The Stupidest Intellectual (re: Chomsky and His Ideas)

[MMMMMM]

link to article:

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles...le.asp?ID=6135

[andyfox]

There's a lot in the article, but I would like to address two points:

1) Note that the author calls Chomsky and his writings "despicable," "crackpot," "ridiculous," "irresponsible," "dangerous junk," "warped," and "lunacy." Those on the left are "spoiled children." This tells me that the author may not be the best person to carefully analyze Chomsky's message, since it reveals an obvious bias.

2) Here is the author's own analysis of the history of America's foreign policy:

"American foreign policy has long been correctly directed by the “lesser of two evils” theory which has kept America afloat on the world stage for more than two hundred years. The foundation for this policy was laid down by President James Monroe who announced what came to be called the “Monroe Doctrine” in 1823. According to this doctrine, America would accept no more European incursions in the Western Hemisphere. This was a step away from George Washington’s admonition to avoid any “entangling alliances” that might draw America into a foreign war. Washington articulated this caution in his farewell address, at a time when the United States was very vulnerable and the threat of European warfare loomed on the horizon. But by the time of the Monroe Doctrine, the U.S. had witnessed substantial growth and the act of European colonization in the Western Hemisphere could be taken as a threat to American sovereignty.

From that time forward, U.S. foreign policy has traveled through different stages, but one tenet has remained constant: The protection and welfare of U.S. citizens is always the most important objective. This sometimes means that America must ally itself with regimes that do not meet the standards the U.S. government holds for itself. But just because America works with a corrupt government against a mutual enemy does not mean that America is responsible for the corruption of its ally. The unsavory regime is responsible for its own shortcomings. The world is a dirty, dangerous place, and the responsibility of the American government is to protect its own citizens.

My comments:

1) How could European colonization in other places in the western hemisphere be a threat to America sovereignty? What it was a threat to was American expansion. All of our leaders from the very beginning saw us an an imperal nation destined to control the entire continent and beyond. When other nations got in the way, we pushed them aside.

2) The protection and welfare of U.S. citizens has often been used as a pretext for invasion and control of small countries in the western hemisphere and elsewhere. Alliance with regimes that do not meet our "standards" has nothing at all to do with the protection and of U.S. citizens. What did Diem and the muderous "thugs" (to use a word President Bush seems to like these day) in Guatemala and Somoza and the Shah of Iran and Mobutu and the murderous thugs in El Salvador have to do with the protection of U.S. citizens?

3) Many unsavory regimes have been trained in unsavoriness by the United States. Diem wouldn't have gotten anywhere without Lansdale. We were responsible for installing murderous thugs in Guatemala and Chile and for maintaining murderous thugs in El Salvador, to cite three 20th century examples. We trained many Latin American thugs.

The author's view of the history of American foreign policy is flawed.

[MMMMMM]

I hesitated to post the link precisely because I felt the author used too many derogatory adjectives--but decided to go ahead anyway, trusting in the ability of most of us to focus the arguments themselves rather than the style. In your case I have no doubt that you will do just that.

[andyfox]

That's what I tried to do in my point 2. But when someone uses insults in their argument, is does get in the way of discussion.

[MMMMMM]

^

[IrishHand]

What? Posting something totally biased is cool because people will be able to see through the bias to the underlying facts? What about the problem that the bias indicates pretty clearly that the "facts" will either reflect that bias directly (in their presentation) or indirectly (in their selection)?

Are you thinking you could post a KKK newsletter about why blacks are inferior and trust that the reader will get past the racial slurs to see the underlying merits of the arguments?

[MMMMMM]

Actually I though a lot of the adjectives the author used were merited--but his arguments appeared to have even more merit.

I feel Chomsky's material is highly biased--but I'm still willing to discuss his ideas.

Bias isn't always bad, you know: sometimes it is entirely justified. For instance, I'm biased against totalitarian tyrants and stupid arguments.


Instead of worrying so much about "bias", how's this sound: We'll just focus on the ideas. Think you can handle that?

[morgan]

Wow.

Chomsky has probably been called many things in his life. But "stupid"???? Take one look at the man's life work.

Also -- Chomsky has devoted much of his life to peace. He deserves more respect then that.

Take care,

Morgan

[andyfox]

A staple of conservative rhetoric is name-calling. Limbaugh's "feminazis" may have been the beginning. Mona Charen's new book is called "Useful Idiots." No doubt liberals have fought back ("Rush Limbaugh is a Big, Fat Idiot), but they finish a distant second in the mean-spiritedness battle (as they are in most battles these days.)

[nicky g]

I don't see many reasoned arguments in the article. What he does over and over is quote a Chomsky idea, and the say an equivalent of "Just how ridiculous is that!?!" Anything he believes is "clear", while anything Chomsky says is patent nonsense. For instance he makes no attempt to deny Chomsky's statements about US terror in pre-Castro Cuba, and is simply astonished the ideas behind the war on terror could ever be used against the US itself, even when the US justification for attacks is terrorism and he doesn't deny that it has sponsored terrorism. He takes the idea that the US is the be-all-and-end-all of all possible good so completely for granted that he thinks merely ridiculing any anti-US arguments is an effective response, and that it should be obvious that any anti-US foreign policy articles must necessarily be false. I'm sorry MMMMMM, but it really comes across as a rant rather than a reasoned debate. I think you make your points much better than this guy does. I also take exception to his suggestion that Harry Belafonte should leave the US for daring to criticize Colin Powell.