Click amount to donate direct to CounterPunch
  • $25
  • $50
  • $100
  • $500
  • $other
  • use PayPal
Support Our Annual Fund Drive! We only shake you down once a year, but when we do we really mean it. It costs a lot to keep the site afloat, and our growing audience, well over TWO million unique viewers a month, eats up a lot of bandwidth — and bandwidth isn’t free. We aren’t supported by corporate donors, advertisers or big foundations. We survive solely on your support.
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Chomsky, Letters to the Writer and the Peace Movement

by Mike Leon

Madison, Wisconsin. Last year the online magazine Slate ran a piece by Jacob Weisberg abusing the American peace movement (“Left Behind,” December 4, 2001) that rather pissed me off.

In what seemed a mocking hit piece, Weisberg derided the anti-war movement as “insignificant…(and)…irrelevant,” comprised of some “5 percent” of the populace including artists and intellectuals and one Noam Chomsky, in whom past liberal allies “now recognize clinical symptoms that have been obvious to everyone else for years.”

Weisberg, an excellent and entertaining writer (see, for example, his “The Football Caucus…,” Slate May 2, 1998), concludes that those liberal journals policing the peace/war debate such as it was, “are dropping the rhetorical equivalent of daisy cutters (massive BLU-82 bombs) on a few malnourished left-wing stragglers.”

Indignant, I contacted Chomsky and asked him to write a reply letter for publication in Slate. I contended that the liberal line, Slate/New Republic/Atlantic/New Yorker, merited a written response if only because the reader letters section presents an opening for punching through a “peace / stop the killing of innocent civilians” view into war-mongering liberal journals that otherwise refuse to address peace arguments in print beyond mere ridicule.

Write a letter to this guy, Noam. Fire back.

Chomsky declined, (I thought he would). He wrote back to me, “I’d seen Weisberg’s piece. Your suspicion is right. These (liberal publications) are cesspools I don’t want to climb into. He (Weisberg) doesn’t even make an attempt to present an argument, because he knows perfectly well that he can’t, and that if he says anything substantive–anything–that will open the door to a response. He’s no fool, and he knows that there is no way to respond to a tantrum….(L)iberal intellectuals have lined up in support of the war machine in the familiar style — discussed, for example, by Randolph Bourne in classic essays–and since they know they do not have the intellectual competence to deal with those who refuse to go along, resort to what comes natural to the educated classes: hysterical tantrums, lies, and abuse. Why become involved? There are more important things to do–such as continue to falsify their increasingly desperate claim that everyone is following them in their depraved subordination to power.”

One can understand Chomsky’s preference for spending his time in political organizing and writing pursuits over responding to hits with letters to liberal magazines–especially after the liberal journals’ lifetime’s worth of tantrums and lies smearing Chomsky and almost uniformly refusing to engage the man’s arguments.

For most of the rest of us, the letters section of a journal is worth the effort to advocate a reasoned view in response to a published article. Use it.

CounterPunch’s editors make available contact information for the specific writer of a published piece.

I have received many letters from readers in response to the “200,000 Protest the ‘War Without End,’ – ‘We Are All Palestinians Today'” (CounterPunch, April 21, 2002) filed from Washington D.C.. Most were positive. However, hysterical tantrums and abuse well describe the words of those few readers objecting to the report that Americans can possibly be identifying with the victims of American-Israeli aggression.

Unlike Chomsky, I feel compelled to dive into these cesspools of written hate and abuse, even if they lack the well-crafted prose and elegant style of the writers in liberal journals, and (as opposed to liberal writers) are hateful and distasteful.

Typical of this tantrum-abuse ilk is a reader identifying himself as Nick Lewis.

“You filthy traitor, just spoiling for a fight. Hate everything…,” (April 24) wrote Mr. Lewis before falling into greater depths of inanity.

Another response (reprinted below without editing) comes from a reader identifying himself as Bill Moore of Rohnert Park, California. “You must be paid to lie ! but your ripping off whoever is paying you! i have 6 family members in d c and Baltimore if 20000o people demonstrated against like you claim ill kiss your ass ! in public pops bad expression your kind go in for that sort of thing just move to Iran or do the world a favor and kill yourself rid the human gene pool of scum,” (April 21) wrote Mr. Moore.

In response to Mr. Lewis and Mr. Moore, I note that I find their apparent vision of American democracy to be as troubling and distasteful as their inane and sick politics. Yes, by analyzing and writing about the policies of my country, I remain “spoiling for a fight,” but this is my civic obligation and my constitutional right, the exercising of which does not make me a “traitor.” I do write for a LGBT civil rights periodical in Wisconsin (IN Step), also I am a card-carrying member of the ACLU. I find Mr. Moore’s bigotry revealing, bringing to mind an image of the “gaping primates” described in H.L. Mencken’s reporting from the bible belt on the fundamentalist evolution opponents in the 1925 Scopes trial. Finally, with respect to the size of the April 20 crowd in D.C., I agree that the published 200,000 estimate merits a full-blooded explanation.

April 20, DC Crowd Size

The “200,000 Protest the ‘War Without End,’ ‘We Are All Palestinians Today'” piece generated many letters contending that the reporting of the crowd size estimate was incorrect.

A precise rendering of the number attending a protest rally of this size is not ascertainable, both because of the impossibility of a single count during an instant in time and the constant changing of the number of people involved. Invariably, estimates of the crowd size in this type of march wildly diverge.

The Washington Post cited DC park police putting the number at 75,000, although earlier filings from the Post in the afternoon and evening of April 20 put the count at 35,000 and 50,000.

DC Police Chief Ramsey, in a conversation with me at approximately 3:30, put the number in excess of 100,000.

