February 17, 2011

from DemocracyNow! Website


Noam Chomsky on Wisconsinís Resistance to Assault on Public Sector, the Obama-Sanctioned Crackdown on Activists, and the Distorted Legacy of Ronald Reagan


World-renowned public intellectual Noam Chomsky discusses several domestic issues in the United States, including the protests in defense of public sector employees and unions in Wisconsin, how the U.S. deification of former President Ronald Reagan resembles North Korea, and the crackdown on political activists with anti-terror laws and FBI raids.




Part 1









Rush Transcript


AMY GOODMAN: This month is the 15th anniversary of Democracy Now! on the air, and itís a real privilege to have MIT professor, analyst, world-renowned political dissident, linguist, Noam Chomsky with us.


Iím Amy Goodman, with Juan Gonzalez, and weíve been together for this whole 15 years, Juan. Itís really been quite an amazing journey.

As we talk about this revolution thatís rolling across the Middle East, we put out to our listeners and viewers on Facebook last night that, Noam, you were going to be in. And so, people were sending in their comments and questions.


We asked, on Facebook and Twitter, to send us questions.


Here is one of the questions.

RYAN ADSERIAS: Hello, Professor Chomsky. My name is Ryan Adserias, and Iím a graduate student at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, and also the child of a long line of working-class union folks.


I donít know if youíve been noticing, but weíve been holding a lot of protests and rallies here in our capital to protest Governor Scott Walkerís attempt to break collective bargaining rights that Wisconsin workers worked hard for over 50 years ago and have enjoyed ever since. We closed all the schools around here for tomorrow - today and tomorrow, actually.


The teaching assistants here at the university are staging teach-outs. The undergraduates are walking out of class to show solidarity. And all of this is because our governor and governors all around the country are proposing legislation thatís going to end collective bargaining and really break the unions.


Iíve also been noticing that thereís not a whole lot of national representation of our struggle and our movement, and itís really been troubling me.


So my question to you is, how exactly is it that we can get the attention of our national Democratic and progressive leaders to speak out against these measures and to help end union busting here in the United States?

AMY GOODMAN: That was a question from Ryan Adserias in Madison, Wisconsin, where more than 10,000 - some say tens of thousands of people, teachers, students, are protesting in the Capitol building, schools closed, as Ryan said.


So, from Manama to Madison, from Manama, Bahrain, to Madison, Wisconsin, Noam Chomsky?

NOAM CHOMSKY: Itís very interesting. The reason why you canít get Democratic leaders to join is because they agree. They are also trying to destroy the unions. In fact, if you take a look at - take, say, the lame-duck session. The great achievement in the lame-duck session for which Obama is greatly praised by Democratic Party leaders is that they achieved bipartisan agreement on several measures.


The most important one was the tax cut. And the issue in the tax cut - there was only one issue - should there be a tax cut for the very rich?


The population was overwhelmingly against it, I think about two to one. There wasnít even a discussion of it, they just gave it away. And the very same time, the less noticed was that Obama declared a tax increase for federal workers. Now, it wasnít called a "tax increase"; itís called a "freeze."


But if you think for 30 seconds, a freeze on pay for a federal workers is fiscally identical to a tax increase for federal workers. And when you extend it for five years, as he said later, that means a decrease, because of population growth, inflation and so on. So he basically declared an increase in taxes for federal workers at the same time that thereís a tax decrease for the very rich.

And thereís been a wave of propaganda over the last couple of months, which is pretty impressive to watch, trying to deflect attention away from those who actually created the economic crisis, like Goldman Sachs, Citigroup, JPMorgan Chase, their associates in the government who - Federal Reserve and others - let all this go on and helped it.


Thereís a - to switch attention away from them to the people really responsible for the crisis - teachers, police, firefighters, sanitation workers, their huge pensions, their incredible healthcare benefits, Cadillac healthcare benefits, and their unions, who are the real villains, the ones who are robbing the taxpayer by making sure that policemen may not starve when they retire.


And this is pretty amazing, like right in the middle of the Madison affair, which is critical.

The CEO of Goldman Sachs, Lloyd Blankfein, got a $12.5 million bonus, and his base pay was more than tripled. Well, that means he - the rules of corporate governments have been modified in the last 30 years by the U.S. government to allow the chief executive officer to pretty much set their own salaries. Thereís various ways in which this has been done, but itís government policy.


