Some Astute Criticism of Noam Chomsky

220px-Chomsky

Noam Chomsky, a hero to many of the Left, has been predictably skeptical of the Obama administration’s position on Syria. In an interview with  Ceasefire Magzine, Chomsky stated that both the US and Syria don’t want an outcome in Syria – they are entirely happy to see the civil war rage on as Syrian infighting is beneficial to them.

Chomsky generally analyzes international relations from a geopolitical power point of view – he sees states as self interested actors doing their best to improve their position, and has little time for political rhetoric designed to obfuscate that self interest. It’s a useful tool to use when analyzing politics, but I’ve increasingly felt that it has its limits. A reader, Laurin Suiter, left the following comment on Chomsky on our Facebook page that I think provides some of the most astute criticism I’ve seen:

As a linguist, he is a genius, on par with Einstein or Hawking in his chosen field. As a political analyst, I outgrew him some 5 years after college. Whatever gifts he has as a linguist only serve him in some kind of quasi-autistic-like capacity in sociopolitical analysis. After awhile, the formula becomes pat – he is a one-note song. You could practically write your own Chomsky Mad Libs based on this formula. It is certainly true that the U.S. is far from the good guys in white hats caricature drawn by most of the Right and the neocons, but he makes a fetish out of his contrarian deconstruction, to the point where the U.S. (and/or Israel) is the only abuser of power, the only hypocrite, the only nation committing human rights abuses. This plays perfectly into the Right-wing lie that all Leftists are knee-jerk anti-Americans or always critical of America. Chomsky is not anti-American, and not always critical of America, but he plys that turf enough to sell books and excite his fan base. His intellect gives him a pass that most would not have the luxury otherwise. To his credit, he is genuinely brilliant, and not a moronic demagogue like Limbaugh or Beck. Still, he is a one-trick pony, no matter how eloquent and pointed his arguments.

Not necessarily intentionally, he inflates the self-importance of the more incoherent factions of the Left/Occupy crowd (the doppelgangers of the incoherent Right/Teabagger crowd). His academic cred as a linguist gives him disproportionate weight as a spokesman for the Left (there is no one who speaks for the Left – it is perpetually torn by the usual factional squabbles – never mind that such a concept is antithetical to much of the Left), and therefore, he is given disproportionate opposition status by the Right for the same reason.

I always welcome his dissenting views to the debate, however, no matter my objections stated above. Dissent is always essential for civic health in a democracy.

I’m not sure I completely agree – Chomsky is incredibly critical of other countries – he just doesn’t write that much about them. Either way, Suiter’s criticism is still incredibly insightful (at least in my opinion) and far more observant than the usual ‘Chomsky hates America’ nonsense people who don’t read him spout whenever his name is mentioned.

Like The Daily Banter on Facebook!
  • It's Time To Arrest Ultra-Orthodox Jews Who Delay Flights Over Seating

    It's Time To Arrest Ultra-Orthodox Jews Who Delay Flights Over Seating

    Another flight is delayed because ultra-Orthodox Jewish men refuse to take their seats next to women[Read more...]
    How American Corporations and the Super Rich Steal From the Rest of Us
    It Would Have Been Nice If the NYT Demanded We Prosecute Dick Cheney When It Mattered

    It Would Have Been Nice If the NYT Demanded We Prosecute Dick Cheney When It Mattered

    The New York Times finally thinks Cheney should stand trial for torture. Too bad it's a decade late [Read more...]
    NBC Nightly News Wants To Know Why More Doctors Aren't Prescribing Prayer

    NBC Nightly News Wants To Know Why More Doctors Aren't Prescribing Prayer

    Yes, NBC News, why AREN'T more doctors recommending prayer to their patients?[Read more...]
    Picture of the Day: Have Yourself an Inclusive, Socially Aware Little Wintertime Holiday

    Picture of the Day: Have Yourself an Inclusive, Socially Aware Little Wintertime Holiday

    Don't be dreaming of a white privilege Christmas this year.[Read more...]
    • whoau49

