The Shotgun Blog
« William F. Buckley, Jr., R.I.P. | Main | No Choice Now: Canada must support Kosovo independence »
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
Chomsky vs. Buckley
Yesterday--and I suppose, given Buckley's passing today, somewhat presciently--I sent Noam Chomsky an email about his televised debate with William F. Buckley Jr. from 1969. Here's part one of the video:
(And here's the link to part two).
I had interviewed, with Western Standard reporter Terrence Watson and fellow colleague Jay Lafayette, Jonah Goldberg this past Monday, and took a bit of an interest in the history of the National Review. That lead me to look up videos of Buckley, the founder of the magazine. The most interesting of the batch of videos was the debate between him and Chomsky.
So I asked Chomsky whether the debate had any relevance to today, and for an anecdote about the debate.
Chomsky wrote back:
"What we were talking about then can be transferred to today very easily. By coincidence, just today an op-ed of mine was distributed by the NY Times syndicate with some comparisons about debate over Vietnam and over Iraq. Many of the other questions, about the general nature of U.S. foreign policy, are persistent.
"My main recollection was surprise at how little he seemed to know about particular issues, and how quickly he wanted to drop them when we began to go beyond general slogans.
"Although this was not on the tape, it's hard to forget the final moments as he walked off stage, in a fury, shouting that he'd have me back on again soon and teach me a thing or too. When I answered politely that I'd be glad to arrange it, he got even more furious. Of course I never heard from him again, or expected to."
UPDATE: You can get more reaction about Buckley's passing at NRO's The Corner.
Posted by P.M. Jaworski on February 27, 2008 in International Politics | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e200e5509b273a8834
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Chomsky vs. Buckley:
Comments
The videos are very difficult to sit through because of Mr. Buckley's pomposity and unctuously pedantic speech patterns.
Some of the dialogue is difficult to follow because they talk over each other so much rather than listening and really discussing.
Mr. Chomsky is correct in his recollection that Mr. Buckley seemed really to know little about the issues of discussion and overall Mr. Chomsky made the best points, although I disagree with Mr. Chomsky's definitions of imperialism and colonialism.
The largest failure on Mr. Buckley's part was to get bogged down with the idea that America conducted foreign affairs for altruistic reasons, which Mr. Buckley characterises as 'disinterest'.
This is clearly either a delusion on Mr. Buckley's part or an attempt at sophistry to mislead the American viewing public.
Good for Mr. Chomsky for having none of it.
Where I part ways with Mr. Chomsky's view is that America should have to act in foreign affairs for any other motive than it's own best interest and to assume American values themselves don't go a long way to mitigating how America interacts with other nations.
Americans want to view themselves as good people and act accordingly, but they don't need to be the sacrificial saints and saviors of the world that Mr. Buckley wants them to imagine themselves to be.
Posted by: Speller | 2008-02-27 11:34:24 AM
Personally, I've always liked Buckley's manner of speaking. It can be down right comical.
I only watched part one of the debate, but Buckley always seems to start a discussion in the Socratic way with him starring as Socrates. He always gets rattled when the student (Chomsky in this case) takes over the lesson.
I'm no fan of Chomskey, but he handed our late friend his ass in that discussion.
Posted by: Veteran | 2008-02-27 4:59:05 PM
>"I'm no fan of Chomskey, but he handed our late friend his ass in that discussion.
Veteran | 27-Feb-08 4:59:05 PM
I concur.
Posted by: Speller | 2008-02-27 11:59:26 PM
Where is part 3 though- that was great stuff.
Posted by: Merle | 2008-02-28 7:33:25 AM
I just watched part II of the debate. Buckley had the deer in the headlights look a few times. And I know he got caught not knowing about the South Vietnamese invasion of the north in the 50's. I didn't know that either.
After reading more about Buckley, it is clear he is not a conservative. He is a Neo-con.
By his own admission he believes in big gov't and intervention. Isn't that what the Soviets believed? The more I learn about Neo-cons, the more I think they ripped a page out of Stalin's handbook.
Posted by: Veteran | 2008-02-28 9:57:48 AM
Buckley wasn't just the first of this sort of "convservative", he was also the first to resort to the cowardly commonplace rightwing tactic that is endemic in the media today:
Outshouting and interrupting the opposing view to prevent people from speaking.
The rightwing are utterly afraid of a civilized debate. Even the few who actually have a rational basis for argument feel it necessary to constantly interrupt and prevent the other side from speaking. Without this cowardly tactic, there is a very strong chance that the opposing view might be heard.
The fact is, the strongest view will not be threatened by an opposing view. Quite the contrary, it will welcome opposing views. Answering questions strengthens an argument, preventing questions displays an argument's weakness. Unfortunately, we live in an era where basic respect and courtesy no longer exist.