And one of the effects of it is - people talk about inequality, but whatís a little less recognized is that although there is extreme inequality, itís mostly because of the top tiny fraction of the population, so like a fraction of one percent of the population, their wealth has just shot through the stratosphere.


You go down to the - you know, the next 10 percent are doing pretty well, but itís not off the spectrum.


And this is by design.

AMY GOODMAN: The New York Times coverage of Madison?

NOAM CHOMSKY: Well, that was very interesting. In fact, I urge people to take a look at the February 12th issue of the New York Times, the big front-page headline, you know, banner headline,

"Mubarak Leaves," its kind of subheadings say, "Army Takes Over."

Theyíre about 60 years late on that; it took over in 1952, but - and it has held power ever since.

But then if you go to an inside page - I donít know what page it is - thereís an article on the Governor of Wisconsin. And heís pretty clear about what he wants to do.


I mean, certainly he is aware of and senses this attack on public workers, on unions and so on, and he wants to be upfront, so he announced a sharp attack on public service workers and unions, as the questioner said, to ban collective bargaining, take away their pensions.


And he also said that heíd call out the National Guard if there was any disruption about this. Now, thatís happening now to Wisconsin. In Egypt, public protests have driven out the president. Thereís a lot of problems about what will happen next, but an overwhelming reaction there.

And I was - it was heartening to see that there are tens of thousands of people protesting in Madison day after day, in fact. I mean, thatís the beginning, maybe, of what we really need here: a democracy uprising.


Democracy has almost been eviscerated. Take a look at the front-page headlines today, this morning, Financial Times at least.


They predict - the big headline, the big story - that the next election is going to break all campaign spending records, and they predict $2 billion of campaign spending. Well, you know, a couple of weeks ago, the Obama administration selected somebody to be in charge of what they call "jobs."


"Jobs" is a funny word in the English language. Itís the way of pronouncing an unpronounceable word.


Iíll spell it: P-R-O-F-I-T-S. Youíre not allowed to say that word, so the way you pronounce that is "jobs."


The person he selected to be in charge of creating jobs is Jeffrey Immelt, the CEO of General Electric, which has more than half their workforce overseas. And, you know, Iím sure heís deeply interested in jobs in the United States. But what he has is deep pockets, and also, not just him, but connections to the tiny sector of the ultra-rich corporate elite, which is going to provide that billion or billion-and-a-half dollars for the campaign.


Well, thatís whatís going on.

JUAN GONZALEZ: Well, Iíd like to ask you about this whole issue of the assault on unions. Clearly, it has arisen in the last few months in a coordinated way.


Here in New York State, all the major business people have gotten together, raised $10 million to begin an ad campaign, and theyíre being supported by both the Democratic new governor, Andrew Cuomo, and as well as the Republican-Independent Mayor Bloomberg. But they seem to be going after the public sector unions after having essentially destroyed most of the private sector union movement in the United States.


They realize that the public sector unions are still the only vibrant section of the American labor movement, so now theyíre really going after them in particular.


Yet, youíve got these labor leaders who helped get Obama elected and who helped get Andy Cuomo elected, and theyíre not yet making the stand in a strong enough way to mobilize people against these policies.

NOAM CHOMSKY: Yeah, youíre absolutely right. There has been a huge attack against private sector unions. Actually, thatís been going on since the Second World War.


After the Second World War, business was terrified about the radicalization of the country during the Depression and then the war, and it started right off - Taft-Hartley was 1947 - huge propaganda campaigns to demonize unions. It really - and it continued until you get to the Reagan administration.

Reagan was extreme. Beginning of his administration, one of the first things was to call in scabs - hadnít been done for a long time, and itís illegal in most countries - in the air controller strike. Reagan essentially - by "Reagan," I mean his administration; I donít know what he knew - but they basically told the business world that theyíre not going to apply the labor laws.


So, that means you can break unions any way you like. And in fact, the number of firing of union organizers, illegal firing, I think probably tripled during the Reagan years.

Then, in fact, by the early '90s, Caterpillar Corporation, first major industrial corporation, called in scabs to break a strike of industrial workers, UAW. That's - I think the only country that allowed that was South Africa. And then it spread.

When Clinton came along, he had another way of destroying unions. Itís called NAFTA. One of the predicted consequences of NAFTA, which in fact worked out, was it would be used as a way to undermine unions - illegally, of course. But when you have a criminal state, it doesnít matter.


