← Green & Red: Podcasts for Scrappy Radicals
Green & Red: Podcasts for Scrappy Radicals
Best of G&R : Noam Chomsky on Why the Democrats Suck (G&R 442)
01:02:55
Loading summary
Transcript61 lines
- [00:00]
Scott Park
Hey there, this is Scott from the Green and Red Podcast. I want to tell you about this great podcast I came across called the False Positive Podcast. It's hosted by these four friends who live in New York and in 2016 they had a radio show they happened to be broadcasting live on the air the evening of November 2016 when Donald Trump had won the election. They were shocked and angry, like many of us, and immediately decided to pivot to a podcast where they could laugh, scream and chat about the latest insanity.
- [00:32]
Scott Parkin
Coming out of the Trump administration.
- [00:34]
Scott Park
If you like politics, but hate hearing the dress down version, this is a show for you. False positive streams wherever you get your podcasts.
- [00:44]
Bob Bozanko
Welcome to Green and Red Scrappy Politics for Scrappy People, a regular podcast on radical environmental and anti capitalist politics brought to you by Bob Bozanko and Scott Park.
- [01:05]
Scott Parkin
Welcome to the silky smooth sounds of Green and Red Podcast. I am Scott Parkin in Berkeley, California today.
- [01:12]
Bob Bozanko
And I'm Bob Bozenko in Houston, Texas. And we always begin by thanking you and want to do that again. We have an amazing guest today which we'll get to, who we'll get to in just a minute.
- [01:23]
Scott Parkin
And if you like this episode, which we know you will because it's sponsored. Great. And it's an amazing guest, you know, go to greenandredpodcast.org and hit the donate button or consider becoming a patron@patreon.com backslash greenred podcast.
- [01:41]
Bob Bozanko
Yeah, and check us out. We also have some books available for donors and we're going to get some swag, some T shirts and things too, so you can join the Green and Red community and become a comrade with us today. We are fortunate again to have Noam Chomsky on as our guest. And today we'll specifically be talking with him about the Democratic Party and the right word shift in American politics. This is the 50th anniversary of George McGovern's 1972 campaign, which was a disaster for Democrats. And it really initiated a long rightward move for the Democratic Party for American politics in general. And so we're going to talk to Noam about that and we're going to start, he's going to talk with him, talking about the 1972 campaign and how it led into Watergate.
- [02:28]
Scott Parkin
Yep. So we'll be right back with Noam Chomsky.
- [02:34]
Noam Chomsky
He ran the most incompetent campaign that you can possibly imagine. Actually, I found out something about it just myself turned out that I don't know if you recall at the time, there was a big Flap about how Kissinger made a speech about how the war in Vietnam is all over. The US Is gonna negotiate a way out. It's finished. Forget the issue. It was all total lies. Total. You looked at the facts. He was saying nothing except the war's going on. I happened to be in touch with Richard Goodman, who was leading advisor to McGovern. And I asked him, why doesn't the McGovern campaign release this information? He told me they didn't know anything about it. So he asked me if I could send him documentary evidence, which I did. And then McGovern had a press conference in which he quoted the documentary evidence and he was asked to back it up. He had no idea it was just a letter he'd gotten from me. So everybody left. You know, I mean, it was just unbelievable incompetence. None of this was secret. It was. And it went on like that. Of course, he was shafted by the labor leaders, refused to support him. And it's worth remembering that there was no real opposition to the war among elite circles, Democrat or Republican. They'd go as far as saying maybe it's a mistake or something like that. But any actual opposition to the war almost non existent. In fact, decades later, can't find anything. It's. Well, you know better than I do. You look through the scholarly record, you can find people who say it was a mistake. Okay, like Russian generals in Afghanistan. Okay, it was a mistake. Becoming very dramatic now with all the hysteria about Ukraine. So, in fact, there's a marvelous article in Foreign affairs by Fiona Hill, Angela Stent, the top liberal foreign policy analysts, how they regarded. And they're condemning the Third World for not joining in the US campaign in Ukraine. And they say some of them even descend so low that they compare Putin's invasion to the US efforts in Vietnam and in Iraq. I mean, you don't even know if you're living in the world. This is not that there's anything secret about this anymore. Tons of material anyway, going back to McGovern. That's the background. He couldn't get any real support from liberal circles because they didn't agree with him.
- [06:09]
Bob Bozanko
This is a Green Red podcast with Noam chomsky. It's the 50th anniversary of the McGovern debacle. And kind of the Democrats drift to the right since then. So that's what we were going to talk about today. You were talking a little bit about the McGovern campaign and you mentioned labor, because I remember AFLCO, I think, even refused to endorse him. But wasn't there also a movement within the Democratic Party by people like Jimmy Carter in fact to stop him in anybody but McGovern movement?
