Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Tuesday, May 21, 2019

Noam Chomsky: "It happened because the Republicans face a difficult problem. They have a primary constituency, a real constituency: extreme wealth and corporate power. That's who they have to serve. That's their constituency. You can't get votes that way, so you have to do something else to get votes. What do you do to get votes?"

More

Alternate links: Google News | Twitter

Noam Chomsky on the current state of Republicans and Democrats from 1970 to now. How we got where we are in less than 10 minutes.

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

After giving us his usual caveat about the Dem Party not being perfect either, Chomsky gives us the political reality about the Republican Party, and how those two parties are not the same.

#1 | Posted by Corky at 2019-05-21 12:06 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

--in less than 10 minutes.

10 minutes too many to give to Chumpsky.

#2 | Posted by nullifidian at 2019-05-21 12:10 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

The only time Corky quotes Chomsky or Bernie is when it benefits his agenda.

How's Libya coming along, ArmChair WarHawk? LOL

#3 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2019-05-21 12:12 AM | Reply

How's the Libya deflection coming along, SheepleSchism?

Oh, there it is. Coming along just fine. Carry on.

#4 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-05-21 12:13 AM | Reply

Feel free to applaud and expound on Obama's foreign policy successes in Libya and Syria, Snoofy.

List the positives and then the negatives.

#5 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2019-05-21 12:26 AM | Reply

"Feel free to applaud and expound on Obama's foreign policy successes in Libya and Syria, Snoofy."

I wouldn't call them successes, but I'd call them successes compared to Iraq.

#6 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-05-21 12:27 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

- I'd call them successes compared to Iraq.

It's sad that you can't admit an unmitigated disaster

because of your need for a political win.

#7 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2019-05-21 12:42 AM | Reply

but I'd call them successes compared to Iraq.
#6 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

LOL, of course you would call hundreds of thousands of immigrants leaving Honduras, Libya and Syria, dying to get get across the Med, better than Iraq.

Remember we the people voted for Iraq; Libya, Honduras, Syria ... not so much ....

How we got where we are in less than 10 minutes.

10 minutes? Well I am sure its really accurate *eyeroll*.

#8 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2019-05-21 12:49 AM | Reply

That is true. I mean, the $100,000 the Russians spent mostly on puppy dog-dog pictures (almost all of it after the election) did totally outweigh the 2.3 billion Hillary spent. But just ask the chairman of Facebook advertising, who had to review them all.

#9 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2019-05-21 01:38 AM | Reply

It's sad that you can't admit an unmitigated disaster

because of your need for a political win.

#7 | POSTED BY SHEEPLESCHISM

Be careful!!! Watch out for all that broken glass.

You know... Glass house... throwing stones...

"Mark my words"

#bluewave2018


#10 | Posted by donnerboy at 2019-05-21 10:07 AM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

SheepleNulliMattressHrat... and all it took was Chomsky telling the truth about the Republican Party to rile up the usual suspects.

#11 | Posted by Corky at 2019-05-21 10:27 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

10 minutes? Well I am sure its really accurate *eyeroll*.

#8 | POSTED BY ANDREAMACKRIS

Doesn't have 10 minutes to find out??

You might want to read it. He supports your argument that Dems are handing trumpy 2020 by doggedly pursuing Trump.

Or maybe not. Maybe you and Nullo can't handle the truth.

Too much truth spoils the Lie.

#12 | Posted by donnerboy at 2019-05-21 10:41 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

ANDREACRACKERASS says, "hundreds of thousands of immigrants leaving Honduras, Libya and Syria, dying to get get across the Med"
Really?...I've heard sicilians called "mediterranean mexicans" but how'd the damn hondurans get there?

#13 | Posted by 1947steamer at 2019-05-21 10:41 AM | Reply

If you are a President and Chomsky doesn't like you, you are doing a great job. This guy just hates to hate. He has an ideal that doesn't exist in our reality and holds everyone to it. He's a simple-minded educator with no real work experience other than writing negative things about people. He hated Obama for many of the same reasons as he hates Trump, but he uses long words and straw-man logic to find ways to make his arguments seem like they aren't saying the same thing every time.

#14 | Posted by humtake at 2019-05-21 11:57 AM | Reply

In related news, the House Democrats have announced a marathon 20 hour reading of Chomsky's comments on the House floor, televised by CSnooze.

#15 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-05-21 12:13 PM | Reply | Funny: 1


Brilliant?

