PROMETHEAN ANTAGONIST

“Old soldiers never die, they just fade away.” Sometimes I wish this were the case with some old philosophers and their old ideas.

I once speculated on the likely responses of pundits and “thinkers” (e.g. non-thinkers) When Castro’s Gone.

Noam Chomsky is getting up in his years. Since there are some similarities in age and values between Castro and America’s commendante’ of self-derision (America’s “self,” not himself), I’ve begun wondering how the world, and particularly many media outlets, will respond when he passes on. (My intention is mere valid speculation regarding public reaction, not a “mean-spirited” hopefulness for his early demise).

The great linguist has attained worldwide recognition, not only in his own esoteric field of study but also for his ability to compile and articulate references to dark deeds and skeletons from America’s closet. For this he is often described as a “genius.”

On the other side of the political divide, David Horowitz performs a similar role regarding the darker deeds and larger skeletons in the left’s huge closets. For his effort, he is barely acknowledged, and certainly not described as a “genius” by the propaganda forces that dominate academia. Perhaps only certain views can be labeled products of, “genius.” Perhaps Chomsky is a genius regarding his insights into linguistics, but I still don’t buy into this idea that one can be a genius by merely compiling “facts” to back a partisan political viewpoint.

Confronting disagreement in politics is usually a relatively simple concept. Each side states their case and tries to support it with evidence or anecdote. Those less impassioned by the issues can appraise both sides and draw their own conclusions based on their own analysis and sentiment. The more determined will likely stand their ground because – I’m convinced – strongly held views are more emotional in content regardless of “supporting facts.” Anyone can find appropriate “facts” to back their gut feelings.

I’ve never read or heard a Chomsky follower that clearly got down to what it was they want beyond some vague desire that one “admit America’s crimes” to the same degree of self-loathing that the follower has taken. (Remember, this is a mock self-loathing, the typical leftist sees their true self -- not their country -- as beyond moral reproach). I think it can accurately be read between their lines that they would like to see America a much weaker and less wealthy country and that it adopt most of the typical attributes of a socialist economy – a process that many Chomsky followers euphemistically describe as some shade of “anarchism” (which it clearly is not). To make such accusations, as those I've made thus far, in the presence of a Chom-head is usually met with the usual, “Chomsky never said that” – a variation on his own, “I never said that.” It hardly takes a genius to see what such types are saying. I’ve never heard or read anything by a Chomsky follower that stood out as uniquely different from the usual strains of leftist rhetoric. Their greatest enemy is clearly capitalism (a free market) and capitalism’s greatest and most successful figurehead and promoter, The United States. All the other rambling is just icing on their socialist cake.

Any Chomsky debate, it seems, inevitably devolves into being about Chomsky himself more than any particular issue, and this isn’t just an attribute of the anti-Chomsky side either. For Chomskyites, it’s never just the thrill of noting America’s flaws or historical misdeed, it’s the added excitement of prefacing the issue with the note that Chomsky said it.

Somehow the most mundane attacks on America are thought to be profound because “Chomsky said it.” When debate does settle on the validity of Chomsky’s claims, the demand is made that one must read all of his exhaustive lectures, interviews, and writings (a good deal of his “writings” are actually nothing but transcripts of interviews or lectures – an easy way for a “writer” to gain easy following and income).

When criticizing Chomsky, one is implored by his followers to dredge up quotes and citations to prove “he said…” or “didn’t say…;” a tedious and unnecessary labor that serves neither side’s purposes really.

In the end, it’s implied that one is not qualified to dislike Chomsky or his ideas unless one has adopted the same fanatical immersion in such ideas that his cult-followers have taken. This standard, of course, is never applied both ways.

I’ve seen plenty of leftists cringe at the mention of Ayn Rand’s name and later admit they’d never read her novels, let alone her philosophical tracts. To be honest, Rand occupies a similar Chomsky-style cult status among many of her passionate followers. Many copies of her books have been sold also (but not because they’re mandatory reading for a college professor’s captive audience). I agree with much of what Rand wrote but shy from calling myself a follower precisely because of the dogmatic cult atmosphere that surrounds her work.

I’ve met a few leftists who know who David Horowitz is and know from a few of his quotes or brief essays essentially where he stands or is likely to stand on important issues. I certainly wouldn’t tell such types that they need to read such and such a book by Hororwitz to understand what he, “really means, otherwise, you don’t know what you’re talking about.” I think anyone can read a few of Ayn Rand’s or David Horowitz’s writings and have a very good idea where they stand, “what they mean,” and where their sympathies lie. Circumstances involving Chomsky, I dare say, are no different.

Another similar case in point, Michael Moore (definitely not on the high end of the philosophy circuit). I haven’t read all his books or seen all of his movies or TV show segments but, you know what? I think I know where he’s coming from and it sounds pretty distant from my own appreciation for America’s constitutional society and free market economy.

The most bizarre quality I continually find among Chomsky’s followers is their genuine excitement for a guy who essentially just articulates dislike for America’s history and system of government – what fun! In this sense, he’s taken the place of Marx who used to set the anti-capitalist crowd glowing – the feeling that they’d discovered some great secret and are therefore amongst an elect of all knowing, “revolutionaries” (between weekend ski trips).

If the right treated anyone as heroes with the same degree of passion as the left shows to Chomsky (Ayn Rand's cult following is quite limited in comparison to Chomsky's), their heroes would be people like Thomas Jefferson – who actually has left a practical legacy -- the wealthiest, most diverse, innovative, and adaptable engine of progress in history (The United States), and it was his effort that helped to make it so. What has Chomsky done, again? Oh, that’s right, he goes around the world lecturing and writing about how bad the U.S. is (I may have stated this in rather informal terms, but I think it is, indeed, an accurate description of what he does).

