OPINIONS Why do people still like Chomsky? BE ®& Inevitably, one of the first names any student learns upon entering any post secondary institution is that of Noam Chomsky. Indeed, the man is popular to the point where the name “Chomsky” itself has evolved into something of an iconic cliché of college life, akin in scope to other stalwart terms such as “Kraft Dinner” and “pub night.” Visit any post secondary library, bookstore, or reading room and you're likely to find a plethora of Chomsky titles. Take any course in political science, sociology, communications, or history and his works are likely to be liberally sprinkled throughout the “required readings.” I’ve always had something of a morbid fascination with the Chomsky phenomenon. Though politically I obviously disagree with almost everything he writes, one can’t help but be impressed at the sheer success and popularity he’s achieved as an author, especially in winning over young read- ers. Doubtlessly part of the appeal is that Chomsky writes in such a self-confident way. His descriptions are so damning, his conclusions are so sweeping, and his vitriol is so unapologetic it’s hard not to be persuaded by a man who is so clearly passionate about what he believes. People like to be shocked, and Chomsky writes in a shocking way. He screams to his readers that everything they read and watch and hear is wrong, with Chomsky himself being the lone voice of sanity in an insane world. And I believe that is in itself the essence of the Chomsky appeal. He has done a remarkable job of creating his own little narratives of foreign policy which are either too radical or nonsensi- cal for anyone but himself to take seriously, This in turn creates the impression that everyone else—the news media, the politicians, the popular culture, the mainstream authors, moderate aca- demics, etc., are either brainwashed idiots or active collaborators in the big conspiracy to conceal the truth. Chomsky’s been in my mind recently only because I am starting to seriously wonder if his appeal can sustain itself for that much longer. Since the end of the Cold War, American foreign policy has begun to evolve in a dramatically new direction, and as a result many of the core theo- ries of Chomskyism—the conspiratorial beliefs which he dictated will always govern how the United States acts abroad are beginning to become severely discredited by a changing world of statecraft. This Poker Dog is a Gambler Ed Ronald, OP Contributor The most engaging and thought-provoking tenant of the Chomsky worldview has always be his thesis of the “threat of the good example,” a theory he has been espousing for most of his career, perhaps most articulately in his 1993 bestseller “What Uncle Sam Really Wants’. The log: goes that Uncle Sam really only wants one thing in the world, and that is for every other countr in the world to be slaves to the American capitalist empire. Under the Chomsky model all natios are thus best understood as being either American puppet-colonies, or rebellious, “independent? regimes. Such “independent” governments ate usually Marxist dictatorships of one form or another, and over the years Chomsky has praised regimes such as Castro’s Cuba, Ho Chi Minh’s North Vietnam, and Ortega’s Nicaragua for their bravery and tenacity in “standing up” to the hegemony. Such rebel countries were of course America’s open enemies, and during the Cold War Chomsky tirelessly argued that the US government’s “official” justifications for why such regimd were hated was a pack of lies. The Soviet Union presented no threat and no one in Washington was seriously afraid of Russian expansionism around the world, he explained. What American leaders really feared was the success of socialism, because it would be too embarrassing to their own bankrupt capitalist ideology to let such success stories thrive freely. During the often hyste: cally anti-communist Cold War it could be argued this made some modicum of sense. It certain! won Chomsky a lot of fans. Yet when we look at the world today in post-Cold War, it is really cinating to notice America’s ever-declining interest in quashing these supposed “good examples’ around the world. During the 60s and 70s, Latin America was a mess of right-wing military dictatorships of va ous stripes, many of which received US backing when they went around quashing left-wing reb4 groups. Ostensibly this was done because the United States government said it feared Soviet mg dling in the American hemisphere, and could not allow its safety to be compromised by the esta lishment of another Cuban-style Communist proxy state. The Chomsky rabble, by constant, accused the Yankees of deposing Marxist populists like Chile’s Salvador Allende for no reason other than they hated progressive socialism, and didn’t want any poor people to enjoy its benefiq If this was indeed the case, however, one would expect America to still be engaged in the sa kind of aggressive foreign policy to this day, keeping South America conservative and anti-com