Noam Chomsky at an Occupy protest. (photo: Andrew Rusk/Flickr)
Noam Chomsky: Activists Must Rebuild the Democratic Party Into a Progressive
Force
By George Yancy, The Dallas Morning News
11 August 17
Over the past few months, as the disturbing prospect of a Trump
administration became a disturbing reality, I decided to reach out to Noam
Chomsky, the philosopher whose writing, speaking and activism have for more
than 50 years provided unparalleled insight and challenges to the American
and global political systems. Our conversation took place in a series of
email exchanges over two months.
Given our "post-truth" political moment and the growing authoritarianism we
are witnessing under President Trump, what role do you think professional
philosophy might play in critically addressing this situation?
We have to be a little cautious about not trying to kill a gnat with an atom
bomb. The performances are so utterly absurd regarding the "post-truth"
moment that the proper response might best be ridicule. For example, Stephen
Colbert's recent comment is apropos: When the Republican legislature of
North Carolina responded to a scientific study predicting a threatening rise
in sea level by barring state and local agencies from developing regulations
or planning documents to address the problem, Colbert responded: "This is a
brilliant solution. If your science gives you a result that you don't like,
pass a law saying the result is illegal. Problem solved."
Generally, that's how the Trump administration deals with a truly
existential threat to survival of organized human life: ban regulations and
even research and discussion of environmental threats and race to the
precipice as quickly as possible (in the interests of short-term profit and
power).
In this regard, I find Trumpism to be a bit suicidal.
Of course, ridicule is not enough. It's necessary to address the concerns
and beliefs of those who are taken in by the fraud, or who don't recognize
the nature and significance of the issues for other reasons. If by
philosophy we mean reasoned and thoughtful analysis, then it can address the
moment, though not by confronting the "alternative facts" but by analyzing
and clarifying what is at stake, whatever the issue is. Beyond that, what is
needed is action: urgent and dedicated, in the many ways that are open to
us.
If you had to list two or three forms of political action that are necessary
under the Trump regime, what would they be? I ask because our moment feels
so incredibly hopeless and repressive.
I don't think things are quite that bleak. Take the success of the Bernie
Sanders campaign, the most remarkable feature of the 2016 election.
Extensive political science research, notably the work of Thomas Ferguson,
has shown convincingly that elections are pretty much bought. The Sanders
campaign showed that a candidate with mildly progressive (basically New
Deal) programs could win the nomination, maybe the election, even without
the backing of the major funders or any media support. There's good reason
to suppose that Sanders would have won the nomination had it not been for
shenanigans of the Obama-Clinton party managers. He is now the most popular
political figure in the country by a large margin.
Activism spawned by the campaign is beginning to make inroads into electoral
politics. Under Barack Obama, the Democratic Party pretty much collapsed at
the crucial local and state levels, but it can be rebuilt and turned into a
progressive force. That would mean reviving the New Deal legacy and moving
well beyond, instead of abandoning, the working class and turning into
Clintonite New Democrats, which more or less resemble what used to be called
moderate Republicans, a category that has largely disappeared with the shift
of both parties to the right during the neoliberal period.
What are the weightiest issues facing us?
The most important issues to address are the truly existential threats we
face: climate change and nuclear war. On the former, the Republican
leadership, in splendid isolation from the world, is almost unanimously
dedicated to destroying the chances for decent survival; strong words, but
no exaggeration.
On nuclear war, actions in Syria and at the Russian border raise very
serious threats of confrontation that might trigger war, an unthinkable
prospect. Furthermore, Trump's pursuit of Obama's programs of modernization
of the nuclear forces poses extraordinary dangers. As we have recently
learned, the modernized U.S. nuclear force is seriously fraying the slender
thread on which survival is suspended. The matter is discussed in detail in
a critically important article in "Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists" in
March, which should have been, and remained, front-page news. The authors,
highly respected analysts, observe that the nuclear weapons modernization
program has increased "the overall killing power of existing U.S. ballistic
missile forces by a factor of roughly three - and it creates exactly what
one would expect to see, if a nuclear-armed state were planning to have the
capacity to fight and win a nuclear war by disarming enemies with a surprise
first strike."
The significance is clear. It means that in a moment of crisis, of which
there are all too many, Russian military planners may conclude that lacking
a deterrent, the only hope of survival is a first strike - which means the
end for all of us.
Frightening to the bone.
In these cases, citizen action can reverse highly dangerous programs. It can
also press Washington to explore diplomatic options - which are available -
instead of the near reflexive resort to force and coercion in other areas,
including North Korea and Iran.
I take it that you view Trump as fundamentally unpredictable. I certainly
do. Should we fear a nuclear exchange of any sort in our contemporary
moment?
I do, and I'm hardly the only person to have such fears. Perhaps the most
prominent figure to express such concerns is William Perry, one of the
leading contemporary nuclear strategists, with many years of experience at
the highest level of war planning. He is reserved and cautious, not given to
overstatement. He has come out of semiretirement to declare forcefully and
repeatedly that he is terrified both at the extreme and mounting threats and
by the failure to be concerned about them. In his words, "Today, the danger
of some sort of a nuclear catastrophe is greater than it was during the Cold
War, and most people are blissfully unaware of this danger."
In 1947, "Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists" established its famous Doomsday
Clock, estimating how far we are from midnight: termination. In 1947, the
analysts set the clock at seven minutes to midnight. In 1953, they moved the
hand to two minutes to midnight after the U.S. and the USSR exploded
hydrogen bombs. Since then it has oscillated, never again reaching this
danger point. In January, shortly after Trump's inauguration, the hand was
moved to 2 1/2 minutes to midnight, the closest to terminal disaster since
1953. By this time analysts were considering not only the rising threat of
nuclear war but also the firm dedication of the Republican organization to
accelerate the race to environmental catastrophe.
Perry is right to be terrified. And so should we all be, not least because
of the person with his finger on the button and his surreal associates.
How does the lack of critical intelligence operate here, that is, the sort
that philosopher John Dewey saw as essential for a democratic citizenry?
We might ask other questions about critical intelligence. For liberal
opinion, the political crime of the century, as it is sometimes called, is
Russian interference in American elections. The effects of the crime are
undetectable, unlike the massive effects of interference by corporate power
and private wealth, not considered a crime but the normal workings of
democracy. That's even putting aside the record of U.S. "interference" in
foreign elections, Russia included; the word "interference" in quotes
because it is so laughably inadequate, as anyone with the slightest
familiarity with recent history must be aware.
That certainly speaks to our nation's contradictions.
Is Russian hacking really more significant than what we have discussed, for
example, the Republican campaign to destroy the conditions for organized
social existence, in defiance of the entire world? Or to enhance the already
dire threat of terminal nuclear war? Or even such real but lesser crimes
such as the Republican initiative to deprive tens of millions of health care
and to drive helpless people out of nursing homes in order to enrich their
actual constituency of corporate power and wealth even further? Or to
dismantle the limited regulatory system set up to mitigate the impact of the
financial crisis that their favorites are likely to bring about once again?
And on and on.
It's easy to condemn those we place on the other side of some divide, but
more important, commonly, to explore what we take to be nearby.
e-max.it: your social media marketing partner