      I don’t get it. What’s this valid criticism of Chomsky? Whoever you are quoting isn’t presenting a set of counterarguments to Chomsky’s viewpoint of the state or the correlate idea about the working class (Hedges as a similar thinker on that route) or his take on international division of power (shared by Ha Joon Chang, West, Naomi Klein, among many others, to show that there are other thinkers who produce similar writing to Chomsky’s). All this dude is saying is that his rhetoric has remained the same but doesn’t really go beyond that, to talk about points in Chomsky’s rhetoric that he disagrees. Thus the only thing to agree or disagree here is if Chomsky is a “one-trick pony” and I guess he is. But what’s wrong with that? Why fix and change what’s not broken (and effectively, true)?

    • Nick Babcock

      On second reading of the “astute criticism” I regret my earlier comment. It is not even worthy of response.

    • Nick Babcock

      I am not seeing the insightful criticism. Can someone help me out? Her only real point seems to be “but he makes a fetish out of his contrarian deconstruction, to the point
      where the U.S. (and/or Israel) is the only abuser of power, the only
      hypocrite, the only nation committing human rights abuses.”

      But that criticism is not new and it’s incredibly stupid. First, he does condemn other countries — he says the Kremlin destroyed his professional field out of their hatred for him. But more importantly, Chomsky has said over and over again that his focus is the US because as a citizen he has some responsibility for its actions and it is something he can actually do something about, putting aside the outsized influence of the US.

    • Max

      I don’t get what about this “critic” which is nothing but a bash of peyoratives in which Chomsky is that disqualified of the political comment arena for having a stand on social issues, you agree or don’t since the writer doesn’t provide one single argument against Chomsky’s political analysis nor gives any teasing other than stating he is or he does. I would like to read a real argument against his political views instead of someone just stating their judgement without offering any counter argument.

    • George Beck

      Ben,

      You seem like a person who wants to present cogent, thoughtful news to people. Why embarrass yourself with infantile name calling and innuendo?

      And, One trick pony? Please! I suppose Martin Luther King, Jr. was a one trick pony as well??

      If there is a glaring issue in this country it is that imperialism, greed, and domination rein supreme in our governments methods of dealing with adversaries (adversaries translates to anyone who disagrees with them, in the USA or otherwise).

      Should Chomsky move on to, say, commentary of Facebook posts and smear
      tactics??

      I do agree with your use of the word astute: having or showing an ability to assess situations or people and turn this to one’s advantage.

      It’s clear you’re hurt by what you perceive as Chomsky’s reputation being tarnished, but you are acting like a hurt teenager whose girlfriend dumped him.

      With “news” like this and your heavily editing version of Chomsky and Monbiot’s conversation on here, I’ll go elsewhere for my information…

    • Gordon Blair

      I don’t see any value in this comment at all. What actual point of interest does it make? It’s just someone’s subjective judgement presented without much real argument. The title of this article is misleading, and the intro sets up what is basically a weak and obvious smear job. “Predictably skeptical”!? This phrase calculatedly echoes the “one-note song” criticism in the comment.

      He repeats himself a lot, yes, because he is concerned about the effects of his words and actions, and he wants to send out key messages. All politicians do this. But look how he deals with questions so freely, and usually with uncanny recall of some supporting relevant source, piece of history or statistic.

      If you dislike political analysis that focuses on geopolitical powerplays, why not present a compelling alternative vision and rigorously test its explanatory power and accuracy? For instance, which type of narrative better explains the US misadventure in Vietnam: ruthless geopolitical muscle-flexing or naive idealism? I’ll give you a clue: I, personally, have never tortured or killed anyone out of naive idealism.

    • http://www.ziegegeist.com/ Don ONeill

      The “one trick pony” criticism of Chomsky says a lot less about him than it does about the deeply sick state of political commentary and the media in general in America.

      Yes, Chomsky has been saying the same things for fifty years. Over and over again. This is because his primary target- the American government’s conduct in world affairs – has been remarkably consistent over the last fifty years. This is called being consistent. Calling it “one-trick” isn’t a critique of content. It’s a critique of form. And there are huge problems with that.

