[blind-democracy] Noam Chomsky: How the Word 'Liberal' Has Been Totally Distorted in America

  • From: Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Mon, 05 Oct 2015 16:44:43 -0400


Published on Alternet (http://www.alternet.org)
Home > Noam Chomsky: How the Word 'Liberal' Has Been Totally Distorted in
America
________________________________________
Noam Chomsky: How the Word 'Liberal' Has Been Totally Distorted in America
By Sincere T. Kirabo [1] / AlterNet [2]
October 1, 2015
As the war of words between presidential candidates have only begun to
blossom, I've already grown battle weary, anxious, and disheartened.
While critiquing the existing state of affairs in his essay "State of the
Union" (The Nation, 1975), Gore Vidal shared the following observation:
"There is only one party in the United States, the Property Party.and it has
two right wings: Republican and Democrat." Far from a mere witty turn of
phrase, what Vidal alluded to was the not so inconspicuous trend of both
camps gradually realigning themselves further "right" (conventional,
constrained) on issues despite enthralling rhetoric that would suggest
otherwise. Forty years later, his Cassandra dilemma [3]regarding the
abandonment of liberalism still rings true though its significance holds no
sway over those deafened by partisan favoritism.
In my piece "Under the Microscope: Black Conservatives [4]," I clarify that,
though I hold very progressive political views contra conservatism, I do not
identify as a Democrat. Part of the reason is due to the fact that many
Democrat officials-and thus the political platform they epitomize and
endorse-simply don't push for truly liberal-leaning policies that would
catalyze radical change this nation so desperately needs.
The term liberal comes from the Latin liberalis, which means "pertaining to
a free person." Within the confines of political discourse, liberalism
prescriptively refers to one open to new behavior and willing to discard
traditional values, the antithesis of "Traditional ValuesT," a revered
cornerstone of conservative ideation. Why, then, does it appear Democrats
have a tendency to disavow programs that would coincide with their adoptive
moniker?
Seeking insight regarding this political malaise, I was able to pick the
brain of Professor Noam Chomsky, renowned philosopher and linguist. The
world's leading political theorist had this to say about today's incarnation
of the Democrat and Republican parties:
"Both parties have shifted well to the right, the Republicans almost off the
spectrum. Respected conservative commentator Norman Ornstein described them,
plausible, as a 'radical insurgency' that has largely abandoned
parliamentary politics. Democrats now are mostly what used to be called
'moderate Republicans.' There's ample evidence that most of the population,
at the lower end of the income spectrum, is effectively disenfranchised -
their representatives pay no attention to their opinions. Moving up the
income ladder, influence increases slowly, but it's only at the very top
that it has real impact. Plutocracy masquerading as formal democracy."
The frameworks of this nation's political system is an ostensible democracy
as studies reveal [5], which is only a secret to the apathetic or those
living under a rock. In an in-depth interview to be published later this
week, Professor Justin Lewis-political analyst and media critic-echoes the
sentiment of Chomsky regarding the erasure of left representation, which
makes sense given their collaborative work titled The Myth of the Liberal
Media: The Propaganda Model of News [6](see video here [7]).
Much of Lewis' research focuses on how there's many issues wherein the U.S.
public are to the left of both main parties but that such polling results
are rarely referenced due to it conflicting with conventional political
agenda. By contrast, what we tend to see is polling data that reinforces
views aligned with mainstream party debates: That which is "Part of the
Plan."
Now, regarding my despondency.
None of the presidential hopefuls impress me, which is par for the course.
That said, Bernie Sanders appears to be an apparition of hope for real
social progress that would be absent within the neo-conservative
seriously-not-liberal regime of Hilary Clinton and would degenerate midst
the clutches of any Republican candidacy. There are significant drawbacks
with Sanders (e.g., insinuations that he'd maintain "business as usual"
regarding foreign policy is egregious), but in a race advertising 31 flavors
of the horrible and grotesque, he's a somewhat bitter-sweet relief for those
desiring a faint taste of liberal representation.
Chomsky seems to agree. When asked about the more noteworthy contenders in
the 2016 presidential race, he said:
"Sanders is a decent New Dealer, way to the left in the current U.S.
political system. I don't agree with some of his stands, but he's a breath
of fresh air. Clinton's a centrist Democrat, Bush a right-wing Republican,
