Thursday, May 17th, 2012

Noam Chomsky on Barack Obama

By Noam Chomsky

Chomsky takes on the President-elect.

By on Monday, November 10th, 2008 - 182 words.

What He Said:

“I’m looking forward to co-operating with the President-elect in building a new global society in which the advancement of people – their homes, jobs, savings and pensions – is always put first.”

Gordon Brown, November 9th 2008.

What He Means:

We have two sources of information: actions and rhetoric — more accurately, “soaring rhetoric,” to borrow the standard phrase. The most important actions are selection of staff. The first selection was for vice-President: Joe Biden, the strongest supporter of the Iraq invasion among Senate Democrats, putting aside his record as Senator for Delaware, a favored corporate headquarters. The second was the crucial position of chief of staff: Rahm Emanuel, the strongest supporter of the Iraq invasion among House Democrats, at the right-wing of the party on most other issues. Both are long-term Washington insiders. The transition team is headed by John Podesta, Clinton’s chief of staff. Leading figures in the economic team are Robert Rubin and Lawrence Summers, who had a substantial role in creating the current financial crisis. The rhetoric is “change” and “hope.”

Noam Chomsky

11 Comments

  1. Matt Kennard says:
    November 10, 2008 at 13:07

    This is all true. He's recycling the Clinton operatives, no change here, mostly they are all ardent supporters of the occupation of the West Bank, the attack on Lebanon, and the Iraq war. It's sad but true, why everyone should have voted for Nader…

    Reply
  2. Laurence Witherington says:
    November 10, 2008 at 13:49

    Obama has never been anything but pro-Israel, so here there are no contradictions in his choices.

    Reply
  3. Matt Kennard says:
    November 10, 2008 at 13:54

    I don't think Chomsky is saying there is a contradiction with his political history. Merely that there is a contradiction with his rhetoric which is about “change” and “hope” but actually continues all the fundamentals and dynamics of American power from Clinton to Bush to now Obama. And on Iraq, he has stuffed his cabinet full of people who were ardent supporters of the war, which slightly jars with his opposition to the biggest catastrophe for decades.

    But you're right, Obama has been firmly “pro-Israel”, which actually means pro-occupation, because I'm pro-Israel, i.e. I accept its right to exist on pre-1967 border, but don't accept its right to colonized the remainder of the West Bank…. It's impossible not to be in the U.S.

    Reply
  4. Matt Kennard says:
    November 10, 2008 at 14:05

    Sorry, I just realized you were talking about my comment, not Chomsky's. But I think what I said still stands.

    Reply
  5. Declan McDaid says:
    November 10, 2008 at 15:22

    Change definitely suits the policies of Nader better. Obama is also a big advocate of the death penalty despite the fact that African Americans are more likely to be on deathrow than their Caucasian counterparts.
    What Emmanuel's dad said after hearing the news that his son had accepted the position is interesting too.
    Obama was the only mainstream presidential candidate to oppose the Iraq war and then he appoints people like this.
    Also, he says that personally he feels empathy for gay couples because his parents would not have been able to marry in some southern states when he was a boy, yet he still says that gay marriage goes against his relgion, and he would not support legislation for gay marriage.

    Reply
  6. Matt Kennard says:
    November 10, 2008 at 15:48

    Yeah i agree dec, Obama is on the liberal end of the Democrats, and he was principled to go against the war in Iraq, but he's has some seriously messed up positions. I think though that if the constituency that his campaign was rooted in continues to be active he might be forced to do some good, but i don't see that people really see that they need to continue their activism, every seem like, Job well done, Yes we did, bullshit, rather than, Do some good shit Obama!

    Reply
  7. Elliot says:
    November 11, 2008 at 07:40

    why everyone should have voted for Nader…or Ron Paul.

    Reply
  8. Wilson Dizard says:
    November 11, 2008 at 23:39

    Of course, Obama's selection of staff is important, but what do you, Dr. Chomsky, think about the president-elect himself?

    Reply
  9. Matt Kennard says:
    November 12, 2008 at 07:20

    I think that's an important question Dizzy, but I assume the professor would say that his personality doesn't matter, it's his policies, and judging by who he is surrounding himself by that isn't that promising, although to be fair if Obama wanted anti-war Democracts he'd be hard pressed, the vast majority of the party establishment supported the attack on Iraq.

    Reply
  10. Chris Brunt says:
    November 16, 2008 at 11:10

    Thanks for finally making that point, Matt. Who in the entire Democratic Party is both qualified to run a White House AND publicly announced their opposition to the war as Obama did? Right.

    As for “staffing his White House with former Clintonites,” let's not get carried away. He brought on Podesta and others to lead him through a transition. He is not governing with them, he is utilizing their undeniable expertise to get through these tricky 2 months and prepare to govern on his own, and with his own people. He just made 3 new appointments today to WH staff and none of them served under Clinton.