      If you want ponies that do tricks, then you need to examine your expectation that political commentary be entertaining. We’ve become so accustomed to this bombardment of entertainment-news that we now expect it. CNN plays pumping techno music, splays graphics all over the screen, they make the news as entertaining as possible so that they can hawk toothpaste and cat food for their corporate advertisers. We don’t want one trick, we want a thousand tricks. We don’t want articles that point out things that people have been pointing out since the 50’s regardless of how true they are. Truth doesn’t matter, give us shock. Give us some counter-intuitive slate-pitch headline that grabs our attention.

      You think this criticism is astute? I think it embodies everything that is stupid and vulgar and sick in our political discourse in America. She says “It’s true that Chomsky is brilliant. It’s true that I agree with him a lot, and when I don’t it’s still valuable to have dissent. His arguments are eloquent and pointed. His problem is that he’s just way too consistent and boring.”

      Perhaps if he wrote more about whatever psycho-crisis of the moment that perpetually grips the American media, instead of focusing on his longstanding, carefully constructed criticisms of the underpinnings of American society. More columns about John Edwards love-baby, fewer about Vietnam (snooze!). More about Sarah Palin’s children, less about Pinochet…I mean, how last century.

      I think this commenter has spent far too much time listening to American political media figures and journalists who trip over themselves trying to figure out something smart to say about John Boener’s leadership. Who fellate their way into beltway cocktail parties so that they can drop little hints in their next blog post about how in-the-know they are.

      I want facts and knowledge that cut right to the core of current affairs. I want insight into what kind of forces are at work, when we’ve seen this before, what we can expect. I want someone with a breadth of historical knowledge that exceeds my own, and who can put events into a wider context. I want someone who is motivated by a desire to do good in the world, not a social climbing careerist motivated by their own prestige, or a TV station motivated by selling advertising. I want someone who isn’t scared to underpaint their analyses with basic human morality instead of someone who is desperate to show how they are very smart because they are neutral and consider “all sides”.

      She wants a pony that does tricks.

      • Collin237

        Someone dares to suggest that Chomsky might be on slightly the wrong tack, and your head exploded. Chomsky must have a pretty weak case if you have to make these outrageous accusations to defend him.

        And that description of what you want sounds a lot like the motto of the 700 Club. Which makes me wonder what you consider being informed.

        • http://www.ziegegeist.com/ Don ONeill

          Rest assured, my head is safely in tact. I have no idea what the 700 club’s motto is, but I’m sure it’s quite interesting. Thanks for your feedback.

    • Chris Barczynski

      Perhaps his analysis of our foreign policy seems so one-trick ponyesque because our foreign policy is so one dimensional- always promoting the interests of multi-national corporations, always in the name of profit. Simply because the criticism always sounds the same does not necessarily make it any less accurate.

    • Lance Boyle

      Like Chomsky, the commenter makes a lot of valid points and then loses me with something obviously incorrect. When he states “… his contrarian deconstruction, to the point where the U.S. (and/or Israel) is the only abuser of power…” it makes me realize that he’s not that knowledgeable on Chompsky’s writings.

    • Randi Susan Klein

      This
      is an interesting perspective. I clearly do not lean to the right, as
      this author does. But the criticisms of Noam Chomsky are on point. Have a
      look at the comments, below the article, as well.

      Noam
      Chomsky may be a brilliant linguist. But he is not a political or social
      scientist, and should not claim expertise in those areas. Perhaps he is
      a one song show, as the author suggests.

      As an aside, I have
      always found Chomsky to be somewhat boring. At least his oratory. I
      usually lose interest and concentration after about 5 minutes of trying
      to listen to him. To me, he sounds monotone. Perhaps like his one song
      show.

    • c03x1s7

      Chomsky’s linguistics ideas are nothing special, and his politics are idiotic. The man is the product of too little brains, too much narcissism, and quite a lot of KGB propaganda. I didn’t need to outgrow him. I recognized an idiot when I saw one.

    • David Buccola

      Astute criticism? Where? If Chomsky focuses on the abuse of power of the US it’s because he lives here. We have a responsibility to not only know about these abuses but to try and stop them.