sane by today's weird standards. Trump is a very dangerous demagogue, though
one can understand his appeal after decades of stagnation and loss of hope,
even though the targets of the fears and angers are misplaced."
The problem is the Wu Tang Clan were right: cash rules everything around me.
The Big Two (re: Democrats, Republicans) receive a substantial chunk of
financial support from corporate entities that demand politicians
reciprocate with supporting policies that favor them. Those who don't
capitulate to these typically conservative forces aren't likely to be viable
contenders, which is one of the reasons why Bernie Sanders is seen as an
underdog compared to corporate sycophant Hilary Clinton.
It's still difficult for me to take Donald Trump's run seriously. I get that
his sideshow bravado swept up in mainstream media's captivation is dangerous
in a way. I also concede with many points made regarding Trump being the new
face of white supremacy [8]. The thing is, the appeal of this uncouth
loudmouth isn't proof that his explicitly racist, sexist, Islamophobic, and
privilege-induced ramblings are in any way valid, but rather a collective
sigh of discontent with common political sophistry. We live in a society
that craves entertainment and those with whom we can identify with-Trump
delivers on these attributes though lacking any real substance sheltered
away behind that obtuse curtain guarded by blowhard antics. Also, keep in
mind this white-oriented culture just endured eight years of having to call
a Black man their leader.Trump's present success-given what he
represents-doesn't surprise me.
Moreover, people want tangible change that amounts to more than just a
catchy slogan. For the right, that means supporting candidates that thrive
on victim blaming, yearn to hinder and divest in policies that aid women,
LGBTQIA, immigrants, and people of color, and will greenlight stricter
theocratic legislation. For the ostensible left, that means (thus far)
placing odds on one of two choices: one with considerable clout but a
distant stranger to liberal principles though she feigns otherwise, and one
who, though far from flawless, actually bears resemblance to a liberal
candidate.
Liberalism is important to me, and likely to anyone else of a similar
mindset, because the way progress is effectively enacted across social
institutions-the complex of positions, roles, norms and values lodged in
particular types of social structures-is by way of evolving and
forward-thinking. These standards are prone to stimulate directives
targeting the marginalized and support multiculturalism, which literally
(seriously, literally) contradicts the motivations and interests of
conservative ideology.
You'd think more would be on board for further development and more
inclusionary lawmaking.but then I remember those who benefit from the status
quo are more inclined to relish the current horse-and-buggy-pace of societal
maturation, or even champion a devolution to "The Good Old Days" (read:
Dixiecratic, "Jim Crow wasn't so bad" resolve) where it'd be more widely
acceptable to not consider classism, ableism, toxic masculinity, racism,
transantagonism, etc. I understand being a decent person is "hard" for those
who adore their privilege [9]. These are the people who perceive their
abject disconnect from those who are othered [10]as a sign of the
outsider's weakness instead of realizing the frailty is their own.
And so I sit, battle weary, anxious, and disheartened. Liberalism isn't
dead, but when it comes to a political institution that prefers stagnancy,
it sure is hard to come by.
Sincere T. Kirabo is a writer and sociocultural gadfly who blogs with
Patheos and occasionally contributes to The Humanist and LA Progressive.
Share on Facebook Share
Share on Twitter Tweet
Report typos and corrections to 'corrections@xxxxxxxxxxxx'. [11]
[12]
________________________________________
Source URL:
http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/noam-chomsky-how-word-liberal-has-
been-totally-distorted-america
Links:
[1] http://www.alternet.org/authors/sincere-t-kirabo
[2] http://alternet.org
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cassandra_%28metaphor%29
[4]
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/notesfromanapostate/2015/08/under-the-microscop
e-black-conservatives/
[5]
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/princeton-scholar-demise-of-democracy-americ
a-tpm-interview
[6] http://www.mediaed.org/assets/products/114/transcript_114.pdf
[7] https://youtu.be/E8oHl3ooeZo
[8]
http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/08/28/donald-trump-is-the-new-face-of-white
-supremacy/
[9] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privilege_%28social_inequality%29
[10] https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/othering
[11] mailto:corrections@xxxxxxxxxxxx?Subject=Typo on Noam Chomsky: How the
Word &#039;Liberal&#039; Has Been Totally Distorted in America
[12] http://www.alternet.org/
[13] http://www.alternet.org/%2Bnew_src%2B