- [06:38]
Noam Chomsky
Well, Carter was of course pretty conservative. In fact, Carter administration was the last gasp of the Democratic Party to have any concern for the labor movement. One of the leading labor leaders, Doug Fraser UAW pulled out of a. Carter organized a labor management conference which was supposed to say how we all love each other and we'll work together. Which was Carter's view basically. And Fraser made a very strong statement about how it's time for labor to recognize that business is fighting a one sided class war to destroy the labor movement. They've pulled out of the tacit compact of the last couple of decades to cooperate to create a better society. They're now just fighting a bitter class war pulling out. The last gasp was the Humphrey Hawkins full Employment Bill 1978. Carter didn't veto it, but he watered it down so that it had no force, just a voluntary agreement. He was quite anti labor and he laid the basis for the Reagan sharp escalation of the major class war neoliberal assault bedecked with all kind of fancy talk about markets, which is total nonsense, but it's just unrestrained class war. And Carter basically laid the basis for him. I should say that Carter's later years post presidential had a pretty good record not as president. In fact he was part of the drift of the Democratic Party from in the 1970s to becoming what it now is a party of affluent professionals, Wall street kind of people who show up at Obama's fancy parties and Martha's Vineyard and so on. Listen to Beyonce.
- [09:11]
Bob Bozanko
You weren't, you weren't invited to his 60th birthday?
- [09:16]
Noam Chomsky
Not exactly.
- [09:18]
Bob Bozanko
So the 70s really is a pivot point. And I know there's recently some books on neoliberalism have come out which kind of pin it on Reagan. But you really see this. Even before that Carter was part of the Trilateral Commission. What do you think accounts for that shift away from the New Deal? Is it just kind of the global economy in the 70s starts to kind of contract the aftermath of Vietnam? I mean, why do you think even the Democrats in the 70s said okay, we're done with the New Deal now we're going to look for these solutions in the markets and elsewhere.
- [09:47]
Noam Chomsky
If we look back over a longer stretch, most of the business world, not all of it, but most of it, was bitterly opposed to the New deal in the 1930s. They basically had no choice and popular movements were too Strong. They had to tolerate it. But by the late 30s, they were already beginning business campaigns were already beginning to try to undermine New Deal regulations, carry out what they called scientific methods of strike breaking. Mohawk Valley formula. All this kind of stuff was put on hold during the war. But immediately after the war picked up right away. Passed hardly other measures to try to undo New Deal measures. But they were just too popular. Take Eisenhower. By today's standards, Eisenhower looks like a flaming radical. Literally, he said, anyone who questions New Deal measures doesn't belong in our political system. Anyone who interferes with the right of labor to organize is just too crazy to be in our political system. I mean, by now that's the whole Democratic and Republican Party. But the campaigns went right through the 50s. They couldn't make it. Too much support. Around 1970, the opportunities opened to really go full time. There was economic, kind of an economic crisis. Nixon's pulling out of Bretton Woods. Nixon shock. So cool. A lot of disruption, stagflation. You get to the Trilateral Committee report, which is quite interesting. This is Carter liberals, liberal internationals. Carter administration mostly drawn from those ranks. Very important book, 1975, called the Crisis of Democracy. It was about what's called the time of troubles in the 1960s, when lots of people were getting organized and active, trying to press their interests and concerns in the political arena. Groups that are called special interests, like women, young people, old people, farmers, workers, in fact the whole population. One group is not mentioned. Capital, the business sector. They're not special interests, so we don't have to talk about them. They're the national interests, so we only talk about special interests. And Trilateral Commission report says they're posing a danger to democracy. That's what the book was called, the Crisis of Democracy. All these special interests pressing for the demands, trying to enter the political arena. Too much pressure on the state, can't respond to them. So we have to have more moderation and democracy. They have to become more passive and apathetic and obedient and just let us smart guys run things. They were particularly concerned with the universities, which they said are failing. I'm quoting now, failing in their responsibility of indoctrination of the young. That's why you see these young kids out in the street protesting the war, calling for civil rights. Got to stop that business. Better indoctrination of the young. They were also concerned that the press is becoming too independent. May have to institute state measures to control them. This, incidentally, is the liberal side of the spectrum. You want to hear the hawkish Side go to the Powell memorandum to the Chamber of Commerce. Same years, basically the same measures but much harsher and also kind of insane was about how the business world is being destroyed by the radicals are taking over the world. And Ralph Nader with his consumer protests destroying free markets. Herbert Marcuse taking over the universities. I mean it's kind of like you can kind of understand it. It's like a three year old who has everything. Somebody takes away one of the marbles he didn't notice as a tantrum. That's the Powell memorandum. We're losing everything because we don't control everything 100%. Well that was influential business activity. The Trilateral Commission is the liberal and a little bit softer in the rhetoric. You take a look at the statistics, they're