Posted by: T Trimper | 2008-02-28 10:19:10 AM
Yes T, and the left doesn't believe in interrupting?
The left believe in using the gov't to steal money for them. That's a bit more offensive than being rude.
Posted by: Veteran | 2008-02-28 10:41:26 AM
Where is Ice-water dog when we need him??
"Buckley wasn't just the first of this sort of "convservative", he was also the first to resort to the cowardly commonplace rightwing tactic that is endemic in the media today:"
The HRCs were not just the first of this sort of "restriction", they were hardly the first to resort to the cowardly commonplace statist tactic that is endemic in the media today:"
"Outshouting and interrupting the opposing view to prevent people from speaking."
Fining and issuing cease orders to the opposing political view to prevent people from speaking or writing in public.
"The rightwing are utterly afraid of a civilized debate. Even the few who actually have a rational basis for argument feel it necessary to constantly interrupt and prevent the other side from speaking. Without this cowardly tactic, there is a very strong chance that the opposing view might be heard."
The leftwing are utterly afraid of a civilized debate. Even the few who actually have a rational basis for argument feel it necessary to somewhat support the existence of the HRCs constant prevention of the other side from speaking. Without this cowardly tactic, there is a very strong chance that the opposing view might be heard.
"The fact is, the strongest view will not be threatened by an opposing view. Quite the contrary, it will welcome opposing views. Answering questions strengthens an argument, preventing questions displays an argument's weakness. Unfortunately, we live in an era where basic respect and courtesy no longer exist."
The fact is, the strongest view will not be threatened by an opposing view. Quite the contrary, it will welcome opposing views rather than fining them. Answering questions strengthens an argument, preventing questions displays an argument's weakness as does suppressing political speech displays a political's system's weakness. Unfortunately, we live in an era where basic political respect (demonstated by freedom) and political courtesy (demonstrated by deference) no longer exist.
Posted by: Brent Weston | 2008-02-28 11:46:45 AM
About a year after this debate I watched WFBJ eviscerate John Kenneth Galbraith on prime time television. The debate was funny, friendly, and polite. JKG was no match for Buckley's oratory skills. Even on substance, Buckley came out the winner.
He will be missed.
Posted by: John Chittick | 2008-02-28 12:11:10 PM
A lot of the debate is semantics; people who think that somehow Chomsky came out a clear winner have an ax to grind.
Also, the thing about Buckley was, as a host of a weekly TV show, he would have guests on every week who were experts on their subjects and had spent their entire careers focusing on them, while he obviously couldn't be a expert on everything under the sun--but he was very close!
Also, isn't Chomsky an anarchist these days?
Posted by: A2 | 2008-03-01 9:16:06 AM
A2, Chomsky is a socialist-anarchist. If you can make sense of that, let me know.
Posted by: Matthew Johnston | 2008-03-01 9:33:12 AM
Chomsky is a fascist. Period. Do some research on the history of socialism, fascism, etc. It's all under the same net = socialism. Bolshevism and Fascism were heresies of Socialism.
And isn't being a socialist-anarchist an oxymoron? It is: socialism requires big government to redistribute wealth. Anarchy means to have no government.
I surely can't make sense of that, Matthew, because it DOESN'T make sense.
Chomsky is a Fascist. Read the book 'Liberal Fascism', a term coined by a liberal, H G Wells, back in the day. That is what him and his liberal ilk wanted to name their 'new' liberal philosophy. His secondary name for their philosophy was 'Enlightened Nazism'.
Scary, that.
Posted by: BP | 2008-03-01 4:43:27 PM
T Trimper displayed his ignorance by opining:
"The rightwing are utterly afraid of a civilized debate."
Trimper, see the post elsewhere on this site regarding the York University Students Union. Who is it that is threatened by an opposing view and who is it that is preventing questions and displaying the weakness of their arguments?
Posted by: TimR | 2008-03-01 6:50:32 PM
Chomsky doesn't identify himself as anything, to my knowledge, but is most sympathetic to philosophies stemming from libertarian socialism - a system which is pretty close to anarchism. Socialism doesn't require big government to redistribute wealth - that's just the way socialist governments have gone about it. Essentially, it's all about the people. But populist democracy is opposed with great vehemence by just about every intellectual in the country, so it's no wonder that the brand of anarchism Chomsky advocates is met with so much confusion.
Posted by: Kyle | 2008-03-01 10:31:54 PM
>"Socialism doesn't require big government to redistribute wealth - that's just the way socialist governments have gone about it.
Kyle | 1-Mar-08 10:31:54 PM
You are correct.
Socialism runs contrary to the nature of the humans that are productive.
Therefore human nature requires big government to force people to implement the socialist redistribution of wealth.