To be sure, “the right” (by my definition, free-market, limited government, conservatives and libertarians – not collectivist/statist “racists” and “militarists”) has admired spokespersons of their vision – those who articulate non-socialist values well. I like reading P.J. O’Rourke. I like David Horowitz’s writings, and for full-on honest sarcasm; Ann Coulter’s. I don’t agree with everything these people write (try getting a Chomskyite to say that about their idol!), but their views are close to my own. I like these people’s writings, but they’re not my heroes. I don’t think they’re infallible and I don’t think that those who disagree with them are necessarily “misinformed” or “blinded by hate.” And, for the record, I never loan or even recommend such partisan books to people who clearly don't share my political views.

Admittedly, I gain a certain satisfaction from arguments that indicate that my own country – contrary to what I’m told daily from many media outlets – is okay, and that the values of individuality and freedom are good things. I still find it odd that many of Chomsky’s followers seem to gain the same satisfaction from hearing that their country is bad and that individuality and freedom are bad (when measured against socialist / collectivist values). There’s a satisfaction anyone gets from reading their own ideals well stated in a public forum, but in Chomskyland we’re dealing with something entirely different from mere “satisfaction.”

Chomsky is just some guy, his practical contributions to society and the world are outweighed by the daily activities a neighborhood grocery store.

Back to my initial point; Chomsky’s old, he’ll be passing on, maybe not soon but definitely not a whole lot later either. How will the media and his followers deal with a figure so formidable in some narrow circles, and so completely unknown and insignificant to the average American – or for that matter, world – citizen?

…As in my prediction regarding circumstances after Castro passes on, I’d virtually guarantee considerable fanfare in the press (at least, fanfare disproportionate to his stature among common citizens). The pseudo-intellectuals of journalism will note his passing in dramatic feature articles. His output will be depicted in glowing terms and his significance blown to heroic proportions. Why? Because he compiles information and articulates a critical view of America. Those few people in media and academia who realize that Middle America could care less about Chomsky’s crusade against capitalist society and U.S. foreign policy misdeeds will see this as further evidence of the masses’ ignorance. Those from the world of non-Chomsky will continue to be seen in the Jacobin mind as gun-totting Jesus freaks who don't know Beethoven's last string quartets -- the horror!

I’m sure saint Noam’s really not a bad guy. He seems relatively demure in manner, not that this in itself tells us anything about his goals or motives. I certainly don’t wish him an untimely death, but I can’t say I care much for his anti-U.S. / anti-free-market view of things. I don’t like his obsession with the skeletons in our closet and his trite and token acknowledgments of horrors committed in the name of collectivist / statist ideals.

Okay…so, upon Chomsky’s passing some in the media and a clique of pampered intellectuals will go nuts over a guy most Americans never heard of. And, what of those devout lesser followers in the cult of Noam? To be sure, graying pony tails and wire rimmed glasses across the country will vent hyperbolic sorrow over the passing of their master mouthpiece for the left’s vision. There will be boxed sets of books and DVD’s, new biographies, and video footage “unseen prior to now.” PBS and the BBC will produce dramatic documentaries on his life and “mission.” Ironically, a tiny niche in the free market will burst into action as sainthood is bestowed on – I’ve got to remind you – a linguistics professor from MIT who criticizes the U.S. Not the creator of a new vaccine, not a master of technical innovation, not an employer of millions. No, a guy who gives lectures with the main theme being that America and Capitalism are bad – wow! How exciting! Chomsky will become the Elvis of intellectual socialist snobs the world over.

Any Chomsky idolizers who may be reading this are likely fuming by now. This, all because I basically like the U.S. (warts and all), don’t like socialism, and most importantly, don’t bow at the shrine of their hero. After all, this isn’t just some guy whose writings they like and whose philosophy they agree with, this is…god?

I’m a libertarian but could personally care less if a leftist critiques and insults the name of libertarian spokespersons. There’s a difference between holding a philosophy of freedom vs. being a member of a cult.

So, another blog writer has failed to acknowledge the greatness of a popular socialist demagogue. But then, remember, folks like me don’t care much for Castro either. (Perhaps, in his twilight days, Chomsky could get a job as minister of intellectual glamour in the Hugo Chavez "administration").

It’s often been noted that Chomsky is one of the, “…most cited ‘authorities’… (Like Marx and Lenin -- saying a lot, indeed). Chomsky is often “cited” by those who agree with him -- that’s impressive. The local auto mechanic doesn’t “cite” anyone, but he can at least fix your car.

What has Chomsky done, ultimately? He has written, lectured, and traveled to “spread the message” and the dislike he has for his country and its open-market economic system. For this he is praised amongst a clique of intellectual snobs and after his passing he will no doubt be canonized along with Marx and other Charlatans of the anti-capitalist, anti-freedom coalition of nonsense. When the cardigan fades, the world’s true loss will only be; one less wearer of cardigans…and perhaps less future revenue to book publishers who cater to mandatory reading lists at some colleges – the “citing” will no doubt continue.

**************************

Life in Noam-land

…Chomsky proved in his 1979 lecture-interview-book-tape-video-dance-performance piece that the sun is really dark and the moon is made of cheese…

While scorpions may have venom, their danger is largely exaggerated and they will only act aggressively when mistreated by capitalist institutions who fail to read all of his books…

And, don’t forget; the U.S. is really bad.