The Tripod

I must begin this article with one disclaimer: I have, for many years, been a huge fan of Prof. Noam Chomsky. I have read many of his books, studied his work extensively, and, usually agree with him. Thus, when Associate Professor of Sociology Johnny Williams replied affirmatively to my request to have dinner with Chomsky when he came to Trinity, I was extremely excited.

I prepared several questions about his work that I had accumulated over the years and was able to present many of them to him at dinner. As I?expected, while Chomsky does tend to have something of a dismissive attitude to opposing opinions and may at times appear overly confident in his own opinions, this was not something that emanated from a lack of curiosity on his part. Rather, he is already familiar with the arguments he dismisses, such as those mentioned in Zach Sonenshine's article in the April 21 issue of the Tripod. His ideas - his work - are formulated as a response to the widely-held conventional beliefs that most Americans have; every day of his life is spent lecturing and explaining his point of view to people who hold these conventional doctrines of which many claim he is dismissive.

Particularly, Sonenshine points out that Chomsky often asserts his claims without much justification, something that is so utterly untrue that it is comical. If anyone seeks Chomsky's justifications on any issue he spoke about at Trinity, I would suggest that you pick up one of his many books, most of which have more pages of footnotes than actual writing. On specific issues, such as the Six-Day War, Chomsky's response was something along the lines of the conventional doctrine that you learn at school and in the media, but there's not a particle of truth to it. What you may be alluding to is the embargo that Egypt ordered that many people say forced Israel to preemptively attack, but, as far as who began the war, it's universally accepted even by Israel that they launched the war. It's difficult to justify his historical account if he's arguing with something that is false. There are certain facts out there that are simply facts, one of them being that Israel started the Six-Day War. If someone doesn't know ­their basic history to an extent that they are utterly convinced a fabrication is true, then what will work to convince them? Obviously not the actual historical narrative, because that is already there, and if someone is unfamiliar with the narrative, it shows either a fundamental lack of knowledge required to challenge a famed intellectual in a public atmosphere or a malicious lie.

Sonenshine also points out that Chomsky bemoans the conflict of interest that is money and politics but offers no practical solution. While he may not have explicitly covered issues of political finance reform, he has commented on many occasions ­­in-depth on the widely popular system of 100 percent publicly financed elections. In addition, towards the end of the question and answer session, he relayed a message of empowerment, of personal responsibility for the direction of our nation. For Sonenshine's point, the more fundamental answer about this conflict of interest is for Americans to participate in our system of governance. Educate yourself, be knowledgeable, and then make yourself heard. Civic responsibility doesn't begin, and certainly doesn't end, by simply voting for one of two relatively similar choices every four years.

Article Tools