very striking. Around the mid-1970s, about 1975 you start getting the sharp split in economic statistics. So up until 1975 the period of so called regulated capitalism wage growth was following productivity as you'd expect the US was pretty much within the range of other wealthy countries, OECD countries and things like health costs, health expenditures, health outcomes, incarceration. By mid-1975 it all splits. The charts are very dramatic. At that point the US starts falling behind the other OECD countries sharply in dimension after dimension. Well that's the Carter preliminary to the. I mean I don't blame him personally. It was the Democratic party which had basically abandoned the working class. They were as I said becoming the party of affluent professionals. But and the Republicans of course took off with it. The people behind Reagan understood very well what they were doing. First act, destroy the labor movement. Thatcher in England did exactly the same thing. That's quite important. That's the only means of self defense of working people when you're going to carry out major class war. And then you go on with the deregulation, the massive growth of the financial industries, the bailout economy, crises, all the rest of it. And it's interesting, we've probably talked about this before but there are actual measures of the success great success of the class war from the RAND Corporation super respectable corporation did a study of transfer of wealth in the 48 years since Reagan from to the top 1% of the population $50 trillion. That's pretty impressive Class war and that's just the beginning. Reagan authorized tax havens, all sorts of devices to evade to increase corporate welfare even change rules of corporate management so that a CEO could pick his own his own board to determine his remuneration. Guess what's going to happen? Shoots to the sky carrying other managerial sellers with it, business models imposed in universities, defunding of education, whole business goes on from there. Starts in the mid-70s, escalates under Reagan. That's what we have now.
- [18:13]
Bob Bozanko
What I find striking is that Watergate occurs in the Nixon resigns, Watergate blows up and Nixon resigns in 1974. And then the Democrats in 1976 and 1978 have pretty good elections, but by 1980 it's all gone. Like how in such a short period of time did the Republicans recover from that? And how did the Democrats become, you know, so ineffective and weak in the aftermath of, you know, having virtually a veto proof Congress with Jimmy Carter?
- [18:42]
Noam Chomsky
Well, I mean, two things happened. One which was the main one was the business world realized that the bars are down. The efforts, serious efforts they'd been undertaking actually since the late 30s to roll back any social democracy to return to a corporate autocracy. By the 70s the bars were down, they could go full force. That's why you see the very sharp changes in the statistical record right around 1975. Meanwhile, the Democrats had just decided we're not a working class party, we're affluent professionals, Wall street donors, Clintonites, the rest of them. So there's no opposition when Reagan came in. Just go ahead, full force. And that's what we've been living with for 40 years. That's why you see the anger, resentment, contempt for institutions, the whole society kind of collapsing. That's why you see a million deaths from COVID worst record in the world. Because the health system collapsed. Well, it started collapsing in the mid-70s. Go back to 1975. The US health expenditures were roughly in the OECD range statistics. Health outcomes were about the same. By now the US is just off the chart now. There's no other country where mortality is actually increasing. It's unheard of in the modern world. It's taking place in the United States. It's been increasing for falling behind the rest of the world for some time now. It's the only country where in the last couple of years mortality is actually increasing. You look at comparative records, the US is doing worse than Cuba. I'm in a small country under brutal, vicious attack by the hemispheric superpower. It's got better health results than we do at a tiny fraction of the cause. Well, that's pretty striking example, but explained across the board. And it's Yeshua's. I mean one of the Financial Times editors, the main business journal in the world, pointed out half a joke that if Bernie Sanders was in Germany. He could be running on the right wing Christian Democrat program, which is true. His policy, the policies he's calling for is taken for granted in most of the world. Here they're regarded as so radical we can barely even talk about it. Well, that's what's been happening. It's a very, it's the most effective case of class war that we've seen since the 1920s. 1920s, in fact, was pretty similar after Wilson's Red Scare. Destruction of unions, destruction of independent thought, corporate sector going wild, huge inequality. I'm now back to my childhood.
- [22:30]
Bob Bozanko
Well, I think the parallel path of labor is really interesting here too, because they're kind of doing the same thing the Democratic Party has. I mean, you have these structures, structural crises, and it seems like the inclination for everybody and the establishment is to go further to the right with them.
- [22:45]
Noam Chomsky
That's where the money is, that's where the power is, that's where the prestige is. So you want to fight against it. You get marginalized and vilified. You know, who wants that? It's much easier to go with the flow, comfortable life, be respected. I mean, that goes right back through history.
- [23:10]
Scott Parkin
Green and red. We often say that the Democrats, the centrist Democrats punch left. So they go after their left wing. And we, you know, during the 80s and 90s, we saw them go after people like Jesse Jackson, Paul Belstone and more recently Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio Cortez. And I'm just wondering what your thoughts are on that.