"Meanwhile, the Republicans shifted so far to the right that they went completely off the spectrum. "

The host should have had sense enough to say to that, and a number of other complete blind assertions , "Well, it's a complete matter of assumption and opinion whether that actually happened. But, do go on..." But, she didn't.

And the rest of his response is largely a matter of trying to judge people's intents, instead of judging what they actually DID. Words like "pretend" and "trick".

And lastly, picking up blocks of voters by pandering to issues has been a key element of Presidential elections since the very beginning in 1789.

Basically, Noam said nothing substantive, and gave us a rousing personal opinion based on his own subjective suspicions.

YAWN.

#16 | Posted by RobertZeurunkl at 2019-05-21 01:00 PM | Reply

But, it's an opinion piece, so I guess that is to be expected.

#17 | Posted by RobertZeurunkl at 2019-05-21 01:01 PM | Reply

Wasn't this guy a major Pol Pot apologist?

#18 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-05-21 01:08 PM | Reply

Wasn't this guy a major Pol Pot apologist?

#18 | POSTED BY JEFFJ AT 2019-05-21 01:08 PM | REPLY

No, he wasn't.

#19 | Posted by anton at 2019-05-21 01:10 PM | Reply

"Wasn't this guy a major Pol Pot apologist?"
#18 | POSTED BY JEFFJ AT 2019-05-21 01:08 PM

"I don't play slaughter the source"
Posted by JeffJ at 2019-04-04 05:35 PM

Another Lie from the DR's compulsive liar

#20 | Posted by ChiefTutMoses at 2019-05-21 01:23 PM | Reply

Hey look, someone apparently has suddenly lost a taste for the "Political Sausage"

How Convenient

#21 | Posted by ChiefTutMoses at 2019-05-21 01:26 PM | Reply

Chomsky chomps through ALL the BS on both sides. There hasn't been a bill of any kind passed in Congress favorable to the working class since 1978 (Humphrey-Haekins) which Carter rendered "voluntary". Both parties cater to big money and ignore the rest. But Republicans are much worse and need Trump to play populist while they shaft the 99 percent.

#22 | Posted by bayviking at 2019-05-21 01:36 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#19

Except when he was praising the "brave revolutionaries" of the Khmer Rouge, blaming the massacres being carried out by the Khmer Rouge on the American bombings having "massacred the animal population", denying that refugees fleeing the Khmer in the cities were "left to the absolute discretion of the local [Khmer} authorities" had anything to do with the Cambodian Genocide, denies that the extraordinary brutality during the civil war had anything to do with the Khmer and was provoked by the American attack on Cambodia and repeatedly asserted that massacre reports were false in the Nation article that he and Edward Herman wrote in 1977. Unfortunately for Chomsky, the harsh light of history proved him and Edwards horribly wrong.

Chomsky and Herman have been trying to explain away that Nation article for over 42 years along with copious help from their anti-war progressive supporters, with limited success, maybe you can help them out a little bit.

#23 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-05-21 01:49 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Chumpsky was a genocide denialist and is still in denial of his denialism.

#24 | Posted by nullifidian at 2019-05-21 01:53 PM | Reply

LOL, of course you would call hundreds of thousands of immigrants leaving Honduras, Libya and Syria, dying to get get across the Med

Honduras is on the Mediterranean? Tell us more about geography, Andrea.

#25 | Posted by JOE at 2019-05-21 02:11 PM | Reply

Chomsky and Herman have been trying to explain away that Nation article for over 42 years along with copious help from their anti-war progressive supporters, with limited success, maybe you can help them out a little bit.

#23 | POSTED BY RIGHTOCENTER AT 2019-05-21 01:49 PM | REPLY | FLAG:

That is quite a mischaracterization. The initial criticism of the article you are referencing came from Marxists, incidentally. Regardless, the article was mainly a criticism of media coverage. It was in no way a defense of atrocities committed by any party.

This is the authors' conclusion from the article you referenced. You may want to read it sometime:

"We do not pretend to know where the truth lies amidst these sharply conflicting assessments; rather, we again want to emphasize some crucial points. What filters through to the American public is a seriously distorted version of the evidence available, emphasizing alleged Khmer Rouge atrocities and downplaying or ignoring the crucial U.S. role, direct and indirect, in the torment that Cambodia has suffered."

This was based upon information available in 1977.

That's really quite an "apology" for the Khmer Rouge.