So, there was actually a study, under NAFTA rules, that investigated illegal strike breaking organizing efforts by threats, illegal threats, to transfer to Mexico. So, if union organizers are trying to organize, you put up a sign saying, you know, "Transfer operation Mexico." In other words, you shut up, or youíre going to lose your jobs.


Thatís illegal. But again, if you have a criminal state, it doesnít matter.

Well, by measures like this, private sector unions have been reduced to, I think, maybe seven percent of the workforce. Now, itís not that workers donít want to join unions. In fact, many studies of this, thereís a huge pool of workers who want to join unions, but they canít. And theyíre getting no support from the political system.


And part of the reason, not all of it, is these $2 billion campaigns. Now, this really took off in the late '70s and the í80s. You want to run for office, then you're going to have to dig into very deep pockets. And as the income distribution gets more and more skewed, that means youíre going to have to go after Jeffrey Immelt and Lloyd Blankfein, and so on and so forth, if you want to even be in office. Take a look at the 2008 campaign spending.


Obama way outspent McCain. He was funded - his main source of funding was the financial institutions.

AMY GOODMAN: Now theyíre saying heís going to raise, Obama is going to raise $1 billion for the next campaign.

NOAM CHOMSKY: Yeah, and itíll probably be more than that, because theyíre predicting $2 billion for the whole campaign, and the incumbent usually has advantages.

AMY GOODMAN: Noam, we have to break. Weíre going to come right back.


AMY GOODMAN: Noam Chomsky, professor of linguistics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, world-renowned political dissident. Stay with us.



AMY GOODMAN: Our guest for the hour is Noam Chomsky. He has authored over a hundred books; his latest, Hopes and Prospects, among others.

Professor Chomsky, I want to ask you about former President Ronald Reagan. A very big deal is made of him now on the hundredth anniversary of his birth.


Last year President Obama signed legislation establishing a commission to mark the centennial.

PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: President Reagan helped, as much as any president, to restore a sense of optimism in our country, a spirit that transcended politics, that transcended even the most heated arguments of the day.


AMY GOODMAN: Noam Chomsky, your response?

NOAM CHOMSKY: This deification of Reagan is extremely interesting and a very - itís scandalous, but it tells a lot about the country. I mean, when Reagan left office, he was the most unpopular living president, apart from Nixon, even below Carter.


If you look at his years in office, he was not particularly popular. He was more or less average. He severely harmed the American economy. When he came into office, the United States was the worldís leading creditor. By the time he left, it was the worldís leading debtor. He was fiscally totally irresponsible - wild spending, no fiscal responsibility.


Government actually grew during the Reagan years.

He was also a passionate opponent of the free market. I mean, the way heís being presented is astonishing. He was the most protectionist president in post-war American history. He essentially virtually doubled protective barriers to try to preserve incompetent U.S. management, which was being driven out by superior Japanese production.

During his years, we had the first major fiscal crises. During the í50s, í60s and í70s, the New Deal regulations were still in effect, and that prevented financial crises. The financialization of the economy began to take off in the í70s, but with the deregulation, of course you start getting crises.


Reagan left office with the biggest financial crisis since the Depression: the home savings and loan.

I wonít even talk about his international behavior. I mean, it was just abominable. I mean, if we gained our optimism by killing hundreds of thousands of people in Central America and destroying any hope for democracy and freedom and supporting South Africa while it killed about a million-and-a-half people in neighboring countries, and on and on, if thatís the way we get back our optimism, weíre in bad trouble.

Well, what happened after Reagan left office is that there was the beginnings of an effort to carry out a kind of - this Reagan legacy, you know, to try to create from this really quite miserable creature some kind of deity.


And amazingly, it succeeded. I mean, Kim Il-sung would have been impressed. The events that took place when Reagan died, you know, the Reagan legacy, this Obama business, you donít get that in free societies. It would be ridiculed. What you get it is in totalitarian states.


And Iím waiting to see what comes next.


This morning, North Korea announced that on the birthday of the current god, a halo appeared over his birthplace. That will probably happen tomorrow over Reaganís birthplace. But when we go in - I mean, this is connected with what we were talking about before.


If you want to control a population, keep them passive, keep beating them over the head and let them look somewhere else, one way to do it is to give them a god to worship.

AMY GOODMAN: Noam, youíve written about, over the years, COINTELPRO, FBI raids. Weíre seeing that today.


