Sep 06 2007
Pompous whimsy
Cyrano’s Journal Online and its semi-autonomous subsections (Thomas Paine’s Corner, The Greanville Journal, CJO Avenger, and VoxPop) would be delighted to periodically email you links to the most recent material and timeless classics available on our diverse and comprehensive site. If you would like to subscribe, type “CJO subscription” in the subject line and send your email to
“Instead of identifying the themes in ‘Interventions’ and giving a thorough appraisal, National Journal writer Jonathan Rauch just gives a disinterested, curt and pompous dismissal of an outsider, whose opinions are clearly samplings of dementia to a Brookings scholar - an insider.”
By Jonathan Lenglain
9/6/07
Love him or hate him, the reaction good ol’ Noam provokes among elite writers is always instructive. In hurling invectives at him writers from major newspapers never fail to simultaneously mock the common man and his grievances against power and/or disillusionment with the media as well. Perfect examples of irate elitism.
This is still true even though Chomsky has become almost palatable to the major press since Bush began his outrages on democracy. His last two books were reviewed by the New York Times in respectful if unfavorable terms, which is fine and at least professional.
Yet his work is still liable to be harshly ridiculed and dismissed, in such a way that Chomsky readers can’t help but see as an elite repudiation of their own concerns and importance. It’s a big insult when popular ideas are rejected outright without a care in the world, and the Washington Post’s treatment of Chomsky’s latest: “Interventions” is another such exercise in elitist hate.
For the task of character assassination, they called in a scholar from the Brookings Institution, the type of place where “Chomsky” is just another word for “radical” and therefore, “Maniac” The character assassination is done by implicitly rejecting any claim to interest Chomsky might have, without even bothering to explain why. Chomsky’s just an insane lunatic, this is well understood, and needs no explanation.
Instead of identifying the themes in “Interventions” and giving a thorough appraisal, National Journal writer Jonathan Rauch just gives a disinterested, curt and pompous dismissal of an outsider, whose opinions are clearly samplings of dementia to a Brookings scholar - an insider. Rauch doesn’t even need to explain possible disagreements: it’s simply understood among insiders. If Chomsky suspects that Washington wanted to impose its neoliberal economic agenda in Kosovo, or if he sees Bush as an obstacle to a two state solution in the Middle East, then our natural reaction is supposed to be incredulity. “Ah good Ol’ Rauch! There he goes making stuff up again!” But as Rauch assures insiders reading the review: “(I’m not making that up.)”
Not only his contempt, but Rauch’s laziness was unbearable, and I can’t believe that the Washington Post went through with this, seeing as they printed the very story Rauch attributed to Chomsky’s assumed insanity. Rauch, sampling Chomsky’s flights to a separate reality, quotes him thus:
“…the 2001 U.S. attack on Afghanistan’s Taliban ‘was undertaken with the expectation that it might drive several million people over the edge of starvation.’”
If this is a flight to a separate reality, then what was the reality? Was there no anticipation of mass starvation in Afghanistan? No Risk? This is ludicrous. Millions in Afghanistan were already on the verge of starvation before the September 11th, and fears of “a humanitarian disaster” became news whenever aide operations were endangered by internal conflict. When the United States threatened its own violence after 9/11, the fears were repeated, and there’s no denying this.
On September 27th, 2001, CNN Reported the UN’s concerns over the impending invasion of Afghanistan. They quoted a UNHCR Spokesperson to the effect that “The potential is there for an absolutely massive crisis.”
Two days later, on September 29th The Executive Directors of UNICEF, the World Food Progamme and various UN Aid coordinators issued a joint statement declaring that “A humanitarian crisis of stunning proportions is unfolding in Afghanistan…By 1 November, the World Food Programme (WFP) estimates that 5.5 million people will depend on its food shipments.”
The next day, Kofi Annan endorsed the statements lamenting the consequences of the looming invasion of Afghanistan: “More than two decades of conflict, seven years of oppressive rule by the Taliban regime, and three years of severe drought have left more than five million people dependent on foreign aid for their very survival. Now, tragically, that aid has been interrupted.
Oops.
The same day, the Washington Post ran this headline: “Afghans Face New Humanitarian Crisis; With War and Winter Looming, Aid Workers Predict Mass Hunger, Deaths”
The article reported that “Afghans who are among the world’s toughest survivors now face potential death in large numbers.” The article’s source was very clear:
“‘It is impossible to overestimate just how bad it is,’ said Rupert Colville of the U.N. refugee agency.’It’s almost inconceivable, and nobody can get in to film or describe it.’”
“No matter what happens, aid officials said, events in Afghanistan could fast deteriorate into one of the worst humanitarian crises ever.”
If no such catastrophe ensued, The Washington Post again explains why.
In December after the war started, the Washington Post reported that a famine had been “diverted” through an unprecedented amount of wheat being dropped. But they too reported that this favorable picture was “dramatically different from the one given at the height of the U.S. bombing campaign, when war and a three-year drought were said to have put 1.5 million Afghans at risk of starvation, and 6 million in dire need of food.”