      The notion that his position in the field of linguistics somehow provides him a platform in politics is laughable. Most of the throngs who turn out to see him speak on politics rarely know much if anything about his linguistic work. The fact is for 50 years he’s made a name for himself by not only writing and speaking about these injustices but by also fighting back against them.

      Astute criticisms can be made of Chomsky, but this is little more than an envious child crying out.

    • http://secondthoughts.typepad.com/ Prokofy

      My linguistics professor in university used to explain to us that Chomsky’s linguistics was sectarian and crazy but his politics were brilliant. Then my political science professor used to explain that Chomsky’s politics were crazy and sectarian but his linguistics was brilliant. This is how I got a good education. More people should get such an education today.

    • ckhcorp

      So he compares tea baggers, who proven by the documentary Astro-Turf were deliberately mislead into disliking the health care by Koch Brothers, and The Occupy Wall Street crowd who felt like the bankers who failed in 08 were not held accountable ? ..
      Interesting observation by this genius fella

    • formerlywhatithink

      Chomsky, like Cornel West, has been coasting on his reputation for years.

    • kfreed

      Noam Chomsky (linguist) is to politics as Bill Gates (tech nerd) is to agriculture/GMOs and Glenn Greenwald (Koch propagandist) is to journalism. Even if one can be said to be brilliant in one area, it doesn’t mean they necessarily know squat about anything else.

    • Gunnut2600

      Chomsky always reminds me of the worst excesses of the science wars.

      I fully admit, as an engineer…I do not get him at all.

    • That River Gal

      Intellectual giants are still human beings. Human beings are not infallible. For instance, a lot of fans of Dawkins are trying to wrap their brains about adults sexually petting minors the other day. Not to say Chomsky has said something that outrageous.

      ETA: Or did he?

    • Schneibster

      You know my opinion. And I’m a leftist myself. I think Laurin has it right, soup to nuts.

      And I will remind you that he still denies Srebrenica. That was enough for me.

      • That River Gal

        Wow, that opened up a whole night’s worth of google catch up for me. Thanks.

        • Schneibster

          Chomsky and his ‘bots have screwed the trail up pretty well, but you can still see the original quotes. If you have trouble finding the exact stuff let me know, I prolly have something in my link library.

          • http://www.ziegegeist.com/ Don ONeill

            I’d like to see that myself. I figure if you’re going to make that kind of accusation against a person, you ought to back it up.

            • Schneibster
            • http://www.ziegegeist.com/ Don ONeill

              You must have pasted the wrong link, because in that one he specifically acknowledges the unprovoked slaughter of 8000 people at Srebrenica.

            • Schneibster

              Chomsky-bots always figure out a lie.

            • http://www.ziegegeist.com/ Don ONeill

              I’m hardly a chomsky-bot, I just believe in treating people fairly. Can you quote him, even one sentence, where he denies the massacre in Srebrenica? In your link you mention he explicity says, and I’m quoting, “The mass slaughter in Srebrenica, for example, is certainly a horror story and major crime” and again refers to “8000 outright murders without provocation in Srebrenica”. Can you offer a quote where he denies these events took place?

            • Schneibster

              Sorry, you asked, you got proof, now you wanna argue about it just like any other kind of -bot.

              No.

              Your guy’s a lying racist scumbag who supports, to this day, the men who ordered Srebrenica. And is caught squirming and trying to evade by Monbiot, masterfully. Chumpsky should stick to linguistics.

            • http://www.ziegegeist.com/ Don ONeill

              You were asked to produce a quote…even one single quote. You didn’t. I produced two – from your source – that contradict you. Evidence matters, and the evidence shows you are wrong. If you can’t produce a quote, don’t bother replying.

            • Schneibster

              I produced an entire article. The money quotes are the author’s.

              You’ll need to argue with him. I agree with his conclusion, which is Chomsky is deluded. I present his evidence.

              You haven’t produced any counter-evidence whatsoever.

              Sorry, guy, your dishonesty is palpable.

              You squirm like Chumpsky.

