Professor Noam Chomsky on the Future of American Policy

This Tuesday, Boston College had the great honor of welcoming renowned American intellectual Professor Noam Chomsky to our campus, to talk about the future of the United States with regards to both domestic and international affairs. Known as the father of modern linguistics, Professor Chomsky is also a cognitive scientist, political activist, and philosopher. His lecture at Boston College was highly anticipated and extremely well attended - the entirety of Gasson 100 was filled with people, and others listened in from outside the room to Professor Chomsky's views on America's path forward at home and around the world. The lecture itself was interesting and engaging, and at times amusing, and it was a privilege to all that attended to hear from such an influential person.

Professor Chomsky started his lecture by noting the historical election of Barak Obama as President of the United States, touching on the significance of having a black family in the White House. He went on to mention how this even was a result of the cultural changes that had been evolving since the 1960's in this country. He did say, however, that it was cultural development and not institutional change that made this possible, and went on to make this distinction one of the main points of his lecture, as he delved into the concept of American democracy as compared to that in other countries. The nation that was the basis of much of his comparison was Bolivia, which explained was engaged in real democracy, where individuals could and did have great influence over politics and policy. This as compared to the democracy of the US as seen in President Obama's campaign, with individuals looking for a mandate and leader to follow, without attempts to define that mandate for themselves. Citing this comparison, Professor Chomsky argued that, to a large degree, the aim of US democracy is, by necessity, to undermine democracy elsewhere.

Professor Chomsky qualified this interesting argument by calling modern times the "Age of Orwell" and saying that when the US speaks of "promoting democracy" that such a statement is a sort of doublespeak in that what is actually done in some cases is quite the opposite. He explained that the difference between democracy in name, as in the US, compared to democracy in action, using the example of Bolivia, could result in a clash of civilizations.

He went on to talk about the process of elections in the US today, posing the opinion that elections are now run almost entirely by the Public Relations industry that attempts to manipulate people's decisions by creating a predominantly uniformed electorate. As evidence of this concept, Professor Chomsky said that people identified with President Obama's campaign and were of the opinion that he stood for the things that they stood for because the campaign, as all other modern campaigns, was run not on obvious statements of opinions on issues, but on personality and general likability. The campaign discussions, he explained, tried to focus on anything but what really mattered.

The next topic of Professor Chomsky's lecture was the current financial situation in the US. The big question, he though, was that of "Who owes what to whom?" and he proceeded to describe the issues with this question based on the ideas of real democracy versus the views of people in the US. He said that in a democracy, the public would take over the banks in a situation like that which the US currently finds itself in, but that the US public has been conditioned to think that nationalization of private institutions is bad. This was another example, too, of the ways in which democracy could be seen as being undermined by the US version of it. Along the same lines was Professor Chomsky's idea that the capitalist society of the US is not conducive to the effective practice of democracy as capitalism encourages each individual to work only for himself, not for the benefit of society at large.

The main point that Professor Chomsky made about American foreign policy under the Obama administration was an agreement with the opinion of Condoleezza Rice, that for the most part, foreign policy would be run in much the same vein as it had during the presidency of George W. Bush. He also talked about the need for the US to maintain positive relations with our allies as we move forward.

During the question and answer portion of the lecture, Professor Chomsky fielded a question about the role of the Internet in the processes of democracy. He was quick to point out that the development of the Internet had come out of the state sector for about thirty years at its inception, and that only more recently had it become an entity not fully under the control of the state. Currently, he explained, the Internet could be a good tool for democracy, as it is hard for the government to control. At the same time, he made clear his opinion that a person would really have to know what he was looking for in order to get particularly insightful material, especially with regards to social and political affairs.

Professor Chomsky gave the Boston College community an excellent lecture on the path ahead of the US following the election of President Obama. He was bold in his opinions, and gave his audience plenty to think about over the course of this administration. Although some of his opinions might have been construed as surprising or even troubling to some, he tempered his points with some statements that got the audience laughing. The Boston College community was honored to host Professor Noam Chomsky and learn from his views.

Whitson Talks Human Rights

Sarah Leah Whitson, Executive Director of  the Middle East and North Africa divisions of Human Rights Watch, spoke about her experiences doing human rights work in the Middle East on Friday night in Higgins 310. 