    As for Rahm, he has been closer to Obama over the last several years than he has to the Clintons, but it was President Clinton who gave him a job when he was a young up-and-comer. Why should we fault him for that? He served that administration well and he will serve the new one even better. Let us also not forget that he almost single-handedly engineered the Democratic takeover of the House in 2006 as chairman of DCCC. Who better to wrangle Congress for your legislative agenda than the man who got most of them their jobs? As for being to the right-wing of the party on most issues, I just think that's unfair. He's good on healthcare, the taxcode, environmental issues, and he has interesting ideas for education reform that are neither Right nor Left. He may not be a shrill leftist idealogue like Dennis Kucinich, but he is also interested in being an effective public servant who actually accomplishes things (ie a Washington Insider.)

    Speaking of Washington Insiders running the White House, President Clinton appointed his best friend from Arkansas to be his Chief of Staff and it was declared an utter disaster by just about everyone, including the man himself. When you hire someone to run the White House, it might help if they've been there before. (The tour doesn't count.) This point can also be illustrated by pretty much the entire Carter Administration.

    President Obama will most certainly have people in his administration who served under Clinton. Perhaps even Hillary herself. When it comes to choosing people in the party who are qualified to run our agencies and serve in the Cabinet, we're not talking about really long lists of candidates. The test is not whether this or that person held a post under Clinton, it's how they serve this president now.

    Joe Biden is from Delaware, Delaware has lots of corporate corrruption, Joe Biden is therefore corrupt. Got it.

    Finally, regarding Mr. Nadar… really guys? Really?

    Reply
  11. Matt Kennard says:
    November 16, 2008 at 17:57

    “Thanks for finally making that point, Matt. Who in the entire Democratic Party is both qualified to run a White House AND publicly announced their opposition to the war as Obama did? Right.”

    Dennis Kucinich. And also your point just shows what a bunch of spineless warmongering bastards comprise the Democratic Party rather than refuting Chomsky's point.

    “As for “staffing his White House with former Clintonites,” let's not get carried away. He brought on Podesta and others to lead him through a transition. He is not governing with them, he is utilizing their undeniable expertise to get through these tricky 2 months and prepare to govern on his own, and with his own people. He just made 3 new appointments today to WH staff and none of them served under Clinton.”

    Yeah I hear that. But I don't see anything changing after the transition, it's not like this is a short-term expedient.

    “As for Rahm, he has been closer to Obama over the last several years than he has to the Clintons, but it was President Clinton who gave him a job when he was a young up-and-comer. Why should we fault him for that? He served that administration well and he will serve the new one even better. Let us also not forget that he almost single-handedly engineered the Democratic takeover of the House in 2006 as chairman of DCCC. Who better to wrangle Congress for your legislative agenda than the man who got most of them their jobs? As for being to the right-wing of the party on most issues, I just think that's unfair. He's good on healthcare, the taxcode, environmental issues, and he has interesting ideas for education reform that are neither Right nor Left. He may not be a shrill leftist idealogue like Dennis Kucinich, but he is also interested in being an effective public servant who actually accomplishes things (ie a Washington Insider.)”

    Yeah OK I hear your point, but Rahm is not “change”, he's back to Clintonism, which wasn't what the change people voted for. If you vote for a guy who was against the war do you think he should surround himself with supporters of the war? And why is Kucinich shrill? He's a thoughtful guy who is maligned because he doesn't tailor his opinions to fit in with the mainstream warmongering corporate bum sucking Democrats like all the others.

    “Speaking of Washington Insiders running the White House, President Clinton appointed his best friend from Arkansas to be his Chief of Staff and it was declared an utter disaster by just about everyone, including the man himself. When you hire someone to run the White House, it might help if they've been there before. (The tour doesn't count.) This point can also be illustrated by pretty much the entire Carter Administration.”

    No one is defending Clinton. I hear your point and would agree with it if I didn't think it is a signal of what the White House will become; he won't turn around and chuck these people out once the transition is done… I mean are you really happy that is completely staffing his cabinet with Clintonites and actual Clintons? I mean couldn't he reward one anti-war candidate with a position? It just shows how skewed the political system is here that all these people are rewarded for supporting this disastrous, criminal war…

    “President Obama will most certainly have people in his administration who served under Clinton. Perhaps even Hillary herself. When it comes to choosing people in the party who are qualified to run our agencies and serve in the Cabinet, we're not talking about really long lists of candidates. The test is not whether this or that person held a post under Clinton, it's how they serve this president now.”

    Well you don't have a very high opinion of American democracy then. A majority of the population is now against the war in Iraq, why are their representatives so unrepresentative?

    “Joe Biden is from Delaware, Delaware has lots of corporate corrruption, Joe Biden is therefore corrupt. Got it.”

    Yeah I think this is a bit tenuous as well. I would assume he meant that Biden has overseen the creating of conditions that let this happen (i.e. destroyed labor and environmental regulations and corporate tax)….

    “Finally, regarding Mr. Nadar… really guys? Really?”

    I really like Nader, I think he is a very principled guy; he shows the Democrats for the warmongering corporate party they are….

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Noam Chomsky

Noam is Professor Emeritus of Linguistics and Philosophy at the Massachusettes Institute of Technology. In a 2005 poll by Prospect magazine and Foreign Affairs he was voted the most important public intellectual alive. Chomsky ranks with Marx, Shakespeare and the Bible as one of the 10 most quoted sources in history - and is the only writer among them still alive.

Articles by this author
Search the site
Browse our categories