Thereís almost no attention given to what we have focused on a good deal on Democracy Now!, from Minneapolis to Chicago, the FBI raids, activists being subpoenaed to speak about in various cases.

NOAM CHOMSKY: Yeah, thatís a pretty - itís not just - the raids are serious enough, but whatís more significant is what lies behind them.


These are the first actions taken under new rulings by the Supreme Court. A very important case was six or eight months ago, I guess, Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project.


It was initiated by the Obama administration. It was argued by Elena Kagan, Obamaís new court appointment. And they won, with the support of the far-right justices.


The case is extremely significant. Itís the worst attack on freedom of speech since the Smith Act 70 years ago. The case determined that any material support to organizations that the government lists on the terrorist list is criminalized, but they interpreted "material support" - in fact, the issue at stake was speech.


Humanitarian Law Project was giving advice - speech - to a group on thatís on the terrorist list, Turkish PKK. And they were also advising them on legal advice and also advising them to move towards nonviolence. That means if you and I, letís say, talk to Hamas leaders and say, "Look, you ought to move towards nonviolent resistance," weíre giving material support to a group on the terrorist list.

Incidentally, the terrorist list is totally illegitimate. That shouldnít exist in a free society. Terrorist list is an arbitrary list established by the executive with no basis whatsoever, by whim, for example, but no supervision. And if you take a look at the record of the terrorist list, itís almost comical.


So, take Reagan again. In 1982, the Reagan administration decided it wanted to aid their friend Saddam Hussein. He had been - Iraq had been on the terrorist list.


They took it off the terrorist list. They had a gap. They had to put someone in.

AMY GOODMAN: South Africa, ANC.

NOAM CHOMSKY: Put in Cuba. They put in Cuba, and I suppose in honor of the fact that, in preceding several years Cuba had been the target of more international terrorism than the rest of the world combined.


So, Saddam Hussein goes off, Cuba goes on, no review, no comment. And now, with the new Obama principle, giving - advising groups that are arbitrarily put on this group is criminal.


And that was the background for those raids.

AMY GOODMAN: Noam Chomsky, weíre going to continue this conversation online and play it on the show again. Noam Chomsky, professor of linguistics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.


Part 2








Rush Transcript

We continue our conversation with world-renowned public intellectual, MIT Professor Emeritus of Linguistics, Noam Chomsky.

NOAM CHOMSKY: We were talking about unions before.


Union busting is criminal activity by the government, because theyíre saying, "You can go ahead and do it; weíre not going to apply the laws," effectively. And the COINTELPRO, which you mentioned, is actually the worst systematic and extended violation of basic civil rights by the federal government.


It maybe compares with Wilsonís Red Scare. But COINTELPRO went on from the late í50 right through all of the í60s; it finally ended, at least theoretically ended, when the courts terminated it in the early í70s. And it was serious.

It started, as is everything, going after the Communist Party, then the Puerto Rican Independence Party. Then it extended - the womenís movement, the New Left, but particularly black nationalists. And it ended up - didnít end up, but one of the events was a straight Gestapo-style assassination of two black organizers, Fred Hampton and Mark Clark, literally.


The FBI set up the assassination. The Chicago police actually carried it out, broke into the apartment at 4:00 in the morning and murdered them. Fake information that came from the FBI about arms stores and so on. There was almost nothing about it. In fact, the information about this, remarkably, was released at about the same time as Watergate.


I mean, as compared with this, Watergate was a tea party.


There was nothing, you know?


JUAN GONZALEZ: Iíd like to ask you - weíre obviously entering very soon a new presidential season, and for many of the progressives and liberals who had placed some much hope in the Obama administration, theyíre now going to be faced with the quandary of what to do as they move into a new administration.


On the one hand, they feel betrayed by many of the things the administration has done; on the other hand, they see this extreme right that is attempting to paint Obama as a socialist, as destroying the Constitution and freedom in America. And theyíre going to have to figure out how theyíre going to maneuver in this new reality, especially with the Citizens United case, the enormous amount of money thatís going to be poured into.


Your thoughts on what progressives who are still glued to the ground and understand the reality of whatís happening in the country should be doing?

NOAM CHOMSKY: Well, my feeling - actually, I had the same feeling in 2008. Iím not disillusioned, because I didnít have any expectations, just looking at the funding, looking at his background.