#26 | Posted by anton at 2019-05-21 02:18 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

Chomsky is a brilliant well read politically active elderly professor who regularly uses reliable sources of information outside the USA and reliable sources of information inside the USA to ferret out the truth and put world events in their proper perspective. He is no more perfect than you or I but has nothing to apologize for. Like the Taliban, Al Qaida and ISIS there never would have been a Khmer Rogue without the USA bombing the entire South East Asian region into the stone age first. Just like they continue to do in the Middle East. It is one war crime after another.

#27 | Posted by bayviking at 2019-05-21 02:36 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

- Well, it's a complete matter of assumption and opinion

Actually it's a matter of empirical historic fact... not that facts are allowed in TrumpWorld.

Does science prove that the modern GOP favors the rich?

www.brookings.edu

And the same history from Reagan's own Budget Directors....

www.rollingstone.com

#28 | Posted by Corky at 2019-05-21 02:41 PM | Reply

"Remember we the people voted for Iraq"

We did?
Bush ran on a platform of invading Iraq?

#29 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-05-21 04:36 PM | Reply

"LOL, of course you would call hundreds of thousands of immigrants leaving Honduras, Libya and Syria, dying to get get across the Med, better than Iraq."

Yes it's far better than Iraq.

Many more civilians died in Iraq.

Many more Americans died in Iraq.

What makes Iraq better than Libya/Syria/Honduras(?), Andrea, a mattress?

#30 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-05-21 04:40 PM | Reply

#26

"emphasizing alleged Khmer Rouge atrocities" based upon information available in 1977.

Yet, in the same article, Chomsky and Herman state "Most foreign experts on Cambodia and its refugees believe at least 1.2 million persons have been killed or have died as a result of the Communist regime since April 17, 1975" (UPI, Boston Globe, April 17, 1977). No source is given, but it is interesting that a 1.2 million estimate is attributed by Ponchaud to the American Embassy (Presumably Bangkok), a completely worthless source," and "The "slaughter" by the Khmer Rouge is a Moss-New York Times creation."

That "1977 information" that Chomsky outright dismisses turned out to be frighteningly accurate since it is now estimated that between 1.7 and 2 million Cambodians died during the 4 year reign of the Khmer Rouge, so Chomsky and Herman's allegations that the reports of Genocide were a fabrication do not stand up.

#31 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-05-21 04:52 PM | Reply

"The "slaughter" by the Khmer Rouge is a Moss-New York Times creation."

I have no problem believing it, because about twenty-five years later the slaughter of Kuwaiti babies ripped from incubators by Iraqi troops turned out to also be a fabrication on the front page of The New York Times.

And then a decade or so later, The New York Times writer Judith Miller regurgitated Dick Cheney's fabrications.

Noam was ahead of his time.

#32 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-05-21 05:01 PM | Reply

Noam was ahead of his time.

#32 | POSTED BY SNOOFY AT 2019-05-21 05:01 PM

No, there were plenty of genocide deniers before Noam dipped his oar in those waters.

#33 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-05-21 05:19 PM | Reply

You're calling Chomsky a denier?

Chomsky expounded on the ideas above in Manufacturing Consent, which you've no doubt read. To call him a genocide denier is really too much, and doesn't even address the point he was making.

#34 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-05-21 05:43 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Chomsky expounded on the ideas above in Manufacturing Consent

Yes he and Herman spent lots of time explaining themselves in that book, and even during his book tour Chomsky spent hours defending his Pol Pot defense and denial, now saying "The case in Cambodia was, of course, a nefarious bloodbath. That was the bad guys doing it." Notably, this is not a phrase that he or Herman uttered until well after it became apparent that Pol Pot, was in fact carrying out a genocide.

In MF and his book tour, Chomsky goes to great pains to now explain that they were trying to draw a comparison between the Cambodian massacre and the East Timor massacre:

"What we said about Cambodia, however, that elicited a huge new outrage over the fact that we were defending Pol Pot. Well, we were defending Pol Pot by saying that he was carrying out a slaughter comparable to the major slaughter that the United States was backing in Indonesia, and pointing out that, in fact, that was the picture given by American intelligence, the only people who knew anything about it, and then talking about the way this was distorted in the interests of the propaganda system."

The problem that Herman and Chomsky faced, however, that the words "East Timor" or "Indonesia" do not appear anywhere in the Nation article. Faced with this new criticism, Chomsky shut up about Cambodia for about 20 years.

Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media

#35 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-05-21 06:01 PM | Reply

Manufacturing consent doesn't require anything more than cherry-picked facts.

Kind of like you're doing right now.

#36 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-05-21 06:20 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#36

They are Noam's words, not something I manufactured.

Nice try though.

#37 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-05-21 06:23 PM | Reply

"They are Noam's words"

His absence of words, and then you take absence of evidence to mean evidence of absence.

#38 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-05-21 06:46 PM | Reply

The quote I provided says that Chomsky did not pretend to know the truth between the conflicting assessments. To pretend that he called the alleged actions of the Khmer Rouge a fabrication is dishonest. You are attributing conclusions to him that he never made in the article you referenced.

#39 | Posted by anton at 2019-05-21 08:29 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

The Imperialist practices of the USA are far reaching. The fact remains there never would have been a Khmer Rouge, Taliban, Al Qaida, Boko Haram, Castro, Chavez, Duvalier, ISIS, Pinochet, Samoza...... without American interference in the domestic affairs of other nations. Unlike most other countries in this day and age, the USA is quick to intervene militarily. Meanwhile, we are a crying bloody murder over any interference in our domestic affairs. Such interference is unacceptable, but we of all people have no right to complain.

The USA learned and inherited these practices them from the British Empire who devastated India, China and parts of Africa creating the monster Idi Amin, the kind of guy the Saudis stand behind 100%.

Why? ALWAYS PURSUIT OF MONEY BY ALL THESE PLAYERS, NOT JUST THE USA, BUT, THAT DRIVES ALL CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR, INCLUDING OUR VERY OWN GOVERNMENT.

#40 | Posted by bayviking at 2019-05-21 08:50 PM | Reply

"Meanwhile, we are a crying bloody murder over any interference in our domestic affairs."

Really just one party doing that.

The other one embraces it as the lesser of two evils.

#41 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-05-21 08:53 PM | Reply

You're correct snoof, Republicans are in denial, as is the orange sloth. Both Chomsky and the Republicans agree that the actual impact of the Russians in 2016 was somewhere between trivial and negligible, with good reason, which makes all the crying an even more ridiculous waste of time. Better to make a fix-it plan.

#42 | Posted by bayviking at 2019-05-21 09:17 PM | Reply

Is RoTomCotton arguing that the Republican Party IS Pol Pot so Chomsky should be defending them, too??

Otherwise, WTF does his far past writing one way or the other have to do with the GOP?

Other than as a obfuscative Deflection, I mean.

#43 | Posted by Corky at 2019-05-21 09:28 PM | Reply

To pretend that he called the alleged actions of the Khmer Rouge a fabrication is dishonest.

No pretense necessary, Chomsky's words, not mine:

"early reports of massacres proved fallacious (The Washington Post, May 9, 1975)"

"The "slaughter" by the Khmer Rouge is a Moss-New York Times creation."

"These references disappear from the Monitor editorial, which pretends that the current suffering in Cambodia takes place in an historical vacuum, as a mere result of Communist savagery."

There are plenty of more code words for "fabrication" and Chomsky and Herman spent decades defending that article.

But you obviously loves yourself some Chomsky, so nothing he or I say will sway you from your delusions.

#44 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-05-21 09:52 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#43

Reading Comprehension Tutoring sessions continue to be skipped, I see, if you had sounded out the big words up thread you would have seen this:

Wasn't this guy a major Pol Pot apologist?

#18 | POSTED BY JEFFJ AT 2019-05-21 01:08 PM | REPLY

No, he wasn't.

#19 | POSTED BY ANTON AT 2019-05-21 01:10 PM

#45 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-05-21 09:54 PM | Reply

Gnome Chumpsky has been a commie-coddler for decades. Only leftists deny that.

#46 | Posted by nullifidian at 2019-05-21 10:01 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

We have it in our power to work on fixing our country and making it better. We do not have it in our power, nor should we attempt to do the same for other people. Pol Pot, the Khmer Rouge, the Vietnamese Communists that took over when Ho Chi Min died are all horrible. So terrible many fled or died trying. Ho Chi Min fought stubbornly to the day he died for Vietnamese unification and independence. He would have preferred to have adopted the American declaration of Independence or something like it. Anybody that escaped Vietnam after US withdrawal became a diehard communist hating conservative. But none of this justifies the horrors we heaped on that region.