- [23:32]
Noam Chomsky
Well, the Sanders movement is extremely important. Including Ocasio Cortez and others, they've mobilized a great number of young people to try to move the country towards some kind of social democracy. Most of the world, it's not much of a big deal, but here it's very important. It's worth remembering how reactionary the United States has become. I mean, like take the word socialist. I mean, in most of the world, say somebody's socialist is like saying he's a Democrat. This doesn't mean anything here. It's a scare word. In fact, this goes pretty far back. I don't know if you recall, but in the 1960s, when SDS Students for Democratic Society was developing first major dissonant movement young people. Around the mid-60s, Paul Potter, who was the president, gave a presidential address, and his presidential address was about. Now it's time to name the system. We've got to be brave and courageous and be able to name the system, namely capitalism. He couldn't bring himself to say the word it was too radical. You can't say the word capitalism in the United States. Too radical. Okay, things have changed now you can say it. But socialist and positive and communist, hopeless. The United States is very much a business run society ideologically and in practice for many reasons that go way back. So a lot of what's just considered normal elsewhere is kind of way off on the margins here. You see it in policy as well. Take something as simple as maternal leave for women after childbirth. The United States is the only country that doesn't have it outside of a couple Pacific islands. And nobody sees it. And this is true issue that's very much a business run society. And sometimes it really goes wild like in the 1920s or since the Reagan period for which the basis was set in the 70s. In fact, it's very striking to look at statistics of the kind I mentioned and see the very sharp break around the mid-70s, then of course extending under Reagan. It's dramatic.
- [26:33]
Bob Bozanko
I think that's an important period there too after Reagan, because you have, I mean Democrats today still praise and seem to adore the Clintons and Obama, yet they all kind of very publicly said, you know, I'm not that far from Reagan. And especially with Clinton, you had the DLC created, so called welfare reform, the crime bill and then of course nafta. So isn't this like really kind of a huge transitory period in this move to the right done by these corporate Democrats, the DLC types especially Clinton really.
- [27:13]
Noam Chomsky
Initiated the period of corporate run globalization, a form of globalization designed to undermine the US working class and to enrich private corporations, which has been very successful in that respect. Corporate profits go through the roof, the working people are crushed. Lays the basis for Trump coming along and pretending to be the working class protector or shafting back the whole time, but lays the basis for it. Democrats can't respond. What are they doing? Destroying industrial America in order to enrich private power. And of course it's all supported by a cadre of economists who can prove some theorem that shows this is the best thing to do. Mostly jokes, but however, I think we should recognize it's changing takes. Take Joe Biden under a lot of popular pressure, a lot of it coming from the Sanders movement, Sanders himself. The domestic program of the Biden administration, to me at least, was surprisingly good. It was beaten down totally by 100% ironclad Republican opposition, couple of right wing Democrats. It was all virtually destroyed, but the original program was pretty reasonable. That's the shift in American policy. And it could be a sign of a more hopeful future. If the Democrats can become a party responsive to the interests and welfare of working people and the poor, they could. I think the Sanders movement is a sign of what could develop, but probably this won't happen. The Republicans understand it very well and are moving hard, not secretly, to make it impossible for democratic elections to take place, which is going full time right now.
- [29:46]
Scott Parkin
Hey folks, you're listening to the Green and Red podcast where we interview guests like Noam Chomsky and Andrew Bacevich. We also have shows on cultural icons like Johnny Cash and Woody Guthrie and the Godfather movies. And we talk to scores of organizers and activists who tell us what is happening in the streets and in the back country. So check us out.
- [30:09]
Bob Bozanko
Yeah, and I'm Bob Azanko and as always, Scott and I want to thank you for listening, for watching, for supporting us, and we hope we continue to do that. The first thing we ask is that you share this. Let people know that we're out there and we're doing something that I think is different.
- [30:24]
Noam Chomsky
We have a good niche, I think.
- [30:25]
Bob Bozanko
In left podcast and we talk to really cool people about really important issues. Follow us on Twitter, Instagram and Facebook. Go to our webpage which is on in the screen. And you know, if you really like us and if you have a a little extra change around jingles or folds, you can help us out by going.
- [30:53]
Scott Parkin
To our website@greenandredpodcast.org and hitting that support button and make a one time donation. Or you can check us out at patreon.com greenred podcast and become a patron. We'll see you again real soon.
- [31:11]
Bob Bozanko
In a lot of these issues and you bring up a good point. The more progressive or traditionally Democratic positions are often very popular. Most Americans say the health care system is in bad shape on issues like abortion and guns and LGBTQ rights, gay marriage. Just there's a laundry list of issues where the Americans are pretty supportive, yet the Republicans with a minority position. Even on abortion, most Republicans don't even have the same position as the party leadership. They kind of win. How does this happen where you have these large movements with significant, even on immigrant rights, significant public support, but the Democrats just kind of get steamrolled.