Actually, I wrote about it before the primaries even. But nevertheless, you know, when I was asked in 2008, "Who should you vote for?" my own feeling was - and it will be next time - that if youíre in a swing state, you better vote against the prehistoric monsters, because theyíre going to cause much more trouble.


Well, in our system, the only choice you have would be to vote for Obama. Hold your nose and vote, but donít expect anything.

Just take a look at where heís coming from, where his funding is coming from. Over a long period, like a century, you can pretty well predict policies by just looking at concentration of campaign funding. Thomas Ferguson, very outstanding political scientist, has done the main work on this, and itís convincing.


So, when you find that the core of the funding is the financial institutions, you can pretty well expect that the major policies will be to reward them. Yeah, OK, itís pretty much what happened. You shouldnít be disillusioned. But if you have to make a choice between that and, you know, Newt Gingrich, well, OK, you have to make that choice. Donít expect anything.

What has to be done is whatís happening in Madison, or whatís happening in Tahrir Square in Cairo.


If thereís mass popular opposition, any political leader is going to have to respond to it, whoever they are.


AMY GOODMAN: Noam Chomsky, I wanted to ask you about the situation in Haiti. The country is preparing to hold a controversial runoff presidential vote next month.


The U.S. has resumed deportations to Haiti despite the earthquake-ravaged, cholera-ravaged country. And former Haitian president Jean-Bertrand Aristide has been given a passport that would allow him to return home seven years after he was ousted in a U.S.-backed coup. I wanted to go back just to a brief clip.


I spoke to President Aristide at the time of the coup in 2004, and he talked about the role of the United States in Haiti and in the world.

PRESIDENT JEAN-BERTRAND ARISTIDE: They went to Iraq. We see how is the situation in Iraq. They went to Haiti. We see how is the situation in Haiti.


Pretending imposing democracy, we saw people killing people. Why donít they change their approach to let democracy and the constitutional order flourish, slowly, but surely?


After imposing an economic embargo on us, being, from the cultural point of view, very rich, from an historic point of view, very rich, but from an economic point of view, very poor, because we are the poorest country of the Western hemisphere, after imposing their economic embargo upon us, because the people wanted one man, one vote, so equality among us.


AMY GOODMAN: That was President Aristide in 2004.

NOAM CHOMSKY: Thatís right. I mean, in 2004 - I donít have to tell you - the United States and France, the two traditional torturers of Haiti for hundreds of years, joined by Canada, you know, plodding along, carried out a military coup. They kidnapped the president, sent him off to Central Africa. The United States has tried hard to keep him out of the hemisphere ever since, blocked him from coming back to Haiti.

This last election, which is a complete farce, I think about less than a quarter of the population voted even. By most accounts, Aristide is the most popular figure in Haiti. Heís kept out of the election. His party, Fanmi Lavalas, has easily won every election in which there was even a modicum of sort of honesty.


They were kept out of the election by the United States. So we have an election in which the most popular political figure is out, most popular political party is out, country is a total wreck, people canít get registration cards. I mean, thatís a total ruin.


A lot of money was pledged; very little of it has actually been allocated. Having an election under those conditions, it doesnít rise to the level of a joke. There was an OAS, Organization of American States, investigation, but if you look at the people on the commission, itís mostly the United States or its puppets, totally unserious.


You canít even laugh about it. I mean, Haiti, once again, is being denied the possibility of having a democratic election.

Now, itís not the first time. The first real democratic election in Haiti was in, 20 years ago, 1990. To everyoneís amazement, Aristide won.


Everyone assumed - me, too - that the U.S. candidate would win. Former World Bank official, he had all the money, all the elite support.


AMY GOODMAN: Marc Bazin.

NOAM CHOMSKY: He got 14 percent of the vote. You know, nobody was - itís kind of like Egypt and what Marwan was saying about the Middle East. Nobody is paying attention to whatís going on in the slums and the hills, which happens to be where the population is.


Theyíre just paying attention to whatís happening up in the rich sectors of Pťtionville, you know, where the rich people live. Well, it turns out a lot of popular organizing was going on, a really impressive democratic achievement. Itís something that I wish we could even come close to here: actual, real, live democracy.

And they swept into office, with a big majority, a populist priest who immediately initiated programs which were in fact pretty constructive. They were in fact highly praised, even by the international financial institutions, you know, which donít usually go for this. He cut back corruption. He fixed up the budget.