Human Rights Watch (HRW) is a non-partisan organization that analyzes possible violations of laws of war and human rights. HRW does on the ground work to uncover facts about the situation in question. For example, it investigates casualties of war on a case-by-case basis to find out exactly how people died and determine if there were any illegitimate practices involved. HRW also uses photos and other evidence to determine what type of munitions were used and where they were fired from.  

The main goal of Human Rights Watch, according to Whitson, is to stand up for the rights of civilians. When innocent peoples' human rights are violated, HRW gathers facts surrounding those cases and exposes them. 

When asked during the Q & A whether or not HRW's published reports actually made a tangible difference, Whitson responded that they indeed did. Short-term, much of the punishment for violations comes from the United States government in the form of economic sanctions. Whitson indeed admitted that HRW often has to "ride on the coattails of U.S. political power." In the long-term, exposing the mistreatment of civilians has an effect in the mere raising of the issue among the general public of the country of concern. When an issue such as women's rights is actually discussed in Middle Eastern countries, at least some measure of social progress is virtually inevitable. She pointed to progress in the United States on racial and gender issues over the past century or so as evidence of the feasibility of major social ideological shift.

Whitson stated that she personally finds satisfaction in standing up for people all over the Middle East and Northern Africa whose plights are often ignored.

Appropriately enough, an Egyptian human rights activist was in attendance Friday night. When he asked Whitson if there was any hope for the country that he had lived in all of his life, her response was an emphatic: "yes."

Anyone considering a career in human rights work certainly got a good sample of what it would entail. For everyone else, Whitson's remarks shed light on just how lucky Americans are to have a level of freedom that many are fighting to achieve for themselves.

The Rise of China

Right before break, Americans for Informed Democracy hosted a panel titled "The Rise of China: American Security and the Political, Social, and Cultural Consequences of Economic Development", the first panel in a series on Rising Nations. Despite the panel being so close to Thanksgiving, there was a good turnout to hear Professor Ross of the BC Political Science Department and Professor Fewsmith of the BU International Relations Department discuss the effects of China's rapid ascension to relevance on the global stage. Each professor was given time to explain his views on the impact of the rise of China. Professor Ross focused his analysis of China's rise on its affects on US policies toward other Asian nations. Professor Fewsmith took up the economic and cultural changes that have occurred across China as the result of unexpected political changes and evolution in the past thirty years. At the end, the panel was opened up to questions from the audience, who ended up having a lot to say, and so gave the professors further chance to really get into the details about the Rise of China.

Professor Ross began his opinion by explaining that in "catching up" to the rest of the developed world, and becoming relatively more powerful, China has caused other nations to be relatively less powerful on the world stage. As a result of this changing in the global power structure, policies of other nations toward China and toward one another naturally need to evolve as well. Through the examples of South Korea and Taiwan, Professor Ross discussed the development of new Asian alliances with China versus the US, with the two mentioned above becoming much more dependent on and attuned to Chinese policy, rather than US relations. In the case of those two nations, the US has had to accept its lesser position to China, and has been accommodating toward the rise of China in that respect. Elsewhere in Asia, though, the US has been building up troops and weapons so as not to be standing by idly while China becomes a major world power. American buildup in the rest of East Asia represents a subtle method of resistance to the rise of China. Professor Ross then concluded that as such, the rise of China is creating two Asias - one bound mainly to the interests of China, and the other tied ever closer to US policy.

Professor Fewsmith started off his analysis discussing China's recent growth as the result of some drastic alterations to its political structure that have set the nation up for economic development. Such changes that China needed for development, that is has had for the past 30 off years now, are bureaucrats in charge of the political structure, and institutionalization, as opposed to the cult of personality of Mao Zedong. An interesting point that Professor Fewsmith made was about how there has been toleration in China for some corruption, as long as the promise of economic growth is realized. Interestingly, Professor Fewsmith argued that the Chinese economy really took off because of corruption in the system. The political system has also changed so that more and more economic elites also wield significant political power. With this rise of elitism, which is a cause of the rise of China, there as has also been a rise of populist movements as a counter. Professor Fewsmith indicated that while the elitist eastern coast of China has been on the rise an experiencing growth in recent years, the lower-class interior of the country is floundering. Such a conflict of interests in China would have influences on future growth.

