(via EH) Here is a transcript of a Noam Chomsky speech. Really interesting. He's not to impressed with Obama's election or his cabinet appointments ... of course he sets pretty "high" standards (if that's the right way to put it). Thought provoking though - especially the remarks on how Haiti and Bolivia exercise a more pure democracy than we do on occasion.
I always love hearing his point of view but I think he's operating from a few false presumptions: Namely that Obama has a mandate from the liberals. Obama won w/ a coalition and wasn't elected by Chomsky's brand of Boston Bubble liberalism - so there's not the same sort of mandate as there was in Bolivia when the government threatened to cut off indigenous drinking water supplies. Similarly, there's not a mandate to fill his administration with anti-war types because there simply weren't too many origninal Iraq war critics in the first place. Does Noam expect Obama, Feingold, Chris Matthews, and Phil Donahue to run the whole country by themselves?
Aside from that, his critique of Commercial Advertising-Run campaigns and of his Economic advisor's complicity in the financial crisis are well taken.
My Blog List
-
-
-
Big Weekend15 years ago
-
-
-
-
-
Search4 years ago
-
-
-
-
Right idea, poor execution--Eva12 years ago
-
-
2 comments:
I don’t think there is any way chomsky thinks his brand of liberalism won the election for Obama. (Remember, he’s not stupid.) I think he was using the South America examples to emphasize that real change in democracies comes from activism. The democracy examples he gives are more extreme than ours because ours has gotten muddled by "big business politics" and so they make the point more effectively. He wants to "warn" people that if changes is going to happen then it will have to come from me and you. I think that matches well with Obama’s views. I think Obama has a unique understanding that people will make the change not him (at least he's been saying that throughout his campaign.)
Chomsky was right that Obama’s brand was (sort of) as the anti-war candidate and his actions have not been to surround himself with anti-war types. Chomsky might honestly be worried that this means Obama might be off track, but Obama needs movement and he knows that means bringing everyone along together. Chomsky’s not a politician and he’s not a leader, he’s an intellectual. He's talking about the way things are and the problems with it, but the fact is; he isn’t offering a realistic vision of how to get from where we are now to where he would like to see us go. That's where Obama is going.
Ok. I see that version. And yes - that does fit with Obama's "bottom-up" philosophy he's consistently been talking about
Post a Comment