Tuesday, October 03, 2017By Noam Chomsky and David Barsamian, TomDispatch |
Interview
President
Donald Trump looks on from the clubhouse during Sunday singles matches of the
Presidents Cup at Liberty National Golf Club on October 1, 2017 in Jersey City,
New Jersey. The most dangerous of Trump's antics have barely been reported.
(Photo: Cliff Hawkins / Getty Images)
This interview has been excerpted from Global
Discontents: Conversations on the Rising Threats to Democracy, the new
book by Noam Chomsky and David Barsamian to be published this December.
David
Barsamian: You have spoken about the difference between Trump's
buffoonery, which gets endlessly covered by the media, and the actual policies
he is striving to enact, which receive less attention. Do you think he has any
coherent economic, political, or international policy goals? What has Trump
actually managed to accomplish in his first months in office?
Noam
Chomsky: There is a diversionary
process under way, perhaps just a natural result of the propensities of the
figure at center stage and those doing the work behind the curtains.
At one level, Trump's antics ensure that attention
is focused on him, and it makes little difference how. Who even remembers the
charge that millions of illegal immigrants voted for Clinton,
depriving the pathetic little man of his Grand Victory? Or the accusation that Obama
had wiretapped Trump Tower? The claims themselves don't really
matter. It's enough that attention is diverted from what is happening in the
background. There, out of the spotlight, the most savage fringe of the
Republican Party is carefully advancing policies designed to enrich their true
constituency: the Constituency of private power and wealth, "the masters
of mankind," to borrow Adam Smith's phrase.
These policies will harm the irrelevant general
population and devastate future generations, but that's of little concern to
the Republicans. They've been trying to push through similarly destructive
legislation for years. Paul Ryan, for example, has long been advertising his
ideal of virtually eliminating the federal government, apart from service to
the Constituency -- though in the past he's wrapped his proposals in
spreadsheets so they would look wonkish to commentators. Now, while attention
is focused on Trump's latest mad doings, the Ryan gang and the executive branch
are ramming through legislation and orders that undermine workers' rights,
cripple consumer protections, and severely harm rural communities. They seek to
devastate health programs, revoking the taxes that pay for them in order to
further enrich their Constituency, and to eviscerate the Dodd-Frank Act, which imposed some
much-needed constraints on the predatory financial system that grew during the
neoliberal period.
That's just a sample of how the wrecking ball is
being wielded by the newly empowered Republican Party. Indeed, it is no longer
a political party in the traditional sense. Conservative political analysts
Thomas Mann and Norman Ornstein have described it more accurately as a "radical insurgency," one that has abandoned normal
parliamentary politics.
Much of this is being carried out stealthily, in
closed sessions, with as little public notice as possible. Other Republican policies
are more open, such as pulling out of the Paris climate agreement, thereby
isolating the US as a pariah state that refuses to participate in international
efforts to confront looming environmental disaster. Even worse, they are intent
on maximizing the use of fossil fuels, including the most dangerous;
dismantling regulations; and sharply cutting back on research and development
of alternative energy sources, which will soon be necessary for decent
survival.
The reasons behind the policies are a mix. Some are
simply service to the Constituency. Others are of little concern to the
"masters of mankind" but are designed to hold on to segments of the
voting bloc that the Republicans have cobbled together, since Republican
policies have shifted so far to the right that their actual proposals would not
attract voters. For example, terminating support for family planning is not
service to the Constituency. Indeed, that group may mostly support family
planning. But terminating that support appeals to the evangelical Christian
base -- voters who close their eyes to the fact that they are effectively
advocating more unwanted pregnancies and, therefore, increasing the frequency
of resort to abortion, under harmful and even lethal conditions.
Not all of the damage can be blamed on the con man
who is nominally in charge, on his outlandish appointments, or on the
congressional forces he has unleashed. Some of the most dangerous developments
under Trump trace back to Obama initiatives -- initiatives passed, to be sure,
under pressure from the Republican Congress.
