Looking for Relevance - Noam Chomsky's inevitably failed quest

The MIT professor wrote an op-ed this morning called Making the Case for Self Examination. I thought it a bit ironic. Chomsky, has spent a good deal of his career propounding self referenced theories on language and on the state of America and yet he calls on the rest of us to engage in "self examination."

His argument, which brings the term ad nauseum to a new level, has been repeated by him over the last thirty years. He suggests that the world needs to think about three issues - nuclear war, environmental disaster and "the fact that the government of the world's leading power is acting in ways that increase the likelihood of these catastrophes." He goes on to pontificate "One of the hardest tasks that anyone can undertake, and among the most important, is to look honestly in the mirror." One wonders whether Mr. Chomsky has ever taken his own advice.

Chomsky makes some outlandish claims in the article. For example, he seems to imply that there was not really a communist "menace" that all those repressions were simply misunderstandings. I guess he did not get the time to read any of the millions of documents attesting to the horrors of communism. He then suggests that when the communist problem/threat was ended (he somehow argues that communism was really ended before we recognized it) we substituted the issues of terrorism.

In Chomsky's ideal world the US would 1) accept the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice and the World Court, 2) sign the Kyoto protocol, 3) let the UN lead in international crises, 4) rely on diplomatic means rather than military ones in confronting terror and 5) (and this one should be quoted directly) "Keep to the traditional interpretation of the UN Charter: The use of force is legitimate only when ordered by the Security Council or when the country is under imminent threat of attack, in accord with Article 51" and then 6) give up the Security Council veto (I guess he does not think all of the UN charter should be adhered to) and finally 7) reduce military spending and "sharply" increase social spending - health, education, renewable energy and "so on." (i.e. throw a whole lot more money on lame brained schemes that he and his leftist buddies think will work - in spite of several decades of evidence to the contrary.) In essence what Chomsky would ask us to accept is significantly higher taxes to support the whims of nitwits like him. It is interesting that the attribution at end of the article suggests that he is a do as I say guy - the copyright is for "Harry Chomsky, as Trustee of the Chomsky Grandchildren Nominee Trust" presumably the money he received (which is diverted into a trust for his grandchildren) could have been better received and taxed had it come directly to him. But never mind Mr. Chomsky lives on the highest clouds above us poor mortals and thus while we should pay more taxes he has other things to worry about.

Anyone with a willingness to think about major policies of our country should be prepared to examine the current ones in terms of alternative views of the world. The policies to fight terror adopted by our government are costly both in monetary terms but also in terms of opportunity costs (failing to be able to do other things). But Chomsky seems to ignore the last decade of "world" decision making where nations high on degrading basic human rights command respect in the councils of the UN on the issues of human rights. He also seems to ignore the scandals in the UN that make it one of the least responsive institutions in the world today - bent more on isolating and enriching their officials than in making substantive progress on key issues. Has he not thought, even a bit, about the long term success of the vast array of projects of governmental spending in the US since the great society to evaluate whether any of them offer progress?

Self examination is a good thing. We should do it periodically. We should look at how we spend our money in the governmental sector. We should listen to what the rest of the world is thinking - but listening does not mean blind acceptance. Thinking about alternatives does not mean a mad rush back to the failed policies of the past.