oh, I've certainly noticed from the very start of "Talk" that Doug is playing a much deeper game here than I am. But I play because I'm still curious about just what game Doug IS working at here.

You know, he has the dual-pronged strategy: convert or push further left. I don't think it's working, but it's still early yet.

I think Doug has a St. George complex.
Run, dragon, run!

All we need is a furious burst of about 100 posts.

What can I do to provoke this?

We've tried race, homosexuality, gun control, child molesting, the war.... and it's "ho hum... my dear friend .. I believe you are in error here, do reconsider ... Oh, thank you for calling my attention to this, ..but have you not pondered this aspect of the situation? Surely that must be relevant."... yawn, yawn...What's wrong with all you people? Cody has done his best. I have done my best. Where's the anger? The personal animus? The desire to humiliate and grind your enemy's face in the dust?

A nice discussion about which is the better operating system.

Texas BBQ is by far the best BBQ in existence. No other regional variants come close.

oh
My
God.

your conservativism I can forgive, and chalk up to ignorance.

But EVERYONE knows that North Carolina barbeque is why God invented meat.

>86 codyed:, 87 No, it's obvious that god invented Meat to complement his selection of Wines. Jesus' first miracle was to turn water into a case of pinot noir to accompany a BBQ at Cana.

Doug said:

Where's the anger? The personal animus? The desire to humiliate and grind your enemy's face in the dust?

But those are conservative virtues.

Of course. But inside every liberal there is a conservative screaming to get out. Or, to put it another way, a conservative is just a liberal who's been dougged.

Well, if there's anything to be learned from this exercise, it's that Doug is a Conservative's worst enemy. He is the epitome of everything he claims a liberal-minded person to be -- inflexible, unable to grasp other's ideas, unwilling to 'give' on any issue.

He's just at Troll, and he'll never learn to be more that he currently is.

I admit it.

But those too are conservative virtues!

We believe, to quote the title of a well-known book that We're Right, They're Wrong.

Sad, sad, sad.