            • http://www.ziegegeist.com/ Don ONeill

              Like I said, if you can’t produce a single quote of Comsky’s where he says what you say he says, then your accusation can be safely dismissed.

              My counter evidence was where I quoted Chomsky specifically acknowledging the mass slaughter in Srebrenica. You say he does not acknowledge it.

              Therefore, you are proven wrong. And now you are being dishonest about it.

            • http://www.ziegegeist.com/ Don ONeill

              Also…cowardly.

            • Guest

              .

            • Schneibster

              So are you afraid to respond? My responses are right up there. I see nothing from you. You write an insult, get flagged, and go sulk.

              Bring it, Chumpsky-bot.

            • http://www.ziegegeist.com/ Don ONeill

              “Monbiot says so so it must be true” is your argument. Quote Chomsky and show that he has SAID what you say he SAID. If you can’t, then you are proven wrong. This is a simple argument. Did Chomsky deny the massacre at Srebrenica happened, or did he not? When he says, in his own words, the “mass slaughter in Srebrenica, for example, is certainly a horror story and major crime” and again refers to “8000 outright murders without provocation in Srebrenica” that is evidence that he does NOT deny it happened. If you can’t find an opposing quote, then you have no argument, period.

              As for Obama, Russia, or whatever else you’re talking about, that’s all irrelevant to the topic. The topic is you made an accusation of Chomsky. Apparently you have done it despite being in possession of proof that you are absolutely wrong about it, you apparently admit that you have no evidence to back up such an accusation, and now you’re trying to let some other journalist make your argument for you. That’s dishonest and cowardly. but apparently you are emotionally invested in your view, so by all means, carry on.

              When you produce a quote, I will reply. Otherwise, you and anything you have to say on the matter should rightly be dismissed without further comment.

            • Schneibster

              No, I presented Monbiot and you presented nothing is my argument.

              You don’t have any argument; all you do is try to create doubt.

            • http://www.ziegegeist.com/ Don ONeill

              When debating what Chomsky has said about Srebrenica, I produced an example of Chomsky saying something about Srebrenica. You did NOT produce an example of what Chomsky says about Srebrenica.

              Tell me, if we are trying to establish what Chomsky says about Srebrenica, what kind of evidence do you think would establish what Chomsky says about Srebrenica?

              Hmm. Personally, I think one thing that could help us figure out what Chomsky says about Srebrenica is looking at what Chomsky has said about Srebrenica. That’s why I gave you an example, from your own source, of what Chomsky says about Srebrenica.

              Now, if your opinion is that Chomsky’s statements on Srebrenica aren’t good evidence of what Chomsky says about Srebrenica, and that what Monbiot says about Srebrenica is better evidence of what Chomsky says about Srebrenica, please let me know, because that will tell me a lot about where you’re coming from.

            • Schneibster

              Sorry, Monbiot produces Chomsky’s own words and Chomsky fuddles and muddles and tries to obscure.

              It’s pitiful for anything but a squid.

            • http://www.ziegegeist.com/ Don ONeill

              Which words are those, exactly? If it’s that clear, you ought to be able to point them out.

            • Schneibster

              You’re trying to lawyer your way out of reality and I’m resisting you at every turn. And winning.

              Monbiot points them out just fine. It’s not a very long article. Just go read it. If you think he’s wrong go tell him. But I’m not going to make a distraction on this site arguing against the multitude of lies you’ll bring. Bots always bring lies. Chumpsky-bots no less than Paul-bots and jebus-bots.

              Having identified you as willing to lie for Chumpsky, that’s all I need to know to designate you as a bot.

              In the Navy we referred to your kind as -bait.

            • http://www.ziegegeist.com/ Don ONeill

              So “Monbiot says it, so therefore it’s true. I refuse to back up my accusation. Look elsewhere” is your final answer then?

              If it’s such a short article with such obvious quotes from Chomsky, why can’t you point them out?

            • Schneibster

              You don’t present anyone of comparable stature who denies Monbiot. After the way George destroys Chumpsky certainly he’s no match for him. And neither are you, given the way you keep avoiding answering his arguments.