- [31:58]
Noam Chomsky
The poll results are very striking. Turns out that people don't know that the Democratic programs are the kinds that they support. So there are a lot of polls showing that take on Biden's build back better proposal. You know, the main proposals turned out that on issue after issue, public strongly supported them, but they opposed the program and when asked, turned out most people didn't know it was in the program. All they knew was this right wing propaganda about big government is coming to try to take your house away and hand everything over to the blacks and so on and so forth. We don't want that. I mean a majority of Republicans, I think it's maybe 2/3 or so, believe in the great replacement theory. You know, the Democrats are conspiring to bring people in to destroy the white race. I'm not going to let that happen. So I don't know what's all this legalese and technical stuff in the program. I don't know anything about that. I just want to protect myself and my family. That's great propaganda. Now if you had a lively, active, militant working class like in the 30s, they'd be educating people and organizing them about what's happening. They defend themselves. I can remember this very well. I'm old enough to remember the 1930s. My family was first generation immigrants, working class, very active. They didn't have much formal education but very educated, knew all about social political issues, many other things. Deeply involved Republican propaganda, couldn't make any headway with them because they were parts of organized activist movements which were doing things as well as educating. If you don't have any self defense mechanism, people are just alone, atomized. They can't react.
- [34:31]
Scott Parkin
We're seeing what seems to be a lot of energy around labor. Talking about Starbucks and Amazon campaigns last, last October they were talking about Striketober. But as we're, you know, as we see this like greater gaps in the, between the haves and the have nots. Do you see this sort of like rising energy around labor and around other issues, climate, migrant rights, et cetera, potentially being able to sway or influence the. I think the Republicans are lost, but sway or influence the Democrats going forward.
- [35:04]
Noam Chomsky
Potentially is the right word. It's possible. But take a look at those strikes. I mean management by now has developed very sophisticated tools to crush any kind of labor movement. You watch the tactics that will be used by Starbucks and Amazon to try to crush anything. And there's no restrictions because the labor laws have been dissolved. Basically technically there's some things on the books but nobody applies. And nlr, National Labor Relations Board has been basically eliminated. There's no defense from government, from the political sector. There's no organized political parties. You go Back to the 1930s, not only was there a militant labor movement, but there were a lot of activist political parties, political organizations. Now it's very different. The success in Atomizing intimidating population has been pretty impressive. So the Sanders movement is beginning to break within. But it's very hard and you can see it on issue after issue. Today, for example, in Brazil, there's a very important election coming up with a Social Democratic candidate, Lula, who's way ahead in the polls. Neo fascist Bolsonaro, who's strongly supported by the business world, military and the police and so on. Bolsonaro has said he's just not going to accept the election. He's going to follow the Trump line, probably with the same advisors coming from Trump's advisors. Well, Sanders tried to get a bipartisan Senate resolution saying the United States opposes a military couple wants to have democratic elections. It's a very important election. Most important country in Latin America. Couldn't get a single Republican to say we're opposed to a coup, even something like that. We're opposed to a military coup in a major democracy in South Latin America. Not one. I mean, these people are just rigid, proto fascists. Use the word.
- [37:45]
Bob Bozanko
You're listening to the Green and Red Podcast. We are here, as I'm sure you figured out, with Professor Noam Chomsky. We're Talking about the 50th kind of anniversary of the McGovern debacle and the evolution of American politics to the far right since then. And I think Scott has a question about a very important issue that's going on today within Democratic circles, which is where the priorities for the party and for the movement, for the larger progressive movement should be.
- [38:13]
Scott Parkin
Yeah, my, my other question, and this actually goes at least as far back as, as the McGovern campaign. But, you know, why is it, why do you think Democrats have abandoned class material issues for issues around identity, around intersectionality?
