For members who can read: Noam Chomsky Diagnoses the Trump Era
- Thread starter danmand
- Start date
Chomsky is an interesting speaker, but in the end not all that convincing. As an example, he says that elections are essentially bought, and then tortuously tries to rationalize that statement with Trump's victory (who spent far less than Clinton), claiming that free media (even though it was predominantly negative) made up for the shortfall in spending. To address the bulk of his address in the most succinct way possible, most of it jumps from the springboard of the listener accepting certain positions (global warming, economic conspiracy of an American aristocracy, the inherent correctness of secular views of pregnancy control vs. religious views) that would be difficult to defend if challenged.
What people like Chomsky prove is that knowledge and clarity of communications are only tools for persuasion, but they don't ensure it. The bottom line is that that reasoning is the most important element, and I don't find his to be all that compelling.
As might have been predicted, you claim it was a victory for Trump to win millions fewer votes than Clinton. But to twist that into an argument that elections aren't bought because he spent less than she, stretches your logic past the breaking point, and in no way addresses Chomsky's assertion. He got the fewer votes he paid for.
I trust you're not saying he wisely bought Electors, when she wasted her money going after voters.
Let's keep this one simple. Trump spent far less than Clinton. The media coverage that Trump got, if it was greater than the attention Clinton got, was overwhelmingly negative. Trump won. Unless Chomsky also believes that voters are prone to do the opposite of what the media thinks they should do, the media coverage did not help Trump win. Ergo, the 2016 election is either an outlier from Chomsky's point of view, or disproof of his theory.
That would be more convincing had you not separated out and ignored the first part of that theory — which he actually states in the interview: That Trump's failure to win as many votes as Clinton aligns with his failure to raise and spend the money she did.
As for your media coverage, I didn't see what you call his "torturous rationalization" that "free media (even though it was predominantly negative) made up for [Trump's] shortfall in spending". But that's plain analysis, and accounting for results, what he stated earlier was a commonly held political theory, which the results confirmed.
Trump most certainly got more coverage, particularly in the non-MSM which devoutly favoured him, but also in the MSM which couldn't (still can't) get enough of his eyeball-grabbing clown show. That free publicity likely got him the votes he didn't have the money to buy, and he got them where they translated into Electors, which got him the job.
If you want to set up a Chomsky Media Theory, and knock it down, then it either has to fail because Trump got more coverage but fewer votes i.e. lost (I buy that, but as I said, I don't find evidence of such a general theory). Or it has to fail because he got less coverage and more votes, and while you claim he didn't get the coverage, we all know she got the most votes. QED. You've proven Chomsky right.
Of course truth is, he's in the White House because the system he called "corrupt and rigged", loudly and often put him there put him there. And fixing it will aalways be last on his TDL. But Chomsky's politics are not that sort of down in the mud stuff.
You must mean how it is operated. Clearly it isn't working when it puts the loser of the vote in office, and even he claims it's rigged.
I think your assumed correctly that Chomsky knows how the system is supposed to work (and most often does, BushII and Trump being recent and notable exceptions), otherwise that theory about money running politics would refer to buying actual Electors and Party officials at all levels, not media exposure and attention.
If that were the case, the rest of the conversation would read entirely differently.
Trump vs. Chomsky?
Noam sure has more education, especially when it comes to linguistics, but both are just populists who think they are smarter than everyone else and like the sound of their own voices.
Noam sure has more education, especially when it comes to linguistics, but both are just populists who think they are smarter than everyone else and like the sound of their own voices.
The popular vote nonsense will last as long as the recount version did with Bush.
The fact that Trump won spending a fraction that Hillary did shows just how little impact money has on elections.
Most recent house race in GA is an even more dramatic example, Dem spent 6X the GOP canidate In a district that Trump won by low single digit % and yet the GOP canidate won.
The fact that Trump won spending a fraction that Hillary did shows just how little impact money has on elections.
Most recent house race in GA is an even more dramatic example, Dem spent 6X the GOP canidate In a district that Trump won by low single digit % and yet the GOP canidate won.
You must mean that buying three hundred Electoral votes comes a good deal cheaper than winning the votes of most Americans. There's no disputing that.
Heck, if Bernie shoulda come outta his convention the winner, then there's any number of Republicans who shoulda beaten Trump, going in and coming out. I always though Kasich was the most reasonable-sounding.
In any case, Orange you being distracted by who pushed who off the ladder? Point is who most Americans thought most deserved the Golden Apple. To belabour a bad pun.
Last edited:
