In article <c01bk9$1feq$1@pencil.math.missouri.edu>, Tim Murphy says...

February 6, 2004
Left Hook

An Interview with Noam Chomsky on Bush and the Left's Strategy for the
Elections

by

M. Junaid Alam

Professor of Linguistics at MIT and author of many best-selling political
works, most recently Hegemony or Survival, Noam Chomsky has been renown for
his incisive and hard-hitting criticism of U.S. foreign policy for decades.
Recently, M. Junaid Alam, co-editor of the new leftist youth journal Left
Hook, was able to interview Professor Chomsky on the nature of the Bush
administration, the American lefts strategy in upcoming elections, domestic
and foreign consequences of continued occupation of Iraq, and the basis for
US-Israeli relations.

Alam: Professor Chomsky, thank you for agreeing to this interview.

In the aftermath of September 11, the Bush administration has pursued an
aggressively militaristic foreign policy marked by religious rhetoric and
ambitiously imperial declarations. Is the social and ideological base and
agenda of this administration uniquely rooted in the Christian Right,
neoconservatism, and the less scrupulous sections of the corporate elite, or
is this simply a more crass reflection of a prevailing consensus among an
American elite emboldened by the emergence of America as the worlds sole
hegemon?

Chomsky: We do not have internal documents, so what we say about the details
of planning and its motivation is necessarily speculative.  However, I am
inclined to believe that the Christian Right influence is not very great.
It is possible that Bush is telling the truth when he rants about his
born-again experiences and how he is driving Evil from the world, but I
suspect he is just playing the role for which he is being trained by his
handlers, and that the religious fanaticism is mostly part of a plan to
throw a little red meat to a substantial constituency.  The US is one of the
most extreme religious fundamentalist societies in the world.  It is hard to
believe that the actual planners  Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Powell,
etc.  take any of this seriously.  As for neoconservatism, it is not
clear what the term is supposed to mean.  In practice it is the program of
radical statist reactionaries, who believe that the US should rule the
world, by force if necessary, in the interests of the narrow sectors of
concentrated private power and wealth that they represent, and that the
powerful state they forge should serve those interests, not the interests of
the public, who are to be frightened into submission while the progressive
legislation and achievements of popular struggle of the past century are
dismantled, along with the democratic culture that sustained them.  Within
elite sectors, there is a great deal of concern over their brazen arrogance,
remarkable incompetence, and willingness to increase serious threats to the
country and to transfer a huge burden to coming generations for short-term
gain.  Their war in Iraq, for example, was strongly opposed by leading
sectors of the foreign policy elite, and perhaps even more strikingly, the
corporate world.  But the same sectors will continue to support the Bush
circles, strongly.  It is using state power to lavish huge gifts on them,
and they basically share the underlying premises even if they are concerned
about the practice and the irrationality of the actors, and the dangers they
pose.

Alam: Many leftists and liberals, including NY Times columnist Paul Krugman
and ZNets Michael Albert, believe that Bush represents a radical departure

>from previous administrations, purportedly in its ambitions to roll back

much of the progressive work forged through social struggle since the New
Deal, including social security, civil liberties, and welfare. The majority
sentiment on the left is that, subsequently, anyone is preferable to Bush
and therefore rallying behind the Democrats is a necessity.

Some, however, disagree. Lance Selfa of the  International Socialist Review
recently argued that the so-called neoconservative clique has its roots in
the right wing of the Democratic Party of the early 1970s and that the
Democratic candidates differ only in rhetoric and not goals, citing Deans
refusal to rule out use of preemptive force on Iran or North Korea and his
endorsement of the Star Wars program. Additionally, in the recent Avocado
Declaration, Peter Camejo of the Green Party wrote that the Democrats are a
party of defeatism whose message is nothing is possible but what exists.
What is your own take on these arguments and the situation surrounding
upcoming elections?