- [38:29]
Noam Chomsky
Well, suppose you're a Democratic representative. You get elected to the House, let's say now, what's the first thing you do? The first thing you do is get on the telephone to call the donors to make sure that they'll fund you in the next election. Because elections are pretty much bought in the United States. You look at Congress, there's very good work by Tom Ferguson, political economist, and his associates. The correlation between funding and electability is astonishing. You rarely get results like that in the social sciences. It's almost a straight line. So the first thing you do is get on the phone, call the donors, make sure they're happy. While you're doing that, a hoard of corporate lawyers are descending on your offices to meet with the staff and to overwhelm them with all kinds of information distortion and basically write the legislation. Then the congressman goes back and signs the legislation. It's not a caricature. It's pretty much an exaggeration, but not much. Well, corporate lobbying exploded in the 1970s. Huge increase. The business world really saw the opportunity. We're not going to let it go to waste. Huge campaign spending, lobbying every possible device to ensure that democratic elections can't really take place and that the business world could overcome this crisis of democracy. Elites were really frightened by the activism of the 60s. It's worth remembering that the activism of the 60s really civilized the society. It's a very different country than it would have was. I mean, things that used to be perfectly normal then are intolerable now. Elite opinion didn't like this. It's threatening. It's threatening to the basis of power. They have to beat it back. You get on the right, things like the Powell memorandum, let's just go for the jugular on the left, so called, you get the softer ideas of let's have bitter indoctrination of the young and so on. But it's. And then it was backed by enormous wealth and power. It would take some integrity and honesty to combat that. McGovern as an individual had it, but when he was crushed, it was a sign. No use trying, you know, just go with the flow. And that's pretty much what happened. There were some holdouts like Humphrey and Hawkins, as I mentioned, didn't try to hold the traditional pro labor position, but they were just wiped down.
- [41:54]
Scott Parkin
Just to sort of change the topic, Professor Chomsky, I remember back in 1994 when the Republicans came in and part of Newt Gingrich's attack line on the Clintons were that they were cultural McGovernicks, you know, which implied that they were doves or peaceniks as far as like foreign policy. But we saw some of the, some, you know, very brutal foreign policy moves by the Clinton administration around Iraq, former Yugoslavia. And then, you know, that the sort of Democratic hawkishness I know can. Goes back decades, but particularly looking at Clinton and Obama, you know, how is this sort of Democratic hawkishness abroad very much part of the program of the corporate Democrats?
- [42:40]
Noam Chomsky
Yeah, I think that's very significant. One thing about Gingrich is he switched the character of the Republican Party. He made the, made it very clear that he won, that the Republican Party should be at war. It should no longer try to cooperate in a parliamentary system the way it had before. It should just basically declare war. We're going to fight and destroy any Opposition, we're going to take power. Gingrich is the one who changed the Republican Party in that respect. It's going on from there. With regard to foreign policy, Clinton had an awful record. I mean, it's. I mean, just take a look at U.S. funding. I mean, U.S. foreign aid, the highest foreign aid went to the worst murderous human rights violators. And put aside Israel and Egypt, they're a separate category. But the rest of the foreigning. The top foreign aid recipient became Turkey. Why? Turkey was carrying out a murderous campaign of state terror against its Kurdish population. Tens of thousands of killed, hundreds of thousands of refugees, thousands of towns and villages destroyed, and every kind of torture. Funding from Clinton increased as the atrocities increased. And finally by the peak of the atrocities, 1998, Clinton, Clinton, US aid to Turkey was greater than the entire Cold War period up to the launch of the counterinsurgency. Well, this was barely reported. New York Times has a bureau, of course, in Ankara. Not a word about it. Almost nothing. But in take the sanctions against Iraq. Sanctions against Iraq were murderous. The two international diplomats, highly respected, who were administering it resigned in protest one after the other because they said they're genocidal. Gave a lot of details about it. The second one, Hans von Smonik, wrote a major book about it, Different Kind of War, describing the details about how the Clinton programs were devastating the civilian society and strengthening the dictator. You can't even mention the book in the United States. I doubt that there's been a review of it, but. But this is just the beginning. Goes on and on. Meanwhile, you read the liberal press, say the New York Review of Books. It was describing Clinton's policy, I'm quoting now as having a saintly glow, literally, as just something we've never seen before. Well, that's the left liberal press. What are people going to think? They don't read what's going on. Can't press isn't covering. If you look at the effects of nafta, one effect was to greatly increase the opportunities for the corporate sector to crush strikes illegally. So there's a study of the effect of NAFTA on labor actions. Like Kate Forgotten her name, Cornell University labor historian is under NAFTA rules. She undertook the study. Turned out that about, I think 50% or so of labor actions were simply killed by illegal corporate efforts related to nafta. Like putting a banner up on the company headquarters saying, the Mexico transfer operation. In other words, if you try to strike, we're going to move to Mexico. Not that they were going to do it, but it was enough to break the strike. It's illegal, but when you have a criminal state, it doesn't matter if it's illegal. A huge number of labor, I think about 50%, were undermined by this. This is one consequence of labor, but it was a saintly glow, so on and so forth. It's. That's what you're fighting, a major propaganda system which manages to suppress almost everything that's happening. People are left in the dark. They know that things are no good. Like, they don't like the fact that they go bankrupt if they have a health problem, doesn't happen in other countries. They know they lost their job and their town is destroyed because industry left and young people are leaving, but they don't know why. Even things like what I mentioned to build back better polls. People like every part of it, but hate the bill. And interestingly, Democrats didn't exploit that. They didn't say, okay, let's have a vote on piece by piece. They didn't do that. Just in groups with the ruling powers.