Posted by: Speller | 2008-03-01 10:48:58 PM
-----Trimper, see the post elsewhere on this site regarding the York University Students Union. Who is it that is threatened by an opposing view and who is it that is preventing questions and displaying the weakness of their arguments?-----
This brings up a point that conservatives here in the US have been making. Pay attention to the radical fascists on campus today, throwing pies at every single conservative speaker that comes to speak at the 'elite' campuses today.
And this is no small movement. They are shouted down, silenced, and are pressured not to come by the faculty due to overwhelming force by said fascists.
It's becoming more and more common in this country. And it's just the far left that is doing it. I never hear of left-wing speakers being silenced or having pies thrown at them. Nor am I hearing or reading about students standing up en masse and turning their backs on left-wing speakers in auditoriums on campus.
It only happens to right-wing speakers.
Posted by: BP | 2008-03-02 9:37:51 AM
Buckley, although getting destroyed in his exchange with Chomsky, actually fared better than Richard Perle did.
Chomsky's list of defeated opponents range from Psychologists (Piaget), pundits (Buckley), academics (Dershowitz) and even to philosophers (Foucault). Buckley fans should take comfort in knowing that he was one of many.
Posted by: dice | 2008-03-02 9:13:06 PM
Every time I think of Noam Chomsky, I think of him meeting with a terrorist organization (Hezbollah), in support, against Israel. A terror group that shoots rockets into Israel daily. See below:
Chomsky expressed support for the arming of Hezbollah, in direct contradiction to UN Security Council Resolution 1559 calliing for “the disbanding and disarmament of all Lebanese and non-Lebanese militias”:
Hezbollah's insistence on keeping its arms is justified... I think [Hezbollah leader Sheik Hassan] Nasrallah has a reasoned argument and [a] persuasive argument that they [the arms] should be in the hands of Hezbollah as a deterrent to potential aggression, and there is plenty of background reasons for that. So until – I think his position [is] reporting it correctly and it seems to me [a] reasonable position, is that until there is a general political settlement in the region, [and] the threat of aggression and violence is reduced or eliminated, there has to be a deterrent, and the Lebanese army can't be a deterrent. (Noam Chomsky, Al Manar TV, 13 May 2006)
Posted by: BP | 2008-03-04 5:47:42 PM
There are many UN resolutions which US unilaterally vetoed (favoring Israel) against overwhelming world opinion to prevent a reasonable and just settlement of the Israeli-Palestine conflict. International court of justice has rightly condemned the illegal Israeli settlement(including the wall) in West Bank. Only Hamas is a legitimate and rightful response to the arrogance and brutality of the occupying power. Palestine people are humiliated, tortured and taken refugee in their own homes. And now if they have decided to resist the imperial lords, they are called terrorist. This goes on to show how the mainstream Western Intellectuals have taken the hypocrisy to new levels. It is not surprising that Prof Chomsky is often berated and accused for supporting underdogs. Well that is not something new in human history.
Posted by: Ravinder | 2008-03-10 7:29:11 PM
Ravinder: You're joking right? If all the Palestinians wanted was a homeland, (why doesn't Egypt let them run their palestinian land Egypt is occupying?)they would just need to stop sending rockets into Israel and Israel would gladly get an agreement done.
However Hamas is a retarded bunch of goons who use women and children in civilian homes for shields as they launch their rockets into Israel.
So if Palestianians are humiliated, it is because they are being used as by Muslims throughout the middle east who refuse to recognize Israel and renounce terrorism. They are using the Palestinians to get at Israel (apparently they see them as expendable in order to gather anger against Israel)...unfortunately the Palistinians are too stupid to realize they are being used as pawns against Israel.
Posted by: Markalta | 2008-03-10 8:54:19 PM
Actually you are right, Palestinians are used in Muslim world because they don't get enough logistic and military support from the Arab neighbors. They ought to have helped by Arab nations in a manner that US and EU helps Israel. Why not?? Right!! That would have reduced the power imbalance and forced Israel to seek a more peaceful and reasonable settlement for its own good. But most of the Arab countries (actually the rulers not the general population) are happy to play puppet in the hands of US. Unfortunately nothing can be done about it unless people overthrow puppet regimes.
By the way, Israel is not a benign state as you suggest. None for that mater in imperial history. All you are saying is that Palestinian should meekly surrender, beg mercy and accept whatever little Israel has to offer. Slaves should know what is their interests. That is ridiculous. Humanity has come a long way from slavery.
Imperialism needs to resisted, defeated and not honored as many apologists of Israel suggest. If not for resistance and opposition, Hitler also would have loved to rule his victims without resorting to military power. Whom would you honor? Those who resisted and ultimately defeated Nazi fascism or those who just changed sides for mere survival.
People will find their way to overcome the oppression. It is just a matter of time and right strategy.