Chomsky: The arguments are not inconsistent.  Both are basically correct, in
my opinion.  The political spectrum is narrow.  Elections are essentially
bought, and the democratic culture is severely eroded.  Furthermore, the
population is aware of it, by and large, but many feel helpless.  It is also
a very frightened country, particularly men, polls indicate.  That has been
true for a long time, and those fears are exploited by unscrupulous leaders
to divert the attention of the people they are kicking in the face, not to
speak of what they are doing to coming generations.  Nevertheless, though
differences are not very large, they do exist.  The current incumbents may
do severe, perhaps irreparable, damage if given another hold on power  a
very slim hold, but one they will use to achieve very ugly and dangerous
ends.  In a very powerful state, small differences may translate into very
substantial effects on the victims, at home and abroad.   It is no favor to
those who are suffering, and may face much worse ahead, to overlook these
facts.  Keeping the Bush circle out means holding ones nose and voting for
some Democrat, but thats not the end of the story.  The basic culture and
institutions of a democratic society have to be constructed, in part
reconstructed, and defeat of an extremely dangerous clique in the
presidential race is only one very small component of that.

Alam: Assuming a continued presence of US occupation forces in Iraq and a
stubborn armed resistance among a generally hostile population, do you
believe that racism, intolerance, and national chauvinism will rise in
America itself- particularly against Muslims and anti-war forces?

Chomsky: Putting aside judgments about the situation in Iraq, if the (very
surprising) failures of the military occupation continue, they may engender
the kinds of reactions you describe, but alongside of others that are much
more healthy and offer plenty of opportunities.  That is generally true of
wars.  Anti-Japanese racism during World War II was incredible  I can well
remember it, as a young teenager.  And the cities were not much fun here
either, as again I remember very well; in my own city, teenagers were often
under a curfew because of race riots.  Nevertheless, the war gave a strong
impetus to a social democratic culture, in some ways going well beyond,
which led to significant improvements in the domestic society.  The same was
true of Vietnam.  Many shared Lyndon Johnsons perception that if we dont
fight the yellow dwarves over there, theyll sweep over us and take all
we have (approximate quote).  But it also was a major stimulus to popular
movements that made it a far more civilized country, and are very much alive
today.

Alam: Again assuming the continued presence of US troops in Iraq and the
resulting Iraqi backlash, what do you believe would be the regional
repercussions? Will Iran and Syria try to wield influence in Iraqi affairs
to help resistance forces, or remain chastened by the proximity of US
military forces to their own countries? Will a prolonged occupation inspire
greater fury against America among ordinary Arabs in the region  enough to
challenge their own Washington-backed governments?

Chomsky:I would be very surprised if Iran or Syria, or for that matter any
state, gives support to the Iraqi resistance forces, particularly when the
large majority of the population keeps its distance from them, and probably
regards them with considerable hostility and fear.  As to the likely impact
in the Arab world, it is very hard to say.  No one knows, including the
ordinary Arabs in the region themselves.  There is plenty of anger and
resentment against their own brutal governments and the US, but it could
take many different forms.  Just to illustrate the near impossibility of
prediction, consider the first Intifada, which broke out in December 1987.
Israel had the territories under very tight control and surveillance, with
collaborators everywhere and a very strong presence of military and secret
services.  The population had been remarkably quiescent throughout the long
and harsh occupation, silently suffering terror, torture, daily humiliation,
robbery of their land and resources, with scarcely any resistance.  They
were described as samidin  those who resist by enduring.  Suddenly
everything changed.  The Israeli military and civilian authorities did not
have a clue about what was happening, and the PLO was caught equally by
surprise.  I happened to be able to see a little of it first-hand, but it
was clear enough from close reading of the Israeli press and other sources.
Thats not at all unusual.

Alam: Often the so-called war on terror is depicted by its American
supporters as a civilizational war, pitting an advanced, upright nation
against a sea of savage, senseless, Islamic barbarians. This depiction is
interesting because it has always resonated well with a crucial U.S. ally
whose role in this endeavor has been controversial and, to many, vague:
Israel. You argue in Hegemony or Survival that Israel has virtually no
alternative to serving as a US base in the region and complying with U.S.
demands.

Others, however, particularly in the Arab world, see Israel as using the
financial clout of the pro-Israel lobby in the US to press its own demands.
Some Israeli dissidents cite not financial but ideological influence:
prefacing a summary of interviews with William Kristol, Charles Krauthammer,
and Thomas Friedman, Ari Shavit of the Israeli daily Haaretz, wrote that
the ardent faith [in war against Iraq] was disseminated by a small group of
25 to 30 neoconservative intellectuals, almost all of them Jewish, almost
all of them intellectuals Even the non-neoconservative Friedman, according
to Shavit, justified the Iraq war as a replay of Jenin on a world scale. Do
you consider it possible that, precisely because Israel depends so much on
US support, pro-Israel intellectuals argue for US military action against
the Arab world? Or is the role of neoconservatism and intellectuals like
Kristol and Krauthammer overblown and only a subtext to a larger point?