The Washington Post is not published in Chomsky’s separate reality, but right here in this all-too-real world of abundant misery. This shows that The United States went to Afghanistan when there was widespread expectation of a possible catastrophe, I just gave the sources, and so the evidence is conclusive. If this discredits Chomsky, then the same goes for The UN, CNN, The Washington Post, and other news sources such as The New York Times, The Guardian, and The Telegraph.
As punishment for his insensitivity to the much covered plight of starving Afghans, I motion that the Brookings Institution order Mr. Raunch to write a report assessing how many Afghanis did starve to death despite the vigorous efforts of Aid organizations, for I can’t find any such survey.
Thankfully, Rauch’s review is very short. He does however give his counter to Chomsky’s assessment of Bush’s Iraq invasion as imperialist. Given that Bush is supporting the democratically elected Iraqi government, his imperialism must be “of a very curious sort.” He then goes on to make the shocking statement, completely out of tune with general sentiment, that
“In truth, foreign policy in the Bush years has blended aggression, humanitarianism, idealism and realism into a strange new brew. Pouring this new wine into old anti-imperialist bottles hardly does it justice.”
If idealist rhetoric like that sung by the White House gives a war idealism and humanitarianism, then this whole generation should perhaps rethink its moral judgment of imperial powers from Rome to Great Britain, whose professions of good intent were as loud. And never mind the central issues: that Bush pursued the war with hidden objectives, that he deliberately misled Congress and the public for this war to launch, and that he committed impeachable offenses in the course of his deception – we are witnessing idealism of a very curious sort- call it Brookings Idealism
Rauch ends his review with a mere afterthought that Chomsky is not the thinker to give the world a valid deconstruction of American foreign policy.
And so it goes, the complete lack of interest in Chomsky’s large readership. As the New York Times wrote, Chomsky “may be the most widely read American voice on foreign policy on the planet today.” Yet Rauch can’t be bothered to examine this global interest. If Chomsky’s views jibe with the millions who buy his books, but not with the stiffs who smoke cigars at the Brookings Institution, then he is not the thinker to provide us with a leftist critique. This gross lack of interest and analysis perhaps warrants another homework assignment for Rauch: Why do so many people read Chomsky?
We at Cyrano’s and Thomas Paine’s Corner need your help! Our editors and writers work hard to provide you with the most original and diverse progressive content on the Internet. We are fiercely determined to provide enough people with a sound political education so that, in authentic democratic fashion, the will not only liberate their minds, but eventually cure the economic and moral disease afflicting our nation.
We derive no financial remuneration for our efforts to build a social order based on justice, democracy, compassion, and humanity. Isn’t that your desire as well? In fact, it costs us money to maintain our Internet presence.
If each of you donated a mere $5 a month—a trifling sum these days, the price of pack of smokes or a fancy beer—we would have enough money to cover our overhead, upgrade our server capacity, expand our audio offerings, and begin to provide you with compelling video content.
By helping us in this fashion you will be assisting the birth of a new type of American democracy, one which, genuinely rooted in the ideals we profess to honor, will finally measure up to its promise.
For you, for us, for everything that you think needs defending, make a donation that fits your budget today by clicking
The truth is always painful and stirs a threatning pang even in the deepest of unevolved denial guts but good Germans instinctively know where to line up for they are blinded by the mirage of the golden carrots and soothed with the safety of acceptance from their superiors. Just as the Stasi turned many a creative artist into tenderized unthinkers it has now become a crime to think. Thinking is subversive. Typing these words could put me on a list. How many more plays from the Nazi playbook must we give a nod to before we run down the street screaming. The world is in tune with Noam and evolving. Mr. Rauch’s bad ju ju brew is not a new wine; it’s nothing more than stale vinegar. I just love these paid hacks fluffing out empty nationalistic editorials completely void of merit or soul for the sake of a buck. Give me a few hundred million to smear a brave saint…sorry I’d rather die in poverty than compromise my integrity and someday those golden carrots will be in the shreader.
oh dear I have misspelled a few words but my gist is genuine.
Professional writers bore me, bloggers are far more interesting to read, for the sole reason that they speak from the gut,and provide alternative perspectives - regardless of spelling errors;)
Jonathan Lenglainon 07 Sep 2007 at 11:05 am
“Professional writers bore me, bloggers are far more interesting to read, for the sole reason that they speak from the gut,and provide alternative perspectives - regardless of spelling errors;)”
Hey Jon,
Isn’t writing in pretentious language, and using words that people with masters degrees need to look up, what modern writing is all about? Verbal gymnastics is a post-modern art form, and far exceeds substance, and doesn’t in any way shape or form impede readers from understanding simple points!! (sarcasm)
I read Chomsky because he is learned and thought provoking. As to the imperialism, it has always been cloaked in moralism. Even Spanish soldiers murdered indian children to protect them from a life of sin leading to hell.
I find his prose to be tortuous. But, there is nothing wrong with intellectual reaching every once in awhile. I think Chomsky was naive in downplaying 911 as a conspiracy leading to a protection racket. No. He doesn’t always use his street smarts, but he has plenty.