Pip: as Chomsky himself says, “the U.S. electoral system is designed to eliminate genuine political alternatives, impending any meaningful democracy.”

Sean: Not sure how this claim is justified. The American system doesn’t eliminate genuine political alternatives. If anything the US system enables incorporation of political alternatives as they become popular. This has become increasingly true with the rise of the internet. Elected officials, especially at the national level, tend to be extremely centrist adjusting to the popular perspectives of the day. If anything the real problem is that this adjustment is often too slow as it relies on ideas taking hold within a relatively large and diverse population. There are, as with any democracy, considerable problems with the US system, just not as fundamental as Chomsky argues.

Places like Venezuela, now there is where any genuine political alternative is eliminated. Note the recent closing of an opposition minded TV station there. I get the sense that Chomsky is writing with the marginalization of his own brand of alternative in mind (which likely has more to do with its extremeness than any of the flaws within US democracy). As with most Chomsky I’ve read (quite a bit actually) he starts out from an understandable position, or legitimate criticism and ends up off in the deep end, or in the words of David Brooks, a NY Times editorialist, “on planet Chomsky”. For instance, in Failed States, the source of most of the quotes being tossed out in this discussion, Chomsky, I assume for impact, equates the US to the world’s “worst monsters - Hitler, Stalin, Japanese fascists, Suharto, Saddam Hussein and many others.” Is the US really the same as Hitler?

The US certainly bears responsibility for some terrible things, but it arguably has many redeeming values. None of these, however, are ever addressed in Chomsky’s work. He is perpetually committed to pure anti-Americanism over reasonable discourse. This is most unfortunate because, despite making compelling and revealing points initially, he offers very little in the way of practical prescription for what is to be done now. This, in my mind, makes him of little use to academics and policy makers alike. There are many other critical voices out there who, making better use of reason and evidence, lead us to truly useful conclusions.