Chomsky and Chavez-- The Left Is Back!
Let's understand what's going on. All the American politicians may be denouncing Hugo Chavez, but he's gotten into the water supply. His Diablo speech was a big moment, and actually successful, in a way that so many other gestures the right wants to dismiss as the U.N. Follies have not been. Because his ideas have resonance in the United States. A few leftwing friends have grinned, telling me how much they liked what Chavez said. The resonance springs from a problem only the left has grappled with so far: the U.S. is losing moral legitimacy, globally. And as Chris Matthews pointed out on Hardball, Chavez wasn't afraid of Bush. He made fun of him, in his house. Made him look weak. If Chavez was a monkey, then how come Chomsky's #1 on Amazon?
There's an old rule in journalism you're are supposed to have three examples when you posit a trend. I've just got two, Chavez and Chomsky. But the writing's on the wall: The left is back. The Iraq effect is finally happening; you can finally get something beside a lump of coal for the position: I was against this stupid war because I thought it would hurt America and the Middle East. The political establishment/ media has held out against the news for as long as they could, now Hugo Chavez is putting it on the front page.
(Is this analysis self-serving? Well, yeah. Is it correct? We shall see...)
You overstate the issue but you are basically correct. There is an opening in the framework for opinions that are held by many to enter into the main stream conciousness.
For the most part they are denounced, and barely discussed if not just outright smears. But it's there.
Can it take hold with 99% of the media refusing to discuss the actual issues of what was said?
That's the real story. How can there be so much reporting on the topic, and so little discussion of what Chomsky says?
But yes... it has succeeded in a small way against a huge sea of smear.
Chavez' speech was amazing in nearly all aspects. Mainly since it was the first time since Bush has been prez. that an individual has actually spoken the truth about what this administration of utter degenerates is up to. The timing was good in that his rampant unpopularity is obviously allowing the left to gain some ground.
However, its disgusting that the mainstream media will not examine even an iota of the content of said speech. Yes, instead, the media focuses on some wining (so-called) democrats who simply can't believe the gall of Chavez to come and complain about Bush on his home turf.
Rangel sounded like a dejected 5th grader on the kickball field at recess. He even stooped so low as to say something to the effect that "criticism of Bush should be limited to Americans."
The atmosphere in America is truly deranged. Thank God for Chomsky and Chavez. Maybe some more of us will have the intelligence and wit to disarm this travesty of a government.
I think Chavez is much smarter than most people are giving him credit for. Trash talking Bush seemed partly to be about him playing to his political base - poor people, and leftists in Latin America ... perhaps, as a couple of pieces I have read the last few days suggest, that's really what that was all about. Whatever. I myself really don't see what the big deal is ... Unlike Alan Dershowitz, I have read many of Chomsky's works, and can guess pretty well what he would say, about why there has been almost no analysis of Chavez's words in the main stream media. But perhaps there are other reasons, less insidious, than just those involving the need to maintain the consent that has been so carefully manufactured. It does seem that certain words have a psychological impact here in America, which they probably wouldn't have in most other countries, and I'm not sure Chavez completely appreciates this fact. Many Americans have a hard time hearing people say bad things about the US President, and this is partly because there is no king or prime minister here, and so the president is both head of state and head of government. If someone talks shit about Tony Blair, it doesn't have the same effect, because he is only head of the British government... the Queen is head of state. So if someone attacks Blair, British citizens don't necessarily hear that person attacking Britain. If they were to attack the Queen, then that is what they would hear, and there would be a very different response (a lot of people would get very angry.) Even though Chavez has gone out of his way, repeatedly, to tell people that draws a distinction between the people of the United States, and it's government, many people (in the US especially) don't hear that. They just hear him attack the President, who is the head of state, and so they hear him attacking the state - the United States, which is their country ... and, because of conflated egos, they therefor hear him attacking them personally, and so, they become unable to rationally listen to what he is saying, and just get angry.
But what is Chavez trying to do? Well, I think that, obviously, one thing Chavez is trying to do is to create more regional solidarity with the governments of Latin America. His policies down there are having a lot of positive effects for the majority of people, with increases in literacy, etc. As some of the mainstream media point out, he's a populist ... but he's popular with the masses because he is seen as (and I think he is indeed) actually making life better for the majority of his people. In his speech at the UN the other day, perhaps by being so flashy and crazy sounding, he was trying to draw attention away from where it was being directed, which was towards Iran. He's has been cozying up to other powerful countries, trying to make friends, so that he will have someone to support him if and when the US decides to really come after him. Maybe he was trying to do Iran a favor, taking some of the heat off. Also, he's talked a lot about the need to create a "unipolar world" - that it is very dangerous to have only one superpower, the way the US is right now. Speaking and acting so outlandishly, and publicly, against then US, makes it easier for other countries to also go against the US. And I also think he genuinely wanted to get Americans to read that Chomsky book. He wanted to act crazy enough so that everyone would pay attention to what he was saying. The very first thing he said, was that Americans should read that book. Why? I disagree with the headline of this article above: the left is not "back." I agree with Bernard Henry Levi who pointed out last year in an editorial, that essentially there is no left wing in the United States right now, and there hasn't been for many decades ... since the end of the 1960s, really. If America were to ever have a government that would pursue policies that weren't imperialistic (and I'm not sure that's really possible) then there will first have to be a renewed left wing in the United States, because without it, everything is skewed to the right. Chavez is to thank for the fact that Chomsky is now #1 on amazon. But it will take a lot more than one latin leftist to truely resurect the American left.
i emit a foul and unpleasant odor...thank me