- [48:33]
Bob Bozanko
You're talking about foreign policy. You know, the other day I was teasing you that you and John Mearsheimer are responsible for everything that's gone wrong in Europe. But there has been this really kind of. The Democrats have really circled the wagons. The NATO liberals and, you know, Scott and I have both been told we're pro Putin and we're apologists. I mean, this isn't terribly surprising. But there's clearly the Democrats are behind the American support in Ukraine far more actually than the GOP is. And I mean, where does this head? I mean, doesn't this kind of make things worse for progressive politics?
- [49:09]
Noam Chomsky
It's getting. It's worse than progressive politics. I think it's extremely dangerous for the world. I mean, we now have a situation where practically the whole world has been calling for negotiations. The whole global south, even Europe, Germany, for example, about 3/4 of the population want to go for negotiations. US is blocking it. Nothing gets reported much, but can find out a little. So last April, this again, according to Fiona Hill in Foreign affairs, pretty respectable reports that in April there were negotiations between Ukraine and Russia which were making some progress. And Hill says, well, of course they were blocked by the Russians, doesn't give any evidence. But what she doesn't report is that the Prime Minister of Britain, Boris Johnson, immediately flew to Ukraine with the message that the west, meaning the US And Britain wouldn't accept it. Followed by Lloyd Austin, Defense Secretary in the United States, who came with his message that said the point of the War is to weaken Russia. No negotiations. So of course they collapsed. Is there anything beyond. Does anybody know about that? Of course not. If you read andywar.com you can find out about it. Free country. But it's, I mean, and this is just, I mean, the most important thing right now, I'm astonished that it's not being reported is the, what the US Is doing in Taiwan. I mean, the, the Pelosi visit did get some publicity, but Congress, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee just passed overwhelmingly bipartisan, what's called the Taiwan Policy Act a couple of weeks ago, a week ago. It's a pretty shocking act. It's now going to Congress calls basically turning Taiwan into what they call a non NATO ally, but treating it like a NATO power pouring weapons in, interoperability of weapon systems with the United States, joint military programs, treating Taiwan as having the same diplomatic status as an independent country. I mean, there is something called international law. We don't believe in it here, but it's out there somewhere unambiguously. Taiwan is part of China. It's like saying China saying they're going to have operations with Kansas or something like that. I mean, you go to free countries like Australia screaming about this. Actually, the US has held to what's called a one China policy since 1979, recognizing that Taiwan is part of China, but then adding what's called strategic ambiguity. China. And we agree not to rock the boat. In other words, not to talk about it. Not direct as if Congress wants to have two major wars, each of which will destroy us. I mean, it's hard to figure out what can be going on in the minds of these lunatics. And of course it doesn't get reported here.
- [53:15]
Bob Bozanko
Well, Taiwan is interesting because there's, like.
- [53:18]
Noam Chomsky
You said, there's no.
- [53:19]
Bob Bozanko
But there's really no ambiguity there. I mean, Pelosi knew what she was doing and they knew, you know, how China would respond. So what, I mean, given the state of the world right now, you know, pandemic and global economic crises, Europe especially, just everything's going wrong. Why would you, you know, a war in Ukraine, a big war in Ukraine where a lot of people have already died and it's crushing the global economy, why would you provoke China over Taiwan at this particular point? I, I don't get it. I don't understand it.
- [53:49]
Noam Chomsky
It's almost as if they have a death instinct. Let's get it over with fast. Let's have two major wars, each of which will destroy us. Somebody watching this from outer space, they think they're insane.
- [54:07]
Bob Bozanko
I have this image of the final scene from Dr. Strangelove, you know, where the cowboy hat on a Bond. That's kind of where we're headed.
- [54:14]
Noam Chomsky
Yeah. Well, Dan Ellsberg, who's an old friend.
- [54:20]
Scott Parkin
Yeah.
- [54:21]
Noam Chomsky
Who was on the inside then, told me that when he and his friends from Rand Corporation went to see Dr. Strangelove, they could recognize everything. He said it's pretty much like what was going on. They could even identify the people.
- [54:39]
Bob Bozanko
And Scott had a follow up on that.
- [54:42]
Scott Parkin
Yeah. Just that my. And this is. This is my final question. I've actually been. I've read your recent book with BJ Prashad, the Withdrawal. And it's, you know, this failed bipartisan foreign policy of the last 20 or 30 years. And also looking at, you know, Ukraine and Taiwan. What. What does this reveal? What does this reveal about the US Supremacy and world affairs? Like where it seems like we're in this, like, sort of decline period. Lots of people say that. But I'm curious what your thoughts are on that.