The questions and answer portion of the panel had to do mainly with Sino-American relations. Professors Ross and Fewsmith went over the Chinese response to the current US financial situation, pointing out that the Chinese government has created a stimulus package for Chinese citizens. This package follows a recent trend of de-urbanization in China, where around seven million Chinese workers have moved back into rural areas, where there is little to no productive work for them. Compared to the US, though, China is better able to handle mass unemployment, as it has more resources designated toward maintaining the stability of the nation. The Rise of China event was a definite success judging by the interest shown in the topic through the question and answer portion of the panel. The inaugural panel in the Rising Nations series has set a good precedent for future panels.

BC Chronicle "Last Lecture"

The first "Last Lecture"

BC debuts a "Last Lecture Series" in the spirit of Carnegie Mellon University professor Randy Pausch

By Sean Smith | BC Chronicle Editor

A Very Fitting Inaugural Last Lecture

Tuesday night, Americans for Informed Democracy sponsored the inaugural lecture of the Last Lecture Series at Boston College. The premise of the Last Lecture series is a challenge to the professors speaking to give a lecture on the final message they would wish to impart on students, were it their last chance to speak. AID and the BC community at large were immensely honored to have the premier speaker in this series be Rev. Michael Himes, who is, without a doubt, one of the best lecturers on campus. This fact was not only very aptly demonstrated by the speaker himself, it was also reflected in the huge audience that turned out for the event and the rapt attention they paid to the lecture, despite many seated on the floor or standing for the duration. Regardless of their positions, the entire audience was deeply moved by Father Himes's outstanding Last Lecture.

It was an important event for the Americans for Informed Democracy club on several levels. Father Himes emphasized the need to ask the right questions, which is especially meaningful for AID. As a non-partisan club seeking to inform students about the important issues, AID strives to provide information and let the students make their own decisions. Many AID events on campus involve having guest speakers who talk about the issues that they care about. From these events, attendees can learn from the questions and answers the speakers present. This kind of constant conversation was another emphasis of Father Himes's lecture, which all in attendance could take to heart.

Father Himes's Last Lecture was a powerful and moving event that drew a crowd bigger than the venue could contain. This excellently delivered and emotionally charged oration was an incredibly influential event for AID; a jumping-off point of sorts, in terms of getting attention for the club. Now present in the BC consciousness, the Americans for Informed Democracy club is wrapping up this semester with big plans for Spring!

Inaugural "Last Lecture" A Success

AID sponsored its inaugural "Last Lecture" event Tuesday night, headlined by Reverend Michael Himes.

It was the first in a planned series of orations inspired by Randy Pausch's popular book, The Last Lecture. Rev. Himes was asked to reflect upon what he would say were he giving the final lecture of his life and then give that lecture to BC students. 

Originally scheduled to be held in Higgins 300, it was eventually moved to the Murray Function Room due to the anticipation of a large crowd. Truth be told, the size of the audience ended up being better suited for Robsham Theatre, with an estimated thousand people packing into every inch of available space. 

After jokingly proposing a solution to the problem of providing the promised desserts to everyone in attendance (it involved a few loaves of bread and some fish), Rev. Himes discussed the importance of giving ourselves to others and how we can go about doing it. Paradoxically, he said that if we try to hold on to life, we will lose it; it is when we give our lives away that we are truly living. 

During the discussion Rev. Himes suggested that the best way to learn something is to teach it. In addition, he expressed that it is not enough to reflect on reality; we must be actively engaged in life to gain a full appreciation for and understanding of it. He also explored the concept of friendship and its immense value. But all of his lecture spoke in one way or another to the overarching concept of giving oneself to others. 

...

Rev. Himes's lecture was truly amazing. I find it difficult, if not impossible, to do it justice in my own words. What I can say is that his speech was one of the most remarkable experiences I have had in my first year here at BC, one that I will not soon forget. The next "Last Lecture,"planned for Spring 2009, will have a tough act to follow. 