The most dangerous of these has barely been
reported. A very important study in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists,
published in March 2017, reveals that the Obama nuclear weapons modernization
program has increased "the overall killing power of existing
US ballistic missile forces by a factor of roughly three -- and it creates
exactly what one would expect to see, if a nuclear-armed state were planning to
have the capacity to fight and win a nuclear war by disarming enemies with a
surprise first strike." As the analysts point out, this new capacity undermines
the strategic stability on which human survival depends. And the chilling
record of near disaster and reckless behavior of leaders in past years only
shows how fragile our survival is. Now this program is being carried forward
under Trump. These developments, along with the threat of environmental
disaster, cast a dark shadow over everything else -- and are barely discussed,
while attention is claimed by the performances of the showman at center stage.
Whether Trump has any idea what he and his henchmen are
up to is not clear. Perhaps he is completely authentic: an ignorant,
thin-skinned megalomaniac whose only ideology is himself. But what is happening
under the rule of the extremist wing of the Republican organization is all too
plain.
Do you
see any encouraging activity on the Democrats' side? Or is it time to begin
thinking about a third party?
There is a lot to think about. The most remarkable
feature of the 2016 election was the Bernie Sanders campaign, which broke the
pattern set by over a century of US political history. A substantial body of
political science research convincingly establishes that elections are pretty
much bought; campaign funding alone is a remarkably good predictor of
electability, for Congress as well as for the presidency. It also predicts the
decisions of elected officials. Correspondingly, a considerable majority of the
electorate -- those lower on the income scale -- are effectively
disenfranchised, in that their representatives disregard their preferences. In
this light, there is little surprise in the victory of a billionaire TV star
with substantial media backing: direct backing from the leading cable channel,
Rupert Murdoch's Fox, and from highly influential right-wing talk radio;
indirect but lavish backing from the rest of the major media, which was
entranced by Trump's antics and the advertising revenue that poured in.
The Sanders campaign, on the other hand, broke
sharply from the prevailing model. Sanders was barely known. He had virtually
no support from the main funding sources, was ignored or derided by the media,
and labeled himself with the scare word "socialist." Yet he is now
the most popular political figure in the country by a
large margin.
At the very least, the success of the Sanders
campaign shows that many options can be pursued even within the stultifying
two-party framework, with all of the institutional barriers to breaking free of
it. During the Obama years, the Democratic Party disintegrated at the local and
state levels. The party had largely abandoned the working class years earlier,
even more so with Clinton trade and fiscal policies that undermined US
manufacturing and the fairly stable employment it provided.
There is no dearth of progressive policy proposals.
The program developed by Robert Pollin in his book Greening
the Global Economy is one very promising approach. Gar Alperovitz's
work on building an authentic democracy based on worker
self-management is another. Practical implementations of these approaches and
related ideas are taking shape in many different ways. Popular organizations,
some of them outgrowths of the Sanders campaign, are actively engaged in taking
advantage of the many opportunities that are available.
At the same time, the established two-party
framework, though venerable, is by no means graven in stone. It's no secret
that in recent years, traditional political institutions have been declining in
the industrial democracies, under the impact of what is called
"populism." That term is used rather loosely to refer to the wave of
discontent, anger, and contempt for institutions that has accompanied the
neoliberal assault of the past generation, which led to stagnation for the
majority alongside a spectacular concentration of wealth in the hands of a few.
Functioning democracy erodes as a natural effect of
the concentration of economic power, which translates at once to political
power by familiar means, but also for deeper and more principled reasons. The
doctrinal pretense is that the transfer of decision-making from the public
sector to the "market" contributes to individual freedom, but the
reality is different. The transfer is from public institutions, in which voters
have some say, insofar as democracy is functioning, to private tyrannies -- the
corporations that dominate the economy -- in which voters have no say at all.