Well, you know, just kind of waiting, and it took seven months for the military coup to come, which threw him out.

The OAS declared an embargo. The U.S. technically joined the embargo, but within weeks the government, that was Bush number one, announced that U.S. firms would be exempt from the embargo. I remember the New York Times, that report, saying this is a very humanitarian gesture: the embargo is being fine-tuned for the interests of the people of Haiti, namely by exempting U.S. firms. It turned out - and trade increased.


Actually, I was there during - it was a horrible terror. I was right during it. Maybe you were, too. It was just awful. The CIA was reporting that all - to Congress, that no oil is coming in. You could see the oil farms being built by the rich families. And in fact, it later turned out that first Bush, then Clinton, had authorized the Texaco Oil Company to ship oil to the military junta and to the elite in violation of presidential orders. Barely mentioned.


The Wall Street Journal had an article on it. And so it went on.

You know, every time there has been an effort by the Haitian people to overcome the misery and poverty that comes from 200 years of bitter attacks, really bitter, the U.S. steps in and blocks it.


And thatís whatís happening now with this so-called election.


JUAN GONZALEZ: Iíd like to ask you one final question on the U.S. situation. Yesterday the Federal Reserve Bank upped its prediction for growth in the United States. Corporations are getting record profits. The banks are back in great shape. The Dow is back up before it was in the crisis.


And yet, we still have massive unemployment, conservatively estimated at nine percent, and we still have a huge mortgage crisis in the country, more and more people losing their homes.


The disconnect between what the indicators are saying and the reality of what the American people are facing?

NOAM CHOMSKY: Well, actually, it depends how you look at the indicators.


I mean, for the last 30 years, for a majority of the population, real incomes have pretty much stagnated. I mean, thereís growth. And the growth is going to - and the wealth is going into very few pockets. Thatís by design. Tax laws are designed that way.

Take, say, the Bush tax cut. It was very cleverly done. Itís devastating the economy, but not the rich. The tax cut was done so that at the beginning, the first - right off, everyone got a check, you know, so it looks,

"Oh, great. Weíre getting a tax cut, couple hundred dollars."

But it was designed so that over the years the cut would shift.


By the end, over half the tax cut, I think, was going to maybe one percent of the population. But by then, nobody notices anymore. Well, thatís the way fiscal policy has been designed. Itís the way corporate governance rules have been designed.


They come from the federal government. And they effectively give the CEO the right to pick the panel that gives him the salary, and all sorts of things like this, along with the deregulation, which - bipartisan, incidentally - which has led to a situation where, you know, maybe you can talk about growth on the average, but for most of the population itís not there.

For a large part, especially maybe the lower half of the population, theyíre basically living in the Depression. Not quite. I mean, Iím old enough to remember the Depression. My family was mostly unemployed working class. It was objectively worse than now, if you count, you know, objective standards.


On the other hand, it was hopeful. There was a sense that something is going to happen. You had a government which was doing things that helped the population, because they were under pressure.


In fact, Roosevelt famously talked to the labor leaders and said,

"Make me do this. You know, so you go have sit-down strikes and you protest and so on, then weíll push this legislation through."

Well, it happened.


So you had WPA. You had - Social Security was coming in. There was a sense that weíre going to get out of this somehow. There was hope for the future. Now there isnít. The industrial workforce is living in the Depression. Unemployment is at Depression levels.

And the jobs arenít coming back, because policy is designed, by the man in charge of jobs for the Obama administration and others like him, to send production abroad. Itís cheaper. Itís more profitable for the banks and the management.


Or to move from investment in production to investment in finance, which does nothing for the economy, probably harms it, but it is very profitable and has the nice feature that when it crashes, as itís going to do, the taxpayer will come in and bail you out. Itís a great system. Itís a real racket.


We will - the regulations are such so that we can take very risky transactions, make a lot of money, itís going to crash, but no problem, thereís that nice taxpayer. They will come in and bail us out. Weíll be richer than before. And each time it gets worse than it was the last time. Now, this one is really bad. So whatever the growth figures show, for the population, thatís not happening, except for a small sector.


So the numbers could be right, but thatís not what it means for peopleís lives.


AMY GOODMAN: I wanted to ask you quickly about Vermont.


You have Madison, Wisconsin. You have all of Wisconsin now, Scott Walker saying theyíll break the unions, bring out the National Guard if the teachers and other union workers protest. In Vermont, the new governor, Peter Shumlin, has run on a platform of instituting single-payer healthcare immediately.