Why You Really Should Listen to Your Professors

Although an election is not really over until all the votes are counted, and one of the candidates concedes to the other, this election had, in many minds, been decided for a good time prior to the results on the Fourth. This idea came out especially strongly in the panel discussion on foreign policy, hosted by AID last week (October 28). Of the three professors on the panel, Marc Landy, Mike Chapman, and Mark Sheetz, the two former stated outright that they believed that Senator Barak Obama would win the election. Despite this, the panel was well-balanced ideologically, and ended up being a fascinating event that all in attendance appreciated and enjoyed.

First to present his opinion was Professor Sheetz, who gave the most even amount of time to the foreign policy positions of both candidates in this election. He began his analysis of the policies by explaining that he would try to use as much of the candidates own words as possible, and also touched on the idea that agreement on certain issue between the candidates was not necessarily a positive thing as both candidates could be wrong. The analysis then went across the subject areas of diplomatic hotspots, such as Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, Russia, China, and humanitarian issues. One of the similarities between the candidates' positions that Professor Sheetz emphasized was their common belief in the moral and cultural supremacy of the United States. More than once, Professor Sheetz referred to Senator Obama's more idealistic notions as derived from some "airy-fairy land," and he also expressed his regret that Senator McCain appears to want to return to a Cold War stance toward the world at large. The comparison of the two candidates concluded with the explanation that both candidates seemed to want to get back to the US being the leader of the free world, and in the pursuit of this, expanding the military.

The second panelist to speak was Professor Chapman, who introduced himself again as a history professor and explained how from his perspective, he was much more concerned with the long-term picture of things. He went on to say that he did not particularly believe that presidential issues tend to have much to do with the real way that foreign policy operates at any given moment, mainly because of the imbedded issues at work. In that sense, Professor Chapman explained that much of US policy is directed toward perceived hotspots which may or may not necessarily be useful allies or campaigns. The emphasis in this explanation was mainly on the ethical burden the US carried based on its self-assigned need to police the world, and how the true effects of things happening now will not be seen for years to come. Some of the urgent problems Professor Chapman spoke on, that he felt the new president would face, were the issues of such a strong Israel and weak Pakistan, oil issues, Turkey and the Kurds, and the Balkans. He also expressed the European sentiment toward the US, the idea that what gives the US the right to meddle with the world. Throughout these explanations, there was no particular emphasis on a specific candidate, as the professor said early on that he fully expected Senator Obama to win the election and so there would be no point in talking about the two sides.

Last but not least to voice and opinion on the state of foreign policy in the US was Professor Marc Landy, who introduced himself as the interesting part of the panel; the dissenter of sorts. He also agreed from the beginning with Professor Chapman, that Senator Obama would win the election easily. Professor Landy then went on, with plenty of spirit, to talk about how the US has been and will continue to be a global leader, and that the next president should continue to employ such a policy in dealing with international affairs. Using one of the words both his fellow panelists had said more than once, Professor Landy talked about how the US has "meddled" in other nations in some good ways, such as the Cold War, the first Gulf War, and possibly even Iraq now. Militarily speaking, he explained that both the Democrats and the Republicans have made some historic mistakes in their policies. Mainly, that the Democrats put too much stock in the "happy talk" of diplomacy and underrate military strength, and that the Republicans overrate the spreading of democracy as a policy and might be overly optimistic on the potential for democracy around the world. Professor Landy, unlike Professor Sheetz, was heartened, he claimed, by the similarities in the candidates. He concluded with a statement of optimism at Senator Obama's appreciation of the role of the US in the world.

The panel concluded with a Question-and-Answer section, where some points were clarified, and some new points were discussed. Professor Sheetz talked about Senator McCain's policy with regards to humanitarian intervention as being very safe, politically - that McCain had set it up so as to have an out so he would not have to commit to any causes that were not immediately beneficial to the US. Professor Landy was asked about who the "good guys" and the "bad guys" were in Iraq, and concluded that once everyone was on the same page as the US, everyone would be a "good guy". Professor Chapman explained that though he did not agree with all of Senator Obama's domestic policies, he was excited about the change Obama would bring to the realm of foreign policy.

All in all, the panel was a huge success, both in the discussion of the state of foreign policy in the US and in getting students fired up about the things to come in the future. And, with the results of the election overtly predicted by two of the three panelists, showed that professors really do know what they are talking about.