In Europe, there is an even more direct method of undermining the threat of
democracy: placing crucial decisions in the hands of the unelected troika --
the International Monetary Fund, the European Central Bank, and the European
Commission -- which heeds the northern banks and the creditor community, not
the voting population.
These policies are dedicated to making sure that
society no longer exists, Margaret Thatcher's famous description of the world
she perceived -- or, more accurately, hoped to create: one where there is no
society, only individuals. This was Thatcher's unwitting paraphrase of Marx's
bitter condemnation of repression in France, which left society as a "sack of potatoes," an amorphous mass that cannot
function. In the contemporary case, the tyrant is not an autocratic ruler -- in
the West, at least -- but concentrations of private power.
The collapse of centrist governing institutions has
been evident in elections: in France in mid-2017 and in the United States a few
months earlier, where the two candidates who mobilized popular forces were
Sanders and Trump -- though Trump wasted no time in demonstrating the
fraudulence of his "populism" by quickly ensuring that the harshest
elements of the old establishment would be firmly ensconced in power in the
luxuriating "swamp."
These processes might lead to a breakdown of the
rigid American system of one-party business rule with two competing factions,
with varying voting blocs over time. They might provide an opportunity for a
genuine "people's party" to emerge, a party where the voting bloc is
the actual constituency, and the guiding values merit respect.
Trump's first
foreign trip was to Saudi Arabia. What significance do you see in that, and
what does it mean for broader Middle East policies? And what do you make of
Trump's animus toward Iran?
Saudi Arabia is the kind of place where Trump feels
right at home: a brutal dictatorship, miserably repressive (notoriously so for
women's rights, but in many other areas as well), the leading producer of oil
(now being overtaken by the United States), and with plenty of money. The trip
produced promises of massive weapons sales -- greatly cheering the Constituency
-- and vague intimations of other Saudi gifts. One of the consequences was that
Trump's Saudi friends were given a green light to escalate their disgraceful
atrocities in Yemen and to discipline Qatar, which has been a shade too
independent of the Saudi masters. Iran is a factor there. Qatar shares a
natural gas field with Iran and has commercial and cultural relations with it,
frowned upon by the Saudis and their deeply reactionary associates.
Iran has long been regarded by US leaders, and by US
media commentary, as extraordinarily dangerous, perhaps the most dangerous
country on the planet. This goes back to well before Trump. In the doctrinal system,
Iran is a dual menace: it is the leading supporter of terrorism, and its
nuclear programs pose an existential threat to Israel, if not the whole world.
It is so dangerous that Obama had to install an advanced air defense system
near the Russian border to protect Europe from Iranian nuclear weapons -- which
don't exist, and which, in any case, Iranian leaders would use only if
possessed by a desire to be instantly incinerated in return.
That's the doctrinal system. In the real world,
Iranian support for terrorism translates to support for Hezbollah, whose major
crime is that it is the sole deterrent to yet another destructive Israeli
invasion of Lebanon, and for Hamas, which won a free election in the Gaza Strip
-- a crime that instantly elicited harsh sanctions and led the US government to
prepare a military coup. Both organizations, it is true, can be charged with
terrorist acts, though not anywhere near the amount of terrorism that stems
from Saudi Arabia's involvement in the formation and actions of jihadi
networks.
As for Iran's nuclear weapons programs, US
intelligence has confirmed what anyone can easily figure out for themselves: if
they exist, they are part of Iran's deterrent strategy. There is also the
unmentionable fact that any concern about Iranian weapons of mass destruction
(WMDs) could be alleviated by the simple means of heeding Iran's call to
establish a WMD-free zone in the Middle East. Such a zone is strongly supported
by the Arab states and most of the rest of the world and is blocked primarily
by the United States, which wishes to protect Israel's WMD capabilities.
