(C) Daily Kos
This story was originally published by Daily Kos and is unaltered.
. . . . . . . . . .



Do You Care? [1]

['This Content Is Not Subject To Review Daily Kos Staff Prior To Publication.']

Date: 2025-06-01





l.facebook.com/…



These are my impressions….I am sharing them here because of their relevance today.



Buckley asks at one point, if strident opposition, for example, to the Vietnam War is done is such a way that is has the opposite effect- entrenching the forces that support war- then what is its utility? Or perhaps it demands a reconsidering of tactics. It's never quite that explicit in the interview- and Buckley drops that line of exploration. That question is relevant today- but it also leaves open whether one can prove that another approach is better. If I state that Trump's policies have harmed or will harm hundreds of thousands of children- MAGA may be dismissive, angry or in denial-but exactly how else can and should this be stated. "We know you didn't mean it, but..." I don't think so. Are we to treat adults collectively as angry, rebellious teenagers- knowing if we say one thing- they will do the opposite? Or should we be silent- recognizing our own hypocrisy? Chomsky would say to the last- definitely not. This interview took place in a Firing Line interview between William Buckley Jr and Noam Chomsky in 1969:These are my impressions….I am sharing them here because of their relevance today.Buckley asks at one point, if strident opposition, for example, to the Vietnam War is done is such a way that is has the opposite effect- entrenching the forces that support war- then what is its utility? Or perhaps it demands a reconsidering of tactics. It's never quite that explicit in the interview- and Buckley drops that line of exploration. That question is relevant today- but it also leaves open whether one can prove that another approach is better. If I state that Trump's policies have harmed or will harm hundreds of thousands of children- MAGA may be dismissive, angry or in denial-but exactly how else can and should this be stated. "We know you didn't mean it, but..." I don't think so. Are we to treat adults collectively as angry, rebellious teenagers- knowing if we say one thing- they will do the opposite? Or should we be silent- recognizing our own hypocrisy? Chomsky would say to the last- definitely not. Chomsky at one point poses one of the key issues of our time. It cannot be denied that Chomsky has a moralistic fervor. He may believe that the rightness of his policies is not established by emotion. However, his sense of rightness and morality- ands its emotional underpinnings are core to his philosophy. Chomsky states that he (and we) should have enormous collective guilt for our complicity in human inflicted tragedies and carnage- such as the Vietnam War. He is appalled by not just those who actively pursue evil (like a Trump for example), but also those that stand indifferent. This is an enormously relevant articulation- and is true, or truer today than it was in 1969. Chomsky also understood that collective guilt could cause inaction- and he saw this in his own thinking and activism.

Chomsky did masterful work on human perception and language. He explored cultural and human constructs that shape the development of language from birth on. He probably understood the nature of language more than any contemporary thinker. Yet in his own thinking- his perception- his construct of justice and responsibility for preventing, stopping and undoing wrongs was palatable. Buckley would throw at him mind experiments and he would readily fend them off as not applicable to the real world. Buckley could have pressed his case better- and he implied that Chomsky's moralism clouded his thinking, that his logic was selective and reflected a bias that undermined the rigor of his arguments. Chomsky's effective response was to challenge those who disagreed with him on facts, reassert the moral argument- and dismiss alternative views as in his mind unproven, dangerous, baseless or immoral. If Buckley was better prepared- he might have come up with better examples- but Chomsky saved him the effort. Chomsky, for example, doesn't challenge all of US conduct during WWII- defeating the Nazis, liberating France, etc. But he also is unsure if his way of reasoning would have been more effective or attained a better result than what the Allied powers did. And some aspects, such as the bombing of Hiroshima, he believes is a war crime. He challenges the Truman doctrine- yet history is far more ambiguous as to its harms and benefits.

There is a pragmatic limiter that Chomsky has always had. For example, whatever qualms he had with Democrats- he saw the existential threat Trump posed. He DIDN'T equate threats. He never put his head in the sand.

To be honest- it is the moral foundation and the ability to pursue truth with objectivity is what distinguishes men. Chomsky's morality is not based upon pure logic. And Buckley's views are heavily shaped by his racism and cynical world view. Both men do see the underlying realities- but their approach differs because of the aforementioned. You see this key dichotomy play out every day. The Supreme Court may use the label of "originalism" but their decisions are guided by a narrow morality that betrays something much more than legal theory.

With all the words- all the pleading and debate- all the passion- morality, the pursuit of truth, integrity and compassion are what distinguish men and to a degree society.

[END]
---
[1] Url: https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2025/6/1/2325456/-Do-You-Care?pm_campaign=front_page&pm_source=more_community&pm_medium=web

Published and (C) by Daily Kos
Content appears here under this condition or license: Site content may be used for any purpose without permission unless otherwise specified.

via Magical.Fish Gopher News Feeds:
gopher://magical.fish/1/feeds/news/dailykos/