To be fare, no one refuses to recognize Israel in middle east? Anyone fancying such notions are only fooling themselves. Even Hamas has expressed eagerness to negotiate and talk with Israel, but only to be rejected with contempt and arrogance. It is a matter of shame how little respect Israel and US has for democracy -if people decide to choose other way.
Posted by: Ravinder | 2008-03-11 4:46:20 PM
The Roaming Noam doesn't allow himself to be pinned down on exactly what his political philosophy is, but venturing a guess, I think the notion of populist socialism does best describe what he sees as the best system, a sort of decentralized and spontaneous system of production in which ownership is public, yet not large scale public. Something like communes or kibbutz organization, there would be no state playing a redistributivist or regulatory role. He's some sort of anarchist in the sense that he sees large nation states as being essentially hegemonic and therefore morally problematic.
As for the workability of his system, I doubt it would work, and he fails to see that one can see some empirical evidence that such organizations evolve into larger political units, and away from egalitarianism anyway. One interesting example, the story of the early English settlements, like Plymouth. They realized early that the egalitarian model tended to disincentivize productive behavior, which endangered the survival of the group. There was a natural movement away from that organization toward a (shudder if you are Chomsky) capitalist outlook and organization.
I would also submit that the subsequent history of Vietnam militates against his view. you see statism and "creeping capitalism" there too with a consequent improvement in material condition. Of course Chomsky would probably attribute that to reaction formations against US hegemony as an ongoing threat and economic warfare by the Nefarious hegemon.
Posted by: themistocles | 2008-03-14 2:21:42 PM
Those of you here criticizing Noam Chomsky make yourselves look ridiculous. The man is obviously brilliant, respected the world over, and on top of that calm, collected, and unpretentious. You must just be pissed off at seeing your hero Buckley get a sound thrashing.
Posted by: alex | 2008-07-04 4:51:17 PM
Alex,
"The man is obviously brilliant, respected the world over, and on top of that calm, collected, and unpretentious."
Obviously! Who needs other opinions when faced with such overwhelming intellect and genuflecting supporters? Especially the kind who resurrect long dead blog posts.
Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2008-07-04 5:18:58 PM
Chomsky was involved with Holocaust denial. So much for his reputation.
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2008-07-04 6:19:53 PM
No the ridiculous thing about these negative posts directed at Chomsky, is that they contain NO SUBSTANCE.
As do most negative internet musings on Chomsky. No one here has actually constructed a relevant counterargument to any one of Chomsky's views.
Instead, they use insults or baseless accusations/generalizations.
"He's a fascist."
So and so forth. How about you poseurs post your rebuttal to one of his ideas/opinions? I'd like to see an opinion that had some empirical analysis and logic. Anyone can throw around words like "facist" to serve their purpose. You might as well call him antisemitic or a racist. Or anti-american.
You're all about as intellectual as a pair of clown shoes.
See? I can do it too!
Posted by: kl | 2008-10-12 2:31:50 AM
As the power elite would not waste their time posting here, I assume the anti-Chomsky sect is operating out of a boiler-room, perhaps in a state penitentiary, or perhaps in an old-folks home somewhere, convinced that Chomsky wants to take away their Bingo.
The same three points, always with a slovenly delivery, he denied A, B, C. Even if he did, out of the tens of thousands of matters he's commented on, a few miscues are understandable. Miscues which, I suspect, would take on quite a different complexion if one were to quote the entirety and context of any such statement attributed to Chomsky.
Contrast with the accuracy of Prof. Chomsky the dense and unreleting BLANKET of lies and emotional falseness issuing from the mouths of the warmongers who FEED the boiler-room clip and paste ops.
Freshest in memory: Palin, lies and misinformation spewed on demand, like a coarse whore. Every word simultaneously false, stupid, paid for, and uproariously amusing. Truly, Dan Quayle in glasses and bra.
Posted by: Honest Joe | 2008-10-13 2:47:41 AM
chomsky was not involved in holocaust denial. how dare you have the ineptitude to repeat such retardation without actually, oh, i dont know, GOOGLING IT, you asshole. chomsky said that a particular holocaust denier has the right to free speech and his speech should be defended, even though he disagrees with it. shame on you for turning that around into chomsky 'being involved in holocaust denial.' go to hell.
Posted by: chatte | 2008-10-16 5:23:12 AM
I agree. Anyone who claims Chomsky is a socialist holocaust denier doesn't know a thing about him, and obviously hasn't read any of his writings.
He is an anti-authoritarian socialist, an anarchist. He is against societies being run by concentrated centres of power, whether they are Governmental or Private (i.e. corporations).
His works were banned in the Soviet Union, for example, even his non-political works on linguistics. The Soviet Union was very hostile towards him.
Posted by: Wil | 2008-10-20 3:08:28 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.