Over a few months, with a couple of e-mails, I wrote to Noam Chomsky about a handful of current issues facing the globe, and our daily lives. Here is what has developed.
2/16/04
SI: I was wondering what your take on the Democratic election has been so far,
and what you thought of Dennis Kucinich, regardless of chance to get elected.
NC: If we had a functioning democratic culture, and elections weren't basically bought, I think Kucinich would be far and away the best candidate. But as things now stand, it'll be two people born to great wealth and political influence who were in the same secret society at Yale, and have plenty of corporate support -- and the one with more will probably win, as usual.
SI: Would you recommend Nader run again? Should the green party keep strong
and make the democratic party fight for their votes?
NC: No, I wouldn't recommend that Nader run under current circumstances. Getting rid of the Bush crowd is very important, I think. They can do enormous damage with another mandate.
About Green tactics, I don't know; arguments can be given both ways.
SI: If Kerry wins, do you see much change occurring in the policies of our gov't in his four years or will it be a tamer corporate run white house?
NC: I doubt that a Kerry administration would be much different, but it would be somewhat different, if only because the parties have somewhat different constituencies, and have to be partially responsive to them. In a system of enormous power, small differences can translate into very large effects.
7/28/04
SI: From what you've seen of John Kerry's policies and promises, how do you expect the conflict between Israel, the US, & Palestine to develop if Kerry is elected? I ask this after reading that Palestine was considering going to the Security Council after the elections in regards to removing the "barrier." It seems hopeful to expect a change of relations with Israel when Kerry has indicated nothing of the sort.
NC: Kerry's policies on Israel, at least as stated, are about the same as Bush's. And the truth is that Clinton's weren't that much different, apart from the last few months when he was a lame duck president.
Palestinians can't go to the Security Council because the US will veto anything.
In fact, a large majority of the population supports the international consensus on a political settlement that the US has blocked for 30 years, but coverage is so distorted and meager that very few even know of the US role, and commentators (like Nicholas Kristof recently) can even talk of the US as having been an "honest broker" until Bush #2, which is outlandish considering the uncontroversial facts.
SI: Where do you stand on direct action in regards to environmental conservation? Currently there is a woman suspending herself in the forest to stop logging. Although this action is a nonviolent one, there are always more drastic monkey wrenching actions which occur too. I was wondering what your thoughts on this were.
NC: I don't think one can say anything general about direct action, which is after all a tactic, not a principle. Choice of tactics is a very serious matter. They have to be evaluated in terms of likely effects -- on public opinion, on policymakers, etc. Those on the scene are in the best position to judge.
SI: What are your thoughts on Sudan, and the actions or lack of actions occurring there. There seems to be a severe reluctance towards using the word "genocide" in this country but many indicators point to such a description. Does the word matter and what can be done which isn't?
NC: There are undoubtedly major atrocities going on in Sudan, and every effort should be made to bring them to an end, even though they are nowhere near as awful as what has been happening in the Eastern Congo and elsewhere. There are also far worse atrocities that we could easily bring to an end, without military intervention, sanctions, or in fact anything beyond spending pennies a day to bribe drug companies to produce drugs for the 8000 children who die every day of easily preventable diseases in southern Africa -- that's Rwanda-level killing every day, not just for 100 days as in Rwanda. But since there would be a slight cost to us, the
matter is not raised.
The term "genocide" has been so cheapened in recent years that it is hard
to decide whether it should be used at all. It's become more of a term of abuse and a political slogan than a meaningful description.
For more information about Noam Chomsky go to his website