Published on Alternet (http://www.alternet.org)
Home > Noam Chomsky: How the Word 'Liberal' Has Been Totally Distorted in
America

Noam Chomsky: How the Word 'Liberal' Has Been Totally Distorted in America
By Sincere T. Kirabo [1] / AlterNet [2]
October 1, 2015
As the war of words between presidential candidates have only begun to
blossom, I've already grown battle weary, anxious, and disheartened.
While critiquing the existing state of affairs in his essay "State of the
Union" (The Nation, 1975), Gore Vidal shared the following observation:
"There is only one party in the United States, the Property Party.and it has
two right wings: Republican and Democrat." Far from a mere witty turn of
phrase, what Vidal alluded to was the not so inconspicuous trend of both
camps gradually realigning themselves further "right" (conventional,
constrained) on issues despite enthralling rhetoric that would suggest
otherwise. Forty years later, his Cassandra dilemma [3]regarding the
abandonment of liberalism still rings true though its significance holds no
sway over those deafened by partisan favoritism.
In my piece "Under the Microscope: Black Conservatives [4]," I clarify that,
though I hold very progressive political views contra conservatism, I do not
identify as a Democrat. Part of the reason is due to the fact that many
Democrat officials-and thus the political platform they epitomize and
endorse-simply don't push for truly liberal-leaning policies that would
catalyze radical change this nation so desperately needs.
The term liberal comes from the Latin liberalis, which means "pertaining to
a free person." Within the confines of political discourse, liberalism
prescriptively refers to one open to new behavior and willing to discard
traditional values, the antithesis of "Traditional ValuesT," a revered
cornerstone of conservative ideation. Why, then, does it appear Democrats
have a tendency to disavow programs that would coincide with their adoptive
moniker?
Seeking insight regarding this political malaise, I was able to pick the
brain of Professor Noam Chomsky, renowned philosopher and linguist. The
world's leading political theorist had this to say about today's incarnation
of the Democrat and Republican parties:
"Both parties have shifted well to the right, the Republicans almost off the
spectrum. Respected conservative commentator Norman Ornstein described them,
plausible, as a 'radical insurgency' that has largely abandoned
parliamentary politics. Democrats now are mostly what used to be called
'moderate Republicans.' There's ample evidence that most of the population,
at the lower end of the income spectrum, is effectively disenfranchised -
their representatives pay no attention to their opinions. Moving up the
income ladder, influence increases slowly, but it's only at the very top
that it has real impact. Plutocracy masquerading as formal democracy."
The frameworks of this nation's political system is an ostensible democracy
as studies reveal [5], which is only a secret to the apathetic or those
living under a rock. In an in-depth interview to be published later this
week, Professor Justin Lewis-political analyst and media critic-echoes the
sentiment of Chomsky regarding the erasure of left representation, which
makes sense given their collaborative work titled The Myth of the Liberal
Media: The Propaganda Model of News [6](see video here [7]).
Much of Lewis' research focuses on how there's many issues wherein the U.S.
public are to the left of both main parties but that such polling results
are rarely referenced due to it conflicting with conventional political
agenda. By contrast, what we tend to see is polling data that reinforces
views aligned with mainstream party debates: That which is "Part of the
Plan."
Now, regarding my despondency.
None of the presidential hopefuls impress me, which is par for the course.
That said, Bernie Sanders appears to be an apparition of hope for real
social progress that would be absent within the neo-conservative
seriously-not-liberal regime of Hilary Clinton and would degenerate midst
the clutches of any Republican candidacy. There are significant drawbacks
with Sanders (e.g., insinuations that he'd maintain "business as usual"
regarding foreign policy is egregious), but in a race advertising 31 flavors
of the horrible and grotesque, he's a somewhat bitter-sweet relief for those
desiring a faint taste of liberal representation.
Chomsky seems to agree. When asked about the more noteworthy contenders in
the 2016 presidential race, he said:
"Sanders is a decent New Dealer, way to the left in the current U.S.
political system. I don't agree with some of his stands, but he's a breath
of fresh air. Clinton's a centrist Democrat, Bush a right-wing Republican,
sane by today's weird standards. Trump is a very dangerous demagogue, though
one can understand his appeal after decades of stagnation and loss of hope,
even though the targets of the fears and angers are misplaced."
The problem is the Wu Tang Clan were right: cash rules everything around me.
The Big Two (re: Democrats, Republicans) receive a substantial chunk of
financial support from corporate entities that demand politicians
reciprocate with supporting policies that favor them. Those who don't
capitulate to these typically conservative forces aren't likely to be viable
contenders, which is one of the reasons why Bernie Sanders is seen as an
underdog compared to corporate sycophant Hilary Clinton.
It's still difficult for me to take Donald Trump's run seriously. I get that
his sideshow bravado swept up in mainstream media's captivation is dangerous
in a way. I also concede with many points made regarding Trump being the new
face of white supremacy [8]. The thing is, the appeal of this uncouth
loudmouth isn't proof that his explicitly racist, sexist, Islamophobic, and
privilege-induced ramblings are in any way valid, but rather a collective
sigh of discontent with common political sophistry. We live in a society
that craves entertainment and those with whom we can identify with-Trump
delivers on these attributes though lacking any real substance sheltered
away behind that obtuse curtain guarded by blowhard antics. Also, keep in
mind this white-oriented culture just endured eight years of having to call
a Black man their leader.Trump's present success-given what he
represents-doesn't surprise me.
Moreover, people want tangible change that amounts to more than just a
catchy slogan. For the right, that means supporting candidates that thrive
on victim blaming, yearn to hinder and divest in policies that aid women,
LGBTQIA, immigrants, and people of color, and will greenlight stricter
theocratic legislation. For the ostensible left, that means (thus far)
placing odds on one of two choices: one with considerable clout but a
distant stranger to liberal principles though she feigns otherwise, and one
who, though far from flawless, actually bears resemblance to a liberal
candidate.
Liberalism is important to me, and likely to anyone else of a similar
mindset, because the way progress is effectively enacted across social
institutions-the complex of positions, roles, norms and values lodged in
particular types of social structures-is by way of evolving and
forward-thinking. These standards are prone to stimulate directives
targeting the marginalized and support multiculturalism, which literally
(seriously, literally) contradicts the motivations and interests of
conservative ideology.
You'd think more would be on board for further development and more
inclusionary lawmaking.but then I remember those who benefit from the status
quo are more inclined to relish the current horse-and-buggy-pace of societal
maturation, or even champion a devolution to "The Good Old Days" (read:
Dixiecratic, "Jim Crow wasn't so bad" resolve) where it'd be more widely
acceptable to not consider classism, ableism, toxic masculinity, racism,
transantagonism, etc. I understand being a decent person is "hard" for those
who adore their privilege [9]. These are the people who perceive their
abject disconnect from those who are othered [10]as a sign of the outsider's
weakness instead of realizing the frailty is their own.
And so I sit, battle weary, anxious, and disheartened. Liberalism isn't
dead, but when it comes to a political institution that prefers stagnancy,
it sure is hard to come by.
Sincere T. Kirabo is a writer and sociocultural gadfly who blogs with
Patheos and occasionally contributes to The Humanist and LA Progressive.
Error! Hyperlink reference not valid.
Error! Hyperlink reference not valid.
Report typos and corrections to 'corrections@xxxxxxxxxxxx'. [11]
Error! Hyperlink reference not valid.[12]

Source URL:
http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/noam-chomsky-how-word-liberal-has-
been-totally-distorted-america
Links:
[1] http://www.alternet.org/authors/sincere-t-kirabo
[2] http://alternet.org
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cassandra_%28metaphor%29
[4]
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/notesfromanapostate/2015/08/under-the-microscop
e-black-conservatives/
[5]
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/princeton-scholar-demise-of-democracy-americ
a-tpm-interview
[6] http://www.mediaed.org/assets/products/114/transcript_114.pdf
[7] https://youtu.be/E8oHl3ooeZo
[8]
http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/08/28/donald-trump-is-the-new-face-of-white
-supremacy/
[9] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privilege_%28social_inequality%29
[10] https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/othering
[11] mailto:corrections@xxxxxxxxxxxx?Subject=Typo on Noam Chomsky: How the
Word &#039;Liberal&#039; Has Been Totally Distorted in America
[12] http://www.alternet.org/
[13] http://www.alternet.org/%2Bnew_src%2B


Other related posts:

  • » [blind-democracy] Noam Chomsky: How the Word 'Liberal' Has Been Totally Distorted in America - Miriam Vieni