The great screw up and the case for intellectual self defence

Recent events call for what Naom Chomsky calls “intellectual self defence” - a form of self protection and political assertion that derives from the demystification of the BS peddled by politicians and corporate media. Such defence is part of a wider organised culture of criticism and dissent that invites the exposure of deceit and distortion that so characterises the political mainstream.

The fact is that the United States, despite claims to the contrary, has, generally speaking, not been the selfless guardian of international human rights, has never really practiced free trade, has steadfastly refused to join the international community on justice and the environmental initiatives, and has more recently adopted pre-emptive policies that ignore international conventions on aggressive war.

The Wild West mantra of “you’re with us or against us” has come to symbolise a swaggering arrogance that has sullied the US’s international reputation in recent years - a reputation further damaged by the invasion and occupation of Iraq.

The current Republican presidential aspirant, Senator John McCain, talks about “victory” in Iraq but never mentions the awkward point that the invasion was unjust and illegal and resulted in over a million Iraqi dead and 5 million refugees in a country of 25 million (according to Johns Hopkins Universty in the US and ORB, a respected British polling company).

If Barack Obama is elected in November there is the possibility that US forces may withdraw from Iraq and attention focus instead on where it should have been all along - al-Qaida. Obama faces perhaps the greatest challenge of any president in recent times - to improve the US’s reputation overseas, to stabilise the US economy, to create a more equitable system of tax and income distribution, and to create a decent health service. He will also have to contend with the interests of corporate moguls and military chiefs, many of whom are opposed to his election.

Intellectual self defence will become even more important if Obama is elected because, in the context of serious economic decline, change will be hard and made harder still by the resistance of establishment stalwarts. Intellectual self defence calls for the reframing of policies that are serious about alternative energy sources and climate change, and the need to redistribute wealth globally and address the many challenges faced by developing countries.

It is worth noting that the funds expended on the war in Iraq could have dealt decisively with the challenges of world hunger, poverty and disease and therefore could have made a significant contribution towards building peace. Come to think of it, a lot could have been done with the $700 billion bail out package too.

As the world financial market teeters on the brink, there has never been a time when organised intellectual self defence and the promotion of different values and social arrangements is required. Obama’s attempt at consensus politics is probably doomed to failure given the powerful lobbies he confronts, but that should not prevent him from seeking a different path. In the meantime, it is hoped that international justice movements continue to engage ideas about how a system based on individual acquisition and the pursuit of profit can be replaced by something more attuned to the needs and aspirations of all people.