- [55:15]
Noam Chomsky
It's decline in some respects, but not in others. And I think what you're pointing to is the major issue in world affairs, is there going to be a unipolar world with the US Running it, or is it going to be a multipolar world with a variety of power centers which just have to accommodate with each other? There's one thing we should not forget. Unless the great powers are able to accommodate and work together, we're done. The crises we face are all international. They don't have any borders. We're going to either work together or just collapse together. And now NATO, which is, of course the US Instrument for global domination, has now officially, officially expanded to the Indo Pacific region. The last NATO summit expanded the North Atlantic to the Indo Pacific region, meaning basically the whole world. It's not a secret, you know, it's completely public. Meanwhile, the world is opposing that. And it's pretty striking to see the way. To see the way it's handled. I mean, I'm used to deceit and deception and so on, but sometimes it's hard to grasp. Like if you're reading the papers here or even the foreign policy, for example, the policy journals, very excited about the fact that India is finally breaking with Russia and joining with the United States. Take a look at it. It's based on six words that Prime Minister Modi said at a meeting with Putin in Samarkand. He said, this is not a time for war. Okay, that's it. I took the trouble of looking up his speech on the Indian government website. It's practically a love poem to Putin. He says, this is not a time for war. We have to work together for peace. We have a wonderful record of cooperation. We're deepening it. We're looking forward to even warmer relations in the future. That's the speech comes out. India is breaking with Russia. I mean, current issue of foreign policy, foreign affairs just repeats it. I mean, you don't know what to say.
- [58:03]
Bob Bozanko
Well, as always, we appreciate you talking with us on Green and Red. You're our favorite guest. I have one final question to kind of wrap all this up. It was great talking about McGovern and the Democrats from someone who was kind of present at the creation of that.
- [58:17]
Scott Parkin
Era.
- [58:19]
Bob Bozanko
About, I don't know, maybe 15 years ago or so. I think it was during the second Bush administration. I was just saying, like, have you seen things this bad before? You know, and you said, well, this isn't as bad as McCarthyism. Not even close, I think. But it's like 15 years later, and we've just gone through Trump. We still are enduring. Donald Trump, a president who apparently steals documents. Right. Would you still say this is like, you know, where there's kind of hope out there and we're still kind of making some progress? Or is it like, you know, are we now at a place where we're back into, you know, 1948?
- [58:55]
Noam Chomsky
A lot of things are much better if you go back and think about what the country was like in the 1960s. Let's say there's been enormous improvement. I mean, remember the. Let's just take the Vietnam War. The worst atrocity, the worst crime since the Second World War. I'm not telling you, you don't know anything better than I do. But Kennedy sharply escalated the war, authorized the U.S. air Force to start bombing South Vietnam, initiated chemical warfare programs, crop destruction programs, to drive huge numbers of people out of the villages into what amounted to concentration camps. Authorized napalm. Couldn't get any interest. None. I mean, I remember I would talk to people in their living rooms, go to a church where there's four people. Nobody gave a damn. Nothing. It was years. I was living in Boston, the most liberal city in the country. It was years before you could even get people to be willing to talk about it. Not in the Cambridge elite sector. They never want to hear about it. But you get some popular opposition by the time the country is almost destroyed. Well, it's better than that now. In fact, US Administrations know they cannot fight that kind of war again. In fact, one of the things that happened in Vietnam was that the army collapsed. To its credit, soldiers just refused to follow orders. The United States learned a lesson that every other imperial power had known for centuries. You can't fight a brutal, vicious colonial war with kids you take off the streets. You need professional killers. That's why you had the French Foreign Legion, the Gurkhas, and so on. That's now the US Fights war now with mercenaries called contractors, or else at a distance, drones. But no, just picking up kids on the street and say, go out and murder people. Well, that's an improvement. There are a lot of changes like that. Not all too good by any means, but a basis for moving on. That's what we can hope for.
- [61:36]
Bob Bozanko
Well, I'm glad you invoke Vietnam.
- [61:38]
Scott Parkin
That's always.
- [61:38]
Bob Bozanko
I always like hearing that, because I've put a challenge out to Oliver Stone to debate him. I'll give him 100 bucks, but he hasn't responded yet. And I was very still honored to be called Noam Chomsky's useful idiot on that issue. So we really appreciate this, immeasurably. Can't wait to hear what you have to say about what's going on right now in Brazil. Maybe in a. Maybe later in the future we can talk to you about that. But this is great. It's a great history lesson, and we appreciate it immensely. Scott has a few last words, so.
- [62:11]
Scott Parkin
Yeah, Much appreciation for coming on Professor Chomsky.
- [62:16]
Bob Bozanko
Folks.
- [62:16]
Scott Parkin
You're listening to Professor Nomachomski on the Green and Red Podcast. Check us out on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, or our Patreon. Patreon.com the Red Podcast. Thanks, Sa.