Since I had a go at old Noam yesterday, I thought I would clarify the spirit in which I intended my criticism. For the record, I actually think that many Israeli policies are morally repugnant and deeply counterproductive. I've also learned quite a bit from reading Noam Chomsky. I just also happen to think that Chomsky gets it wrong sometimes. One thing he gets wrong is a kind of inconsistency in tone and language when describing different actors in the Israeli-Palestinian dispute. [Update: Obviously, I should have written "Middle East," since the original target of my comments was Israeli's strike on Iraq's nuclear reactor. My bad.] I learned to watch for that sort of thing . . . by reading Noam Chomsky.
But, as I've noted before, it is a mystery to me why Chomsky is regarded as somehow beyond the pale within American politics. There is something deeply wrong about a political culture that sees, for example, Charles Krauthammer as fit for an editorial page, but refuses, without debate, to consider a point because Noam Chomsky makes it.
I criticize the Bush administration a lot on this site because I think it's important to dissent from very bad policies. But frankly, while there is room to quibble about details, an intellectually serious defence of the Bush administration is no longer possible, and hasn't been for some time. We're no longer having a real debate anymore. And so these days the more interesting project, as far as I'm concerned, is to mark out those areas in which I disagree with people who are in many respects in ideological sympathy with me. Look out, Noam et. al. I'ma comin' to getcha!
That's the spirit in which I intend my Noam bashing below. I hope that distinguishes me from that brand of liberal who tries to score "reasonable points" by bashing Noam Chomsky whenever he can.
Posted by Chris at July 28, 2004 10:34 AMKudos to you Chris, and what an interesting post it is as well!
Posted by: Matthew at July 28, 2004 01:46 PMSo you note that Chomsky is seen as being unreasonably beyond the pale. And then you contribute to keeping him there by attacking him as biased. Is that reasonable? Is his bias really that much worse than that of any other legitimate commentator? He is one of a very few prominent intellectuals that is reasonably unbiased. And yet he is your target of choice on, of all issues, the bias issue. What is up with that?
Posted by: Peter at July 29, 2004 10:15 AMHe isn't unreasonably beyond the pale. I don't contribute to keeping him there by attacking him as biased. He *is* biased. That bias is not much worse than that of anny other legitimate commentator, but that is a very low standard.
I like Chomsky. He's a target on this site because I find it interesting to try to distinguish my views from people who are closer to me than other people. I think most people, myself included, know pretty well by now how I differ from, say, Krauthammer.
I do suspect that I've pointed to something real in Chomsky's work, that is, a tendency to always attribute agency to U.S. and Israeli actors and to deny it, or minimize it in others. If I'm wrong, I'm very sorry, and would love to be corrected with a few counterexamples, but if I'm right then it's legitimate to criticize. That really is a kind of bias, and its worth thinking about, even if it isn't as serious or as harmful as Krauthammer's bias.
I suppose you could say that I have odd priorities if I'm criticizing Chomsky in a world filled with far greater errors. Except that I really want think about the best left wing position, and that involves thinking as hard as I can about possible flaws in that position.
What is wrong with that?
Posted by: Chris at July 29, 2004 11:53 AM