munist by whatever draconian means necessary. But consider the events of last week alone. Da Ortega, a former Marxist guerilla leader who the Reagan administration spent the better part of the 80s trying to depose, re-assumed the presidency of Nicaragua. Rafael Correa, a former fina minister who had been fired from his previous job for being too left-wing, was sworn in as pres dent of Ecuador. And finally, the great kingfish of Latin American socialism himself, Hugo Chavez, was sworn in for his third term as president of Venezuela. In wake of these latest deve opments, here are now only two countries in the entire South American continent Paraguay and Columbia which are not ruled by either social-democrats or radical leftists. What’s the explanation of all this? Has America finally been overpowered by the Latino left? Has the former might of the US military and CIA eroded to the point where the United States helpless to prevent these radicals from coming to office? Or, perhaps is there a simpler explana- tion: America just doesn’t care. From any sort of economic standpoint, Latin America is a region of only marginal importa to the United States. Hugo Chavez can nationalize all he wants but without the specter of Sovie backing, he’ll never be a truly threatening presence to America. He could establish a communist utopia tomorrow and still not irk the White House. This is the central problem with the Chomskyite understanding of the world. When you're a socialist, you tend to live your life moti vated more by ideology than pragmatism or rationality. And in time, you come to assume that everyone else, including the United States government, operates the same, predictable way. It m4 be edgy and unorthodox to suggest that traditional concerns such as domestic security and mai taining the balance of power play no role in motivating a nation’s foreign policy, but if you are going to make such radical claims you sure as hell better have some concrete proof to back it uj It’s not enough for it to merely “sound” plausible. Chomsky is a crank, and as the years go on it is becoming more and more apparent just ho hopelessly dated and ideologically blind many of his most cherished theories of foreign policy 2 It’s a shame that so many university students and academics are still under his spell. heavily that while playing he puked into his hand and then ¢ it. He wiped his shirt, continued playing, and won the dai round. In hindsight, the odds were stacked against you in more ways than one; a work friend of mine caught a diseas¢ from one of the girls, and I never left the game with a full I am not a particularly lucky man, but I like gambling. In fact, T like it so much that I have always had a secret dream of becoming a professional gambler. Unfortunately, that would probably not be a sound financial move for someone who has (for good reason) been called “loser” constantly during his life. I was introduced to serious gambling at one of my first jobs. My manager there really loved gambling. He ran a small cabinetmaking shop and had a standing policy that at shift’s end, any employee could bet him their day’s wage, double or nothing, on the flip of a coin. I must admit that he taught me the value of a dollar. Imagine working eight hours and then taking the bus home with nothing to show for it because you went-for double or nothing. Paydays at the shop were quite an event. My manager 1 0 THE OTHER PRESS JANUARY 22 2007 knew how to throw one hell of a gambling party. Have you ever seen the painting of dogs playing poker? These parties were much the same, but these dogs had less class. He would give us our cheques and if we wanted to stay, he would cash them for us. Out came a bar stocked with anything you want- ed to drink, which was all for free if you were in the game. I don’t know where the girls came from that hung around the game, but they were pretty and friendly. Guys from other local cabinet shops showed up to join in the festivities and they brought their cheques. While I was somewhat naive at the time, the men that showed up to join the game were well accustomed and hard- core. They arrived with a lot more money than my beginner wage would permit, and they went until they lost their money, or were too drunk to stand. I remember one man drinking so paycheque. The type of gambling I play now consists of five-dollar bets on the Canuck games. I guess I’m not much of a gam- bler; they only win half the time, therefore so do I. I do pla the slots once in awhile. I have a system that involves walki into a casino with $20 and leaving when it’s gone or when I win a dollar more than I walked in with. I’m usually there 2 of five minutes. Most times I lose; sometimes I walk out wi $21; and occasionally I bound out of the casino wagging m tail, barking back, “you lose!” with a couple hundred in my pocket. During the time I have spent gambling, I have come up with three rules: never drink too much while gambling; onl bet what you can afford to lose; and never play poker with dogs.