Several Palestinians I spoke to put the number over 250,000. Three gentlemen on an elevated white truck with an excellent long view over the crowd — with people streaming in and out and others lining Pennsylvania Avenue–guessed 200,000, “easily,” one agreed.

I cited all of these numbers in the piece (with the exception of the Post’s earlier estimates), identifying them as the opinion of different sources.

All a journalist covering a march of this size can do is offer multiple sources’ estimates, state that different sources have different estimates, and make a reasonable guess (identifying it as an approximation). I believed the 200,000 figure reflected in the headline met this reasonable standard, although if I were to convey this 200,000 figure to the Palestinians I spoke with, they would certainly quarrel with the figure.

Now, I am not so sure. I believe that a more accurate headline should have read “Tens of Thousands…” instead of “200,000.” After reading other published accounts of the march and after conversations and e-mail dialogues with other people attending the march, the attendance figure seems more likely to be somewhere between 100,000 and 200,000.

Peace Movement

That noted, I maintain that the high attendance of the April 20 event would seem suggestive of a peace movement with potentially historic power to influence the war without end. In the aftermath of the 9-11 terrorist assault on our country, Americans will not stomach the images of other victims of terrorism.

“All War Is Terrorism” read a sign at the April 20 peace march. This is the truth and strength of the movement that the march represents.

Despite the continued deflated assessments of the peace movement by the liberal pro-war crowd in the tradition of World War I liberals described by Randolph Bourne and carried on by writers like Jacob Weisberg, All War Is Terrorism is a truism that more and more Americans will apply to the war without end, the Bush/Sharon doctrine — providing the margin of life for those in the sight of American/Israeli guns.

Mike Leon is a writer living in Madison, Wisconsin. His stories have appeared nationally in The Progressive, In These Times and CounterPunch. He can be reached at: maleon@terracom.net

More articles by:

2016 Fund Drive
Smart. Fierce. Uncompromised. Support CounterPunch Now!

  • cp-store
  • donate paypal

CounterPunch Magazine

minimag-edit

September 28, 2016
Eric Draitser
Stop Trump! Stop Clinton!! Stop the Madness (and Let Me Get Off)!
Ted Rall
The Thrilla at Hofstra: How Trump Won the Debate
Robert Fisk
Cliché and Banality at the Debates: Trump and Clinton on the Middle East
Patrick Cockburn
Cracks in the Kingdom: Saudi Arabia Rocked by Financial Strains
Lowell Flanders
Donald Trump, Islamophobia and Immigrants
Shane Burley
Defining the Alt Right and the New American Fascism
Jan Oberg
Ukraine as the Border of NATO Expansion
Ramzy Baroud
Ban Ki-Moon’s Legacy in Palestine: Failure in Words and Deeds
David Swanson
How We Could End the Permanent War State
Sam Husseini
Debate Night’s Biggest Lie Was Told by Lester Holt
Laura Carlsen
Ayotzinapa’s Message to the World: Organize!
Binoy Kampmark
The Triumph of Momentum: Re-Electing Jeremy Corbyn
David Macaray
When the Saints Go Marching In
Seth Oelbaum
All Black Lives Will Never Matter for Clinton and Trump
Adam Parsons
Standing in Solidarity for a Humanity Without Borders
Cesar Chelala
The Trump Bubble
September 27, 2016
Louisa Willcox
The Tribal Fight for Nature: From the Grizzly to the Black Snake of the Dakota Pipeline
Paul Street
The Roots are in the System: Charlotte and Beyond
Jeffrey St. Clair
Idiot Winds at Hofstra: Notes on the Not-So-Great Debate
Mark Harris
Clinton, Trump, and the Death of Idealism
Mike Whitney
Putin Ups the Ante: Ceasefire Sabotage Triggers Major Offensive in Aleppo
Anthony DiMaggio
The Debates as Democratic Façade: Voter “Rationality” in American Elections
Binoy Kampmark
Punishing the Punished: the Torments of Chelsea Manning
Paul Buhle
Why “Snowden” is Important (or How Kafka Foresaw the Juggernaut State)
Jack Rasmus
Hillary’s Ghosts
Brian Cloughley
Billions Down the Afghan Drain
Lawrence Davidson
True Believers and the U.S. Election
Matt Peppe
Taking a Knee: Resisting Enforced Patriotism
James McEnteer
Eugene, Oregon and the Rising Cost of Cool
Norman Pollack
The Great Debate: Proto-Fascism vs. the Real Thing
Michael Winship
The Tracks of John Boehner’s Tears
John Steppling
Fear Level Trump
Lawrence Wittner
Where Is That Wasteful Government Spending?
James Russell
Beyond Debate: Interview Styles of the Rich and Famous
September 26, 2016
Diana Johnstone
The Hillary Clinton Presidency has Already Begun as Lame Ducks Promote Her War
Gary Leupp
Hillary Clinton’s Campaign Against Russia
Dave Lindorff
Parking While Black: When Police Shoot as First Resort
Robert Crawford
The Political Rhetoric of Perpetual War
Howard Lisnoff
The Case of One Homeless Person
Michael Howard
The New York Times Endorses Hillary, Scorns the World
Russell Mokhiber
Wells Fargo and the Library of Congress’ National Book Festival
Chad Nelson
The Crime of Going Vegan: the Latest Attack on Angela Davis
Colin Todhunter
A System of Food Production for Human Need, Not Corporate Greed
Brian Cloughley
The United States Wants to Put Russia in a Corner
Guillermo R. Gil
The Clevenger Effect: Exposing Racism in Pro Sports
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail
[i]
[i]
[i]
[i]