The Bounds of
Thinkable Thought
NOAM CHOMSKY
I
n M a y 1983, a r e m a r k a b l e i n c i d e n t oc­
curred in M o s c o w . A c o u r a g e o u s news­
caster, V l a d i m i r D a n c h e v , d e n o u n c e d
t h e Soviet i n v a s i o n of Afghanistan in five
successive r a d i o b r o a d c a s t s . T h i s a r o u s e d
great a d m i r a t i o n in t h e West. The New
York Times c o m m e n t e d accurately t h a t
t h i s was a d e p a r t u r e from t h e "official So­
viet p r o p a g a n d a l i n e , " t h a t D a n c h e v h a d
" r e v o l t e d against t h e s t a n d a r d s of d o u b l e ­
think and newspeak."
D a n c h e v w a s t a k e n off t h e air a n d sent
t o a psychiatric hospital. H e w a s r e t u r n e d
to his position last D e c e m b e r . A Soviet
official w a s q u o t e d as saying t h a t " h e was
n o t p u n i s h e d , because a sick m a n c a n n o t
be p u n i s h e d . " In t h e West, all of this w a s
u n d e r s t o o d as a glimpse i n t o t h e w o r l d of
Orwell's 1984. D a n c h e v w a s a d m i r e d for
his courage, for a t r i u m p h o f t h e h u m a n
will, for h i s refusal t o be c o w e d b y total­
itarian violence. In Paris, a prize w a s es­
tablished for a " j o u r n a l i s t w h o fights for
t h e right t o be i n f o r m e d . "
What was remarkable about Danchev's
radio broadcasts was not simply that he
expressed o p p o s i t i o n t o t h e Soviet i n v a ­
sion a n d called for resistance t o it, b u t t h a t
he called it a n " i n v a s i o n . " In Soviet the­
ology, t h e r e is n o such thing; rather, there
is a R u s s i a n defense of Afghanistan against
b a n d i t s o p e r a t i n g from P a k i s t a n i sanctu­
aries a n d s u p p o r t e d by t h e C I A a n d o t h e r
warmongers.
Implicit in t h e coverage o f t h e D a n c h e v
affair by W e s t e r n m e d i a w a s a n o t e of selfcongratulation: It c o u l d n ' t h a p p e n here. N o
A m e r i c a n newscaster h a s b e e n sent t o a
psychiatric hospital for calling a n A m e r i ­
can i n v a s i o n " a n i n v a s i o n " o r for calling
o n t h e v i c t i m s t o resist.
W e might, however, inquire further into
just why this has never happened. One
possibility is t h a t t h e q u e s t i o n h a s n e v e r
arisen because no American journalist
w o u l d e v e r m i m i c D a n c h e v ' s courage, o r
Noam Chomsky
is Institute Professor at
the Massachusetts
Institute of
Technology.
Among his many books is "The
Fateful
Triangle."
This article is adapted from a
speech he delivered last December at the
Community
Church of Boston. A similar
article by the author, "1984: Orwell's and
Ours," appears in a recent issue of The
Thoreau Quarterly (Department
of Philos­
ophy, University of
Minnesota).
2 8 / O C T O B E R 1985
could e v e n perceive t h a t a n A m e r i c a n in­
v a s i o n of t h e Afghan type is in fact a n in­
v a s i o n o r t h a t a s a n e p e r s o n m i g h t call o n
t h e v i c t i m s t o resist. If this were t h e case,
it w o u l d signify a stage of i n d o c t r i n a t i o n
well b e y o n d a n y a c h i e v e d u n d e r Soviet
terror, well b e y o n d a n y t h i n g Orwell i m