Chomsky: It is impossible to give a measure to the influence of the Israeli
lobby, but in my opinion it is more of a swing factor than an independently
decisive one.  It is important to bear in mind that it is not
neoconservatives, or Jewish.  Friedman, for example, is a liberal in the US
system.  The union leadership, often strong supporters of Israeli crimes,
are protypical liberals, not neocons.  The self-styled democratic
socialists who modestly call themselves the decent left have compiled an
unusually ugly record in support of  Israeli government actions ever since
Israels massive victory in 1967, which won it many friends in left-liberal
circles, for a variety of reasons.  The Christian right is a huge voting
bloc, plainly not Jewish, and in fact to a significant extent anti-Semitic,
but welcomed by the government of Israel and its supporters because they
support Israels atrocities, violence, and aggression, for their own
reasons.  It is a varied and large group, which happens also to constitute a
substantial part of the intellectual elite, hence the media elite, so of
course there is ideological influence.  However, these groups rarely
distance themselves far from what they know to be authentic power:
state-corporate power.  If US government policy would shift, they would
shift along with it, maybe with some snapping at the heels of the powerful,
but never daring too much.  That has been fairly consistent in the past, and
I think there is good reason to expect similar behavior in the future.
Privilege and rewards do not come from confronting power, but by serving it,
perhaps with some complaints at the margins while pouring out lies and
slanders against anyone who strays a few millimeters to far from doctrinal
orthodoxy, a primary function of respectable intellectuals throughout
history.  Particularly since its 1967 victory, state power has generally
regarded Israel as a very important strategic asset, by now virtually an
offshore military base and militarized high-tech center closely linked to
the US and major regional US allies, particularly Turkey.  That opens the
way for the ideological influence to exert itself  lined up with real
power.  The story is far more complex than anyone can describe in a few
words, but my feeling is that the essentials are pretty much like that.
That is true of domestic lobbies quite generally, in a state capitalist
society with very close ties between state and corporate power, a very
obedient intellectual class, and a narrow political spectrum primarily
reflecting the interests of power and privilege.

Alam: Israels rhetoric and actions appear to be pulling in opposite
directions. Its actions clearly point to greater brutalization and
destruction of the Palestinians, as evidenced by continued construction of
illegal settlements, erection of a separation wall which annexes more
Palestinian land, and military raids leading to the death of innocents on a
weekly basis. And yet some in the official establishment, from dissenting
Refusenik air force pilots and special forces to former Shinbet officials
and senior Likud officials like Ehud Olmert, are openly questioning the
occupation and calling for unilateral withdrawal to preserve the
Jewish-democratic character of Israel in the face an impending demographic
crisis whereby Arabs will outnumber Jews in Eretz Israel.

Given that Zionism is, as Norman Finkelstein writes in Image and Reality,
grounded in its pre-emptive right to establish a Jewish state in
Palestine  a right that, allegedly, superseded the aspirations of the
indigenous population, do you think the pragmatists advocating withdrawal

>from Gaza and the West Bank can trump those who still want to pretend the

indigenous Palestinians are, as Israels first president Chaim Weizmann once
said, a matter of no consequence?

Chomsky: I think it would be very likely to happen if the boss-man called
`partner  as more astute Israeli commentators refer to the US  were to
change course and inform them that the time has come to obey the
overwhelming international consensus that the US government has been
blocking for 30 years.  The demographic crisis is impelling hawks in the
same direction.  The refuseniks and Israeli solidarity groups are brave
and honorable people, who deserve every bit of support we can give them.
Their inability to have much of an impact is our fault, not theirs.  No
group in Israel can gain much credibility within unless it has strong
support from the society of the boss-man.

Professor Chomsky, thank you very much for your time and responses.

M. Junaid Alam, 20, Boston, co-editor and web-designer of new leftist
journal for American youth, Left Hook

http://www.lefthook.org

http://www.lefthook.org/Politics/AlamChomsky020404.html

-----------