Noam Chomsky on why US ‘democracy’ would be a good idea

1- There is no free debate in the USA on foreign policy issues.
The existing debate is narowly defined, and is based in the implicit assumption that the US owns the world. Unless this assumption is in place, the discussions taking place in the media are crazy sounding, and don't make the least bit of sense. It's this internalized assumption that gives the debates a sheen of reasonableness.
2- Public opinion has no role whatsoever in determining policy. 
In other words: the US isn't a functioning democracy, becasue elites get to determine foreign policy in its entirety (one assumes other policies are determined this way as well, though this is outside the range of this essay).
3- The 'educated' classes have best internalized the principle that the US owns the world. The general populace is much closer to knowing what's amiss.
4- Real change is possible: If the peasants of Bolivia can do it, so can we.
(No specific suggestions regarding how this should be done are given, though).



Noam Chomsky: We Own The World
January, 01 2008

You all know, of course, there was an election—what is called “an election” in the United States—last November. There was really one issue in the election, what to do about U.S. forces in Iraq and there was, by U.S. standards, an overwhelming vote calling for a withdrawal of U.S. forces on a firm timetable.

As few people know, a couple of months earlier there were extensive polls in Iraq, U.S.-run polls, with interesting results. They were not secret here. If you really looked you could find references to them, so it’s not that they were concealed. This poll found that two-thirds of the people in Baghdad wanted the U.S. troops out immediately; the rest of the country—a large majority—wanted a firm timetable for withdrawal, most of them within a year or less.

The figures are higher for Arab Iraq in the areas where troops were actually deployed. A very large majority felt that the presence of U.S. forces increased the level of violence and a remarkable 60 percent for all of Iraq, meaning higher in the areas where the troops are deployed, felt that U.S. forces were legitimate targets of attack. So there was a considerable consensus between Iraqis and Americans on what should be done in Iraq, namely troops should be withdrawn either immediately or with a firm timetable.

Well, the reaction in the post-election U.S. government to that consensus was to violate public opinion and increase the troop presence by maybe 30,000 to 50,000. Predictably, there was a pretext announced.  It was pretty obvious what it was going to be. “There is outside interference in Iraq, which we have to defend the Iraqis against. The Iranians are interfering in Iraq.” Then came the alleged evidence about finding IEDs, roadside bombs with Iranian markings, as well as Iranian forces in Iraq. “What can we do? We have to escalate to defend Iraq from the outside intervention.”

Then came the “debate.” We are a free and open society, after all, so we have “lively” debates. On the one side were the hawks who said, “The Iranians are interfering, we have to bomb them.” On the other side were the doves who said, “We cannot be sure the evidence is correct, maybe you misread the serial numbers or maybe it is just the revolutionary guards and not the government.”

So we had the usual kind of debate going on, which illustrates a very important and pervasive distinction between several types of propaganda systems. To take the ideal types, exaggerating a little: totalitarian states’ propaganda is that you better accept it, or else. And “or else”  can be of various consequences, depending on the nature of the state. 

People can actually believe whatever they want as long as they obey.   Democratic societies use a different method: they don’t articulate the party line. That’s a mistake. What they do is presuppose it, then encourage vigorous debate within the framework of the party line. This serves two purposes. For one thing it gives the impression of a free and open society because, after all, we have lively debate. It also instills a propaganda line that becomes something you presuppose, like the air you breathe. 
Read whole article