US has supported a coup in 2002 but the Venezuelan people came out in support of their president, again US was on the wrong side of democracy.

You can argue about his economic and social policies but it’s disingenuine to call him a dictator or question his legitimacy.

Chavez has taken power away from the burguisi to the poorer communities and that’s mostly why he keeps winning elections and US is unhappy with him.

Chavez is a man on a mission, like everyone else he has his down-sides but by any means he isn’t worse than Bush.

I agree with what you’re saying about Chomsky. A solid point in case is the Canadian Green Party. For the longest time they represented a radical fringe environmentalist party, who despite having some fantastic ideas, were negated because people couldn’t except the dialog.

Fast forward 25 years and you’ve got a party that’s changed its platform to better encompass popular thought, and though they still raise debate – it’s mild.

The truth is, if you told the people of the world that it was all going to end tomorrow, no one would take you seriously (true or not). You say it’s going to end in three decades, people report it as “startling” and do nothing. You report that it will end in a century, it doesn’t even make the cable access channels.

There is little room for radical ideas in the world.

I wish I could claim the term “prolefeed” for myself, but it’s from Orwell’s 1984.

Hi KMM,

Thank you, in return, for your considered and clarificatory response.

But still and all I do feel that Chomsky has a point when he says that people often think they are having a vigorous debate about something but are actually missing the elephant in the room, because really radical ideas do not get a look in. Kind of like the way that the American Declaration of Independence could resoundingly affirm that “all men are created equal” and yet still most Americans who cheered that sentiment continued to find it “natural” and “obvious” that the US should be a slave owning society.

And why, I wonder, did the overwhelming majority of Americans find it so unavoidable and natural that the US should go to war with Saddam? Why did that become the mainstream?

And why will we not exchange our polluting dangerous expensive cars for public transport?

And so because of the triumph of mainstream thinking we are always going to have wars and we are going to fuck up the environment well and truly before we accept that the way we are living now is not sustainable.

(Why, oh why? Wring hands with despair. If only they’d listen to sense…to me!)

So, when you say “I just mean that I can say with a fair degree of certainty that someone, somewhere will make an argument that is way outside the mainstream.” I am not so sure that is helpful. Someone, somewhere may well do, but there’s a good chance almost noone will hear them.

And points that you believe to be “way outside the mainstream” are maybe safely contained by it. People may may think a conventional “anti-status quo argument” is way outside the mainstream, but that is because radical ideas that are really outside the mainstream do not, by and large, get heard.

Unless, I admit, you actively seek them out in obscure blogs, journals, pamphlets and books.

BTW, to be a proper member of the illuminati you have to write “ill” on your forehead, and those who are in the know will know who you really are, if you know what I mean.

@KIM:

I think you “always” hear arguments against the US because you bother to read stuff that has some meat in it, rather than the prolefeed most people consume. Welcome to the illuminati by the way.

“Prolefeed”… awesome.

@KMM: Is there a better Chinese dish than well-made 回锅肉?

Thanks for the thoughtful reply. I do, indeed, claim to have ideas of my own, but frequently these are stupid ideas, unless they are telling me to eat 回锅肉, in which case they are brilliant ideas.

You are right that I do generally take a middle of the road viewpoint, but not because I think it’s cool and want to be in the middle-of-the-road clubhouse; rather, it’s because I tend to be a pragmatist, and it seems that pragmatically dealing with most problems frequently plops you firmly in that position. I do, however, often take positions that no true political moderate would take.

***

Anyway, I obviously wasn’t clear in my last post, and for that I apologize. Let me attempt to clarify:

I didn’t want to imply I knew anything about you, personally. I meant to say that individuals like yourself, that is, people who may often take stands counter to mainstream American thought (which I think is a fair conclusion to draw about you if you’re quoting Chomsky), invariably will bring up arguments against the United States.

When somebody uses the phrase “people such as yourself” I suppose it’s common to assume what follows will be pejorative in some way. But that’s not how I meant it–I really just mean, you know, you, and some people who think like you in a very broad sense, and I could even include myself in that category. I frequently criticize the US. I frequently take stands counter to the US mainstream. And that’s what I meant by the second part–I do, pretty much, always hear these opinions, whether they’re other people’s or my own. My usage of “always” did not mean to imply that I knew how you personally would argue every point; I just mean that I can say with a fair degree of certainty that someone, somewhere will make an argument that is way outside the mainstream. To this extent, I feel comfortable using the word “always” in all its over-generalizing glory.

And I still stand by my original point, unclear as it may have been: it is very, very easy to come across these opinions. The US government does not insidiously control our thoughts, as Chomksy and thinkers in his vein imply. Ignorance of the full spectrum of arguments on a topic is, rather, due to individual laziness and myopia, both common human traits, everywhere, and something the US government need not worry about imparting in people.

Thank you for acceptance in the Illuminati. I better get a decorative badge or something like that.

Yes, fair point…but I might as well object. You are not an ideologue (of course) but you would claim to have ideas I guess. You seem to be adopting a Mr Middle way, not swayed by extremes, rational and objective sort of stance for yourself.Fair enough, but just because you claim that ground doesn’t mean you can stand on it.

Thinkers like Chomsky, Wittgenstein, Foucault and Derrida… w claim to be analyzing sytems that they see as all encompassing…will necessarily be subject to the rebuttal that if what they are saying is true then they can’t objectively pass judgement on it because they are themselves too entangled in it and subsumed by it.

And, similarly, people who claim to be disinterested can be accused of supporting the status quo by dint of their so-called neutrality. Catch 22. Or is there a middle way out of that?

Whatever…the point is whether you personally can get anything insightful out of passages like the one I quoted from Chomsky. And personally I do, but I guess I shouldn’t have used it as a preamble to a point about US foreign policy.

I certainly don’t accept your accusation that people such as myself are “always’ bringing up arguments that “always” criticize the US. I would stick up for the US on many issues, but foreign policy in Latin America is not one of them. You used “always” twice in close succession in a sweeping and rather uninformed way I think. How do you know what I “always” do?

I suppose that you think that someone who uses the term “Machiavellian meddling” in relation to the US is anti-American. But I’m not and I guess I would accept that as things stand any super power will always meddle in a Machiavellian way because that’s what they do. Unless things change radically of course, which is what Chomsky is – vainly perhaps – trying to encourage.

I think you “always” hear arguments against the US because you bother to read stuff that has some meat in it, rather than the prolefeed most people consume. Welcome to the illuminati by the way.

Interesting how Chomksy and the far left tend to portray anyone who has an opinion counter to their own as being, essentially, mind controlled fools/tools. Kind of reminds me of the strategy of the far right. And, well, any ideologue, anywhere.

Also generally speaking, in relation to debates on this topic and many others, people, such as yourself (who, I guess, have broken free from the passivity and obedience of the masses?) always bring up arguments against the United States, and always criticize it for its “Machiavellian meddling” or whatever you want to call it.

If these arguments are not “safe” criticisms and are, therefore, outside the “spectrum of acceptable opinion” then why do I always hear them？

The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum – even encourage the more critical and dissident views.

That gives people the sense that there’s free thinking going on, while all the time the presuppositions of the system are being reinforced by the limits put on the range of the debate.

Much criticism of American foreign policy in Latin America is met by “lively debate” that diverts us from the point that it is Machiavellian meddling. No wonder Chavez and many others are angry and sometimes overblown in their anti-American rhetoric.