Since the doctrinal system falls apart on
inspection, we are left with the task of finding the true reasons for US animus
toward Iran. Possibilities readily come to mind. The United States and Israel
cannot tolerate an independent force in a region that they take to be theirs by
right. An Iran with a nuclear deterrent is unacceptable to rogue states that
want to rampage however they wish throughout the Middle East. But there is more
to it than that. Iran cannot be forgiven for overthrowing the dictator
installed by Washington in a military coup in 1953, a coup that destroyed
Iran's parliamentary regime and its unconscionable belief that Iran might have
some claim on its own natural resources. The world is too complex for any
simple description, but this seems to me the core of the tale.
It also wouldn't hurt to recall that in the past six
decades, scarcely a day has passed when Washington was not tormenting Iranians.
After the 1953 military coup came US support for a dictator described by
Amnesty International as a leading violator of fundamental human rights.
Immediately after his overthrow came the US-backed invasion of Iran by Saddam
Hussein, no small matter. Hundreds of thousands of Iranians were killed, many
by chemical weapons. Reagan's support for his friend Saddam was so extreme that
when Iraq attacked a US ship, the USS Stark, killing 37 American sailors,
it received only a light tap on the wrist in response. Reagan also sought to
blame Iran for Saddam's horrendous chemical warfare attacks on Iraqi Kurds.
Eventually, the United States intervened directly in
the Iran-Iraq War, leading to Iran's bitter capitulation. Afterward, George H.
W. Bush invited Iraqi nuclear engineers to the United States for advanced training in nuclear weapons production -- an
extraordinary threat to Iran, quite apart from its other implications. And, of
course, Washington has been the driving force behind harsh sanctions against
Iran that continue to the present day.
Trump, for his part, has joined the harshest and
most repressive dictators in shouting imprecations at Iran. As it happens, Iran
held an election during his Middle East travel extravaganza -- an election
which, however flawed, would be unthinkable in the land of his Saudi hosts, who
also happen to be the source of the radical Islamism that is poisoning the
region. But US animus against Iran goes far beyond Trump himself. It includes
those regarded as the "adults" in the Trump administration, like
James "Mad Dog" Mattis, the secretary of defense. And it stretches a
long way into the past.
What are
the strategic issues where Korea is concerned? Can anything be done to defuse
the growing conflict?
Korea has been a festering problem since the end of
World War II, when the hopes of Koreans for unification of the peninsula were
blocked by the intervention of the great powers, the United States bearing
primary responsibility.
The North Korean dictatorship may well win the prize
for brutality and repression, but it is seeking and to some extent carrying out
economic development, despite the overwhelming burden of a huge military
system. That system includes, of course, a growing arsenal of nuclear weapons
and missiles, which pose a threat to the region and, in the longer term, to
countries beyond -- but its function is to be a deterrent, one that the North
Korean regime is unlikely to abandon as long as it remains under threat of
destruction.
Today, we are instructed that the great challenge
faced by the world is how to compel North Korea to freeze these nuclear and
missile programs. Perhaps we should resort to more sanctions, cyberwar,
intimidation; to the deployment of the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense
(THAAD) anti-missile system, which China regards as a serious threat to its own
interests; perhaps even to direct attack on North Korea -- which, it is
understood, would elicit retaliation by massed artillery, devastating Seoul and
much of South Korea even without the use of nuclear weapons.
But there is another option, one that seems to be
ignored: we could simply accept North Korea's offer to do what we are
demanding. China and North Korea have already proposed that North Korea freeze its nuclear
and missile programs. The proposal, though, was rejected at once by Washington,
just as it had been two years earlier, because it includes a quid pro quo: it
calls on the United States to halt its threatening military exercises on North
Korea's borders, including simulated nuclear-bombing attacks by B-52s.
The Chinese-North Korean proposal is hardly
unreasonable. North Koreans remember well that their country was
literally flattened by US bombing, and many may recall how US forces
bombed major dams when there were no other targets left. There were gleeful reports in American military publications
about the exciting spectacle of a huge flood of water wiping out the rice crops
on which "the Asian" depends for survival. They are very much worth
reading, a useful part of historical memory.