              I’m not interested enough in Chumpsky-bait to bother. They’re not important enough to mean anything; all I mean to do is warn the credulous against your bullshit, just like warning them against the Moonies or the Hare Krishnas. Or the Rant-bait or the jebus-bait.

            • http://www.ziegegeist.com/ Don ONeill

              Nothing you say matters until you produce a quote that backs you up. You say Monbiot gives incriminating quotes in that article, but I see none. Where are they?

            • Schneibster

              Sorry, I produced and you didn’t.

              You’re lying again.

            • http://www.ziegegeist.com/ Don ONeill

              Question: What does Chomsky say?
              My answer: Things Chomsky says
              Your answer:…

            • Schneibster

              Read the Monbiot article.

              There simply isn’t any way to deny it. It’s Chumpsky’s own words.

            • Nick Babcock

              You should be ashamed of yourself. Pathetic. Your allegations can be dismissed indeed.

            • Schneibster

              Why?

              It’s typical of Chumpsky-bots that you never say why.

            • Nick Babcock

              Really? Never say why? See this entire thread, dumbfuck.

            • Schneibster

              “It’s in there.”

              Liar.

            • Gordon Blair

              Haha, that guy’s like: “I heard a bark from a dog that sounded like someone saying ‘Chomsky kills babies’, but all you CHUMPSKY bots tell me I’m crazy!!! Well, you would say that! Back in the Navy we massacred your kind, boy!”

              Yet you insist on reasoning with him. Save your energy. Seriously, it’s a total waste, unless you’re regarding it as some form of training.

            • http://www.ziegegeist.com/ Don ONeill

              I read it. Now you read it. See how he doesn’t quote Chomsky even once?

            • Schneibster

              No.

              You’re lying again.

              In fact I see him responding to Chomsky in detail, and specifying what precise Chomsky quote in the book in question he was referring to for each impeachment of Chomsky. It’s a masterful piece of reasoning.

              Your only reply is lies.

              This is transparent.

            • Joe

              I read it and I thank Schneibster for providing the link.
              Schneibster is right. Here is a relevant quote from Chomsky:

              “All of that is incomparably more significant than the question of how many people Serbs “executed” at Srebrenica as distinct from killing them in combat (the issue between you and Herman, once your misquotation is corrected: and the fact is that you don’t know, he doesn’t know, and we will probably never find out)”

              Note the use of the question marks as in “so-called executed” — deliberate casting of doubt — and the key words “we will probably never find out” — which is obviously straight-up massacre denial.

              One irony of your exchange with S. is that you keep demanding a simple answer, just as Chomsky is being asked a simple answer too. Did you read the manuscript, yes or no? What is your opinion of what happened at Sebrenica?

              But Chomsky won’t give a simple clear answer. His prose is truly awful to wade through. Muddy, argumentative, obscurantist. He keeps trying to change the subject and tell the journalist that his priorities are all wrong.

              To put it more clearly, which Chomsky is unable or unwilling to do, Chomsky is basically saying, You journalists are always ranting on about Sebrenica — you should be talking about the evil that Americans and the British are doing and have done, that’s the real genocide.

              He’s not being asked about his opinions of genocide generally, but one can see how devious and slippery he is in his answers. Extremely arrogant and condescending too — he’s trying to imply he knows much better what is really important and the journalist does not.

            • stupocalypto

              So demented….post the link, but don’t bother to actually read it.

    • Badgerite

      Personally, I think there is more to the world, more to people, and more to international relations between nations than raw self interest. I view nations as no different than people. (They are after all made up of people, not self interest machines). Therefore their actions are capable of being noble and rational (otherwise known as enlightened self interest) just as they are capable of being ignoble, murderous, destructive and not rational. Somehow when I listen to Chomsky, it seems as if he thinks the world would be better if America did not exist. I think that is patently absurd.

    • JesseKaellis

      Him a$shole!

    • Christopher Foxx

      Nicely written, but what is so insightful? Chomsky knows how to speak well and that’s gotten him a certain status, but there isn’t that much behind his words? Well, duh.