The above diction is just a fraction of the language used in Noam Chomsky's Requiem For The American Dream. This repetitive, alarming diction caught my attention and challenged my views of the American Dream. Chomsky intentionally uses these negative words and phrases to get his reader to understand his point of view, that the American Dream is dead and the state of our country will keep it that way.
Chomsky challenges my optimistic beliefs about the American Dream, and he uses solid evidence. Don't get me wrong, I don't think America is all rainbows and equality, but I still believe there are chances for ordinary people to achieve their dreams. Through references to James Madison's protection of the wealthy, the indoctrination of school children, and the insane prices of higher education (relatable am I right), Chomsky does a successful job in pointing out major obstacles to the American Dream. I have to say, I start to believe him that these obstacles cannot be overcome.
Something that stands out to me is Chomsky's argument that the structure of our political system is meant to keep the poor people poor and the rich people rich. He calls out the founding fathers by claiming, "...the structure of the system, it was designed to prevent the danger of democracy,"(3). Chomsky then presents a two sided argument (Rebecca Jones would not approve) pitting Aristotle's and Madison's solutions of how to run a free democracy against one another. Aristotle claims the answer is to reduce inequality, while Madison asserts it is to reduce democracy. You and I know there are infinite more opinions than these two, so it is hard for me to believe Chomsky that Aristotle had the right idea. It is not enough to provide a this or that argument as evidence. I want some specifics! One way to reduce inequality would be to redistribute land. However, Madison is clearly concerned with land being protected. I'd like to see an argument not for or against these two ideas, but somewhat of a compromise.
Speaking of compromise, it is a new idea to me to view our structure of government as not being a compromise. All along in school I was taught that the idea behind the House of Representatives and Senate was to find a compromise. Represent states equally and by population. However Chomsky goes deeper and discusses how back in the day, most power was given to the Senate (which was made up of wealthy men), and this ultimately kept out the majority of the population's opinion. It makes me think that maybe all along there was no real compromise happening, and that everyone was just believing propaganda like the Federalist Papers.
Although Chomsky poses a depressing view of American politics, economy, and society, he hasn't convinced me that the American Dream is dead. He has planted seeds of doubt, but I still believe! Ask me again at the end of this book though... my opinion might change. 😮
Goodness I certainly hope the American Dream isn't dead :0
ReplyDeleteI'm glad you brought up how Chomsky really only presented a two-sided argument in regards to the American political system. I didn't even realize he'd done that until reading your blog, so kudos to you for noting it! It's important to catch those one-or-the-other arguments in order to determine how strong an argument is, and with Chomsky this ultimately detracts from his claims a bit. While I would agree that reducing inequality would be a great solution to our broken system, that couldn't possibly be the ONLY viable solution. There could be a whole plethora of possibilities that Chomsky hasn't even considered, and people need to be more open to looking for them.
It's good that you're still maintaining you beliefs while also looking at and considering other perspectives. Way to be open minded!!
That's a great observation about how Chomsky divides his discussion into two parts for simplification. It's a lot easier to prove your point if you only have to defeat one that sounds wrong.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, I'm pretty sure his point about the Senate is right. (It's been a long time since I studied government, so I could be wrong here.)
Your introduction of the book is definitely reflective of what is to be read in it. Your accompanying gif is also adequately illustrative of the tone that Chomsky uses. As you argue that it is still possible for the individual to achieve their American Dream, I also began to see the validity of Chomsky's claims as he explained them. Particularly when you discuss how surprising it was to see that our structure of government hardly pushes forward any true compromise, I also realize the irony throughout much of the first three chapters in that Chomsky makes it seem like America was never really intended by the Founding Fathers to be the land of the free. Perhaps the "freedom" that the wealthy and powerful are assuredly striving to uphold is their own freedom to control that of others below them.
ReplyDelete