#47 | Posted by bayviking at 2019-05-21 11:30 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

#47

That is the most cogent and perceptive post I have ever seen you make. The US, like any Hegemony, is never blameless for misfortunes that occur when they project their power and we truly reap what we sow. Unlike many Hegemonies, however, the US actively tries to remove the threat of despotism, not impose it, but that has consequences as well.

Truly well done.

#48 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-05-21 11:42 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

"We have it in our power to work on fixing our country and making it better. We do not have it in our power, nor should we attempt to do the same for other people."

This is nuts. We've helped millions of people living with HIV in Africa through PEPFAR, which was started by George W Bush.

It's just that the way to make things better isn't by dropping bombs on the people you're trying to make better.

#49 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-05-21 11:48 PM | Reply

BayNutVikingCase wasn't talking about charitable endeavors but regime change.

But you knew that, right?

#50 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-05-21 11:55 PM | Reply

"BayNutVikingCase wasn't talking about charitable endeavors but regime change."

Really, he was suggesting a revolution when he said "We have it in our power to work on fixing our country and making it better?"

Even the name "regime change" doesn't in any way suggest it's intended to benefit the people of the regime. All they do is get a new regime.

But we've helped plenty of people around the globe, when we're not trying to regime change them.

#51 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-05-22 12:12 AM | Reply

One of the most marvelous organizations on our planet is Doctors without Borders. So are UN guided efforts to fight small pox, malaria, polio, Ebola,... oftentimes these health workers put their own lives on the line in this service...

We should be doing the same about nuclear disarmament, global warming... The odd foursome Trump, Bolton, Pence and Pompeo are hardly on the same page because the orange sloth wants peace with Russia and that drives the other three crazy.

#52 | Posted by bayviking at 2019-05-22 12:28 AM | Reply

- you would have seen this:

You mean one Republican making a lame Deflection and then you jumping all over it.... like I said?

If you don't want to talk about Chomsky's accurate description of the your Party, then just say so... oh, wait, I guess you did.

#53 | Posted by Corky at 2019-05-22 12:21 PM | Reply

#53

No need, Chomsky is a hyperpartisan who is desperately seeking relevance who you adore. Have fun with that.

#54 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-05-22 01:03 PM | Reply

#54

Still nada on what Chomsky actually said. It's almost like you...

www.youtube.com

#55 | Posted by Corky at 2019-05-22 03:01 PM | Reply

No need, Chomsky is a hyperpartisan who is desperately seeking relevance who you adore.

#54 | POSTED BY RIGHTOCENTER AT 2019-05-22 01:03 PM | REPLY

Are you serious with this stuff?

Noam Chomsky isn't a "hyperpartisan." He is an anarchosyndicalist who sometimes recommends voting for Democrats in close elections against right-wing Republicans. On the other hand, his criticism of Democrats is often worse than it is of Republicans. Do a Google search for his criticism of Obama, Clinton, and even Carter particularly regarding foreign policy. He was a harsh critic of Clinton's domestic policies, too. James Carville is a hyperpartisan. So is Rush Limbaugh. Chomsky? No.

#56 | Posted by anton at 2019-05-22 03:08 PM | Reply

Noam Chomsky isn't a "hyperpartisan." He is an anarchosyndicalist

Exactly, you just made my point for me. He's only shilling for his own team, which advocates solidarity, direct action and workers' self-management, with the end goal of abolishing "wage slavery." Most people would call it communism, but that is incorrect: Anarcho-Syndicalism dictates that any hierarchy that cannot be ethically justified must either be dismantled or replaced by decentralized egalitarian control.

Kind of like this.

#57 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-05-22 03:25 PM | Reply

He's a "hyperpartisan" shill for the abolition of wage slavery through direct action by suggesting that voters occasionally vote for Democrats.

I give. You win.

#58 | Posted by anton at 2019-05-22 04:10 PM | Reply

I give. You win.

Not necessary, but I would appreciate props for linking Micheal Palin's spot on recitation of Anarcho-syndicalism.

#59 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-05-22 04:35 PM | Reply

Prof. Chomsky has been telling us how we got here since '64.

#60 | Posted by ichiro at 2019-05-22 10:55 PM | Reply

"He's only shilling for his own team..."

He is "shilling" for a "team" called the Human Race.

That just happens to be MY team.

What "team" are you on?

#61 | Posted by donnerboy at 2019-05-23 05:26 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2019 World Readable

Drudge Retort