The offer to freeze North Korea's nuclear and
missile programs in return for an end to highly provocative actions on North
Korea's border could be the basis for more far-reaching negotiations, which
could radically reduce the nuclear threat and perhaps even bring the North
Korea crisis to an end. Contrary to much inflamed commentary, there are good
reasons to think such negotiations might succeed. Yet even though the North
Korean programs are constantly described as perhaps the greatest threat we
face, the Chinese-North Korean proposal is unacceptable to Washington, and is
rejected by US commentators with impressive unanimity. This is another entry in
the shameful and depressing record of near-reflexive preference for force when
peaceful options may well be available.
The 2017 South Korean elections may offer a ray of
hope. Newly elected President Moon Jae-in seems intent on reversing the harsh confrontationist policies of his
predecessor. He has called for exploring diplomatic options and taking steps
toward reconciliation, which is surely an improvement over the angry
fist-waving that might lead to real disaster.
You have
in the past expressed concern about the European Union. What do you think will
happen as Europe becomes less tied to the US and the UK?
The EU has fundamental problems, notably the single
currency with no political union. It also has many positive features. There are
some sensible ideas aimed at saving what is good and improving what is harmful.
Yanis Varoufakis's DiEM25 initiative
for a democratic Europe is a promising approach.
The UK has often been a US surrogate in European
politics. Brexit might encourage Europe to take a more independent role in
world affairs, a course that might be accelerated by Trump policies that
increasingly isolate us from the world. While he is shouting loudly and waving
an enormous stick, China could take the lead on global energy policies while
extending its influence to the west and, ultimately, to Europe, based on the
Shanghai Cooperation Organization and the New Silk Road.
That Europe might become an independent "third
force" has been a matter of concern to US planners since World War II.
There have long been discussions of something like a Gaullist conception
of Europe from the Atlantic to the
Urals or, in more recent years, Gorbachev's vision of a common
Europe from Brussels to Vladivostok.
Whatever happens, Germany is sure to retain a
dominant role in European affairs. It is rather startling to hear a
conservative German chancellor, Angela Merkel, lecturing her US counterpart on
human rights, and taking the lead, at least for a time, in confronting the
refugee issue, Europe's deep moral crisis. On the other hand, Germany's
insistence on austerity and paranoia about inflation and its policy of
promoting exports by limiting domestic consumption have no slight
responsibility for Europe's economic distress, particularly the dire situation
of the peripheral economies. In the best case, however, which is not beyond
imagination, Germany could influence Europe to become a generally positive
force in world affairs.
What do
you make of the conflict between the Trump administration and the US
intelligence communities? Do you believe in the "deep state"?
There is a national security bureaucracy that has
persisted since World War II. And national security analysts, in and out of
government, have been appalled by many of Trump's wild forays. Their concerns
are shared by the highly credible experts who set the Doomsday Clock, advanced
to two and a half minutes to midnight as soon as Trump
took office -- the closest it has been to terminal disaster since 1953, when
the US and USSR exploded thermonuclear weapons. But I see little sign that it
goes beyond that, that there is any secret "deep state"
conspiracy.
To
conclude, as we look forward to your 89th birthday, I wonder: Do you have a
theory of longevity?
Yes, it's simple, really. If you're riding a bicycle
and you don't want to fall off, you have to keep going -- fast.
To stay on top of important articles like these,
sign up to receive the latest updates from TomDispatch.com here.
Noam Chomsky is institute professor emeritus in the
Department of Linguistics and Philosophy at Massachusetts Institute of
Technology. Among his books are Hegemony or Survival and Failed
States. His newest book is Who Rules the World? (Metropolitan Books,
the American
Empire Project, 2016). His website is www.chomsky.info.
RELATED
STORIES
By Juan González, Amy Goodman, Democracy Now! | Video Interview
By Dan Falcone, Truthout |
Interview
By C.J. Polychroniou, Truthout / Haymarket Books | Book Excerpt
。
No comments:
Post a Comment