The NYT reviews Noam Chomsky's new book, Failed State. Discussing the foreign interests that the US has pursued, the review states:
"These are not, Chomsky insists, the interests of the American people, but of the corporate elite that dominates the country and its policy making. For, he says, the United States is not a democracy, if that word is reserved for a society where the people's will is done.
Take health care. Chomsky has the data to show that the American system is economically inefficient, much costlier than more socialized models abroad and deeply unpopular with a majority of Americans, who are ready to pay for increased government intervention even if that means higher taxes. That democratic majority remains unheard, however, because "the pharmaceutical and financial industries and other private powers are strongly opposed." That is why the mainstream news media, a perennial Chomsky target, say publicly funded health care lacks political support: the majority might back it, but not the people who count.
Chomsky employs the same linguistic deconstruction for media definitions of prosperity. The experts may say the economy is healthy, as it is for the top 1 percent, whose wealth rose by 42 percent from 1983 to 1998. But it is not healthy for the majority, whose wages have stagnated or declined in real terms, nor for those going hungry in America because they cannot afford to buy food.
Much of this will be familiar to veteran Chomsky readers, but in this book he supplies a new twist. What, he asks, is a failed state? It is one that fails "to provide security for the population, to guarantee rights at home or abroad, or to maintain functioning (not merely formal) democratic institutions." On that definition, Chomsky argues, the United States is the world's biggest failed state. This sounds like a hyperbolic charge, ludicrously overblown — but he goes far toward substantiating it. He is especially strong on pointing up Washington's woeful efforts to protect Americans from terror attacks, in one instance lavishing more resources on the imaginary threat from Cuba than on the all-too-real menace of Al Qaeda."
The review concludes that, "It's hard to imagine any American reading this book and not seeing his country in a new, and deeply troubling, light."
3 comments:
Dear chidyke,
Blessings! I love the dark moon, myself!
Brilliant post. I'd have to more or less agree with Chomsky, but that's where I am most of the time, anyway. I once wrote a post on the subject, called "Here At Home in the Third World." That was right after Katrina.
I think I'm going to try to banish some of my money troubles tonight. I'm appealing for good thoughts, if you will. :)
it's pretty hard to imagine many murkins having the wit to read and comprehend the book, so deeply ingrained is the propaganda of exemptialism in our national culture.
once the dean of my college objected to my putting a Chomsky book on a class reading list because, she explained, he was a linguist, and the class was about the politics of education...
.
Post a Comment