And in January, a landmark measure was introduced to revoke the granting of personhood rights to U.S. corporations. The bill calls for a constitutional amendment declaring corporations are not persons under the laws of the United States.


You live next door in Massachusetts. How significant is this whole movement?

NOAM CHOMSKY: The movement is significant, but of course it has to take root and spread. I mean, take, say, the personhood goes back a century, and it was not by law. No legislation saying corporations are persons.


That was by court decisions, a series of court decisions over time which have given these fictitious legal entities - established by the state, incidentally, and protected by the state; theyíre basically state-based organizations - giving these entities more and more rights. It was bitterly attacked by conservatives when - because it was a big attack on the classical liberal ideals a century ago.


Citizens United, which you mentioned, is just the last state of it. So thatís quite right.

The other thing about single payer is extremely significant. I mean, you know, weíre supposed to be upset about the deficit. Whether we should be or not is another question. You should have a deficit in a recession. But letís say weíre worried about the deficit. Where is the deficit coming from?


About half of it is military spending, which is out of sight. You know, itís as much as the rest of the world combined. Itís not for defense. In fact, it probably increases dangers to the United States. But itís there. The other half is our totally dysfunctional healthcare system. I mean, it costs about twice as much per capita as comparable countries and doesnít have - has pretty poor outcomes, plus 50 million uninsured and other scandals.


And itís the only privatized, virtually unregulated healthcare system. So costs are out of sight. Administrative costs are very high. You have profits. You have cherry picking, all sorts of things that cost money.


Thatís about half the deficit. In fact, if we had a healthcare system like comparable countries, weíd probably have a surplus.

Well, if you look at the debate thatís going on - you know, you read New York Times, anybody - they say the big problem is entitlements. Entitlements means Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. Well, Social Security is just pure lies. I mean, Social Security doesnít even add to the deficit. Itís funded by payroll taxes.


And furthermore, itís in quite good shape for decades. So thatís just mentioned in order to try to destroy Social Security. Social Security does nothing for the wealthy. Itís a means of survival for working people and poorer people, so therefore letís get rid of it. Also, Social Security is dangerous. Social Security is based on a principle which is frightening: namely, we care about each other.


So, Social Security is based on the idea that you care if a disabled widow across town has food to eat, and you have to drive that out of peopleís heads. Theyíre supposed to care only about themselves, not anybody else, like part of the reason for attacking unions. So youíve got to get rid of Social Security, so therefore lie about it.


But what about Medicare and Medicaid? Itís true, those expenses are going through the roof, and theyíre going to tank the federal budget.


But thatís because of the healthcare system. I mean, Medicare -


AMY GOODMAN: So, what could Obama do right now?

NOAM CHOMSKY: He could do what the population has wanted for years: put in a national healthcare system like every other industrial country has in one form or another.


That was just given up during the healthcare - they didnít talk about it. There was one last residue of it in the healthcare reform: namely, the public option.


The public was in favor of that by I think about five to three or something, substantially. That was just given away, you know? Weíve got to make sure that the rich - financial institutions are richer and richer - insurance companies, in this case.

Same with pharmaceutical corporations. Drug prices in the United States are much higher than comparable countries, with one exception: Veterans Administration.


Veterans Administration has reasonable prices, and thereís a reason. The government is allowed to bargain with pharmaceutical corporations for the VA, but not for the rest of the population. So, of course, the prices are out of sight. Well, yeah, the public has views on this, too. In fact, actually, itís only one poll. It showed about 85 percent opposition. But itís not even discussed.

So, yes, entitlements are a problem, but not the entitlements. Whatís a problem is paying off the insurance companies and paying off Big Pharma. Thatís a problem.


And unless we do something about that, that problem is going to get worse and worse, and youíll have a bigger and bigger deficit, plus the military. So what Vermont is doing is picking the right problem. But, you know, itís a small state.


What they can do depends on how - if we have a popular uprising like, say, Tunisia or Egypt or Bahrain, yeah, then you could get somewhere.


AMY GOODMAN: We just had this breaking news that the Obama administration is making a call to Bahrain to use restraint. I mean, again, we have the U.S. military base there.


But did you ever think youíd see, Noam, in your lifetime, what we are seeing now in the Middle East, this rolling revolution?

NOAM CHOMSKY: No, not really. But then, I never expected to see whatís happened in Latin America for the past 10 years. Over the past 10 - whatís happened in Latin America is very dramatic.


Thereís 500 years of history here. And this is the first time, since the Spanish and Portuguese conquerors came, that Latin America has started to take its fate into its own hands. Theyíve kicked out all the American military bases. The countries are integrating.


Theyíre beginning to deal with the absolute scandal, thatís internal to each country, a tiny sector of extreme wealth, Western-oriented -


JUAN GONZALEZ: The wealth gap is shrinking.

NOAM CHOMSKY: And itís shrinking, and theyíre doing something about it. A long way to go, but at least being faced. And there also integration of the countries, which is a prerequisite for independence.


Now, thatís dramatic. Itís far more significant than what happened in Eastern Europe. I mean, the comparisons to Eastern Europe I donít think are very convincing. First of all, in Eastern Europe, remember, you had Gorbachev. Now, the person who was in charge, basically, and had the guns was saying, "Go ahead."


You donít have any Gorbachev in the West, nothing like him. Furthermore, in the case of Eastern Europe, the major power sectors in the world - the United States and Western Europe - were supporting the uprising, of course, because it was undermining an enemy. Thereís nothing like that here.

In fact, about the only comparison to Eastern Europe that isnít sort of ridiculous is the one thatís never talked about: Romania.


Romania, which had the worst dictator in Eastern Europe, Ceausescu, he was a darling of the West. The United States and Britain loved him. He was supported until the last minute. They couldnít support him anymore, so, you know, turned against him - the usual game plan. But thatís about the only analogy.

On the other hand, what happened in Latin America is extremely significant, and whatís happening in the Middle East could turn into something similar.


AMY GOODMAN: And the role of the U.S. in the Middle East, what it should play right now? And I know you have to go after that.

NOAM CHOMSKY: Well, what it should do is say,

"OK, weíre out of here. This is your country. You live there. You do what you want. Weíre going to support democracy. Or weíll support whatever comes out."

But think whatís involved in that.


Just take a look at Arab public opinion. You take a look at Arab public opinion, you see democracy would be a disaster for the U.S. leadership. I mentioned the figures, but the whole of U.S. policy in the region would instantly collapse if you had democracy.

Well, you know, the Middle East is an important area. It goes back to almost 90 years, since oil was discovered, especially since the Second World War. Take a look at internal documents.


The Middle East oil was regarded as the most important and strategic - the strategically most important area of the world, because itís got the major oil reserves. And if you think whatís happened in the Middle East over the years, the big - the United States and Britain have traditionally supported radical Islamic fundamentalism.


The core of radical Islamic fundamentalism is Saudi Arabia. Thatís also the main fundamental of jihadi terror. Thatís our main ally.


In fact, in 1967, when U.S. relations with Israel took on their current form, the primary reason was that there was a war going on, literally, between Saudi Arabia and Egypt in Yemen. And Saudi Arabia is the center of radical Islamic fundamentalism.


Egypt was the center of secular nationalism. And secular nationalism is frightening, because - it wasnít democratic, it was autocratic, but it was secular and it was nationalist. And Nasser was talking about using the resources of the region for their own populations, not to enrich Western oil companies and, you know, the Saudi elite. Well, thatís frightening.


So there was this conflict going on, the U.S. and Britain of course supporting radical Islamism. Israel won that battle for them. Thatís when relations were established in their current form, and that continues. Itís not 100 percent, but substantially the U.S. and Britain have supported and continue to support radical Islam, because itís a barrier against democracy.


If it goes the wrong way, they donít like it, but as long as itís going your way, fine.

Actually, during this entire crisis, I thought one of the most astute comments was a two-sentence comment by Marwan Muasher. Heís a former high Jordanian official whoís head of Middle East research for the Carnegie Endowment.


He said,

"Thereís an operative principle in the Middle East." He said, "The principle is, as long as people are quiet and passive, weíll do whatever we like."

Thatís a general principle of statesmanship that applies here, too.


As long as people are quiet and passive, weíll do whatever we like. Now, of course, if they stop being quiet and passive, weíll have to adjust somehow. Maybe theyíll even throw us out, but weíll try to hang on as much as we can.


And thatís what we see going on in the Middle East. Thatís what we saw going on in Latin America.


Itís what we see right here.


AMY GOODMAN: Noam Chomsky, thank you so much for spending this time.