It’s rare that Noam Chomsky is asked to appear on mainstream media. That fact that he’s not asked to appear should say plenty about our media establishment, particularly about the owners.
In a rare moment, Chomsky gave an interview, Tuesday, on On Point Radio, NPR, with Tom Ashbrook.
Listen here. He’s speaking on U.S. rage and ruin.
The distinction that Chomsky made between the Tea Partiers, (an elite and small group with a large amount of funds and media attention) and the half of the population that take to their message was a very important one. The Tea Partiers I have seen on TV do seem pretty ridiculous, but it’s important not to forget the huge amount of people who are resonating with their message. These are people who are facing real problems and tragedy- unemployment, poverty, long hours and low wages. The U.S currently has a record gap between the rich and the poor, and increasing trends of inequality and the disappearance of the middle class. The half of the population that resonates with the Tea Parties are hearing several things 1) that every institution is rotten, from science to politics to Congress to corporations to the government. There is an overall resentment of “experts” in any field! 2) That nothing construction is being done to make a difference and 3) they are hearing the Tea Partiers message against power and institution.
This is a really scary thing. The U.S population is, Chomsky argues, more despairing and angry than in the 1930’s! Chomsky says, and I agree, that we need to respect the despair that people are facing and look to organize the discontented population into something constructive, a lot like what happened during the 1930’s with the New Deal. The Labor Movement and the CIO (Committee for Industrial Organization) of the 1930’s helped lift the suffering urban working class out of unemployment and poverty. I agree with Chomsky that it would not be a smart thing to ignore or ridicule the suffering of these people. Not only is there enormous potential in the dissatisfied working class, but there is also a looming threat. Our country only needs the rise of a charismatic leader who could inspire, manipulate, and organize the American public and we would be on the verge of fascism. Chomsky compares our situation to that of Germany before the rise of Hitler. As Chomsky says, within ten years, Germany went from “the peak of civilization to the depths of barbarism”. Depression hit, like it has here in the U.S, and Hitler (who Chomsky refers to as an HONEST MONSTER) was able to rally the people. This is a terrifying concept. Chomsky says that he does not see any charismatic leaders on the horizon for now (calling Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin “ridiculous”) but I personally am not so sure that one could not arise from the Republican party from nowhere. Sarah Palin, for example, came out of nowhere and, despite her “ridiculousness”, has gained a lot of popular support! Palin seemed dangerous because she was so inept, but what if we face someone who is dangerous for exactly the opposite? It’s horrifying to think the U.S could be on the verge of that sort of shift. Chomsky says we have been in this situation before, but again there was a lack of charismatic leaders/ honest monsters. Nixon was corrupt, and McCarthy was a “thug”. Still, the Red Scare to me seems like a pretty good example of a terrifying and harmful popular movement!
I thought Chomsky’s comments about government (about how we have one business party with two factions) was interesting but I wish he could have provided some solutions. Are politics so corrupt at this point that they’re past saving? The Republican party is barely a party, and acts more like a lapdog to its “corporate masters”. But the Democratic party is not much better! Nothing is changing, and I was really disappointed by Obama’s response to the economic crisis. I have read arguments saying that the bailing out of the banks was necessary, but even if Obama didn’t break up the banks (as Chomsky suggested) he should have at least made them accountable in some way or provided some conditions to uphold. Chomsky said Obama should have put more money into development industrial programs (green and IT technology), making them profitable here and leading to growth. But didn’t Obama’s big stimulus package try to achieve that? I also thought Chomsky’s criticism about Obama having the best marketing campaign in history seemed unfair. Is that really such a bad thing? Obviously, it was necessary for him to win!
The American public is right to be angry with the government and corporations. While they are suffering, corporate sectors and banks are doing fine! Chomsky talks about the financial sector take over that started in the 70’s, and how productive industry was sent abroad. Corporations made huge amounts of money during this time, and this was only “accelerated by both parties”. It is disgusting to me that now, now that the bubble has burst, it’s the American public bearing the consequences and the people who really can’t afford to who are suffering the most. How can we have accountability? What does the American public need to do to show that this is not ok? I think the Tea Party followers could actually serve as a valuable resource in social change. But how do we direct their anger and despair into something productive? And how do we do it quickly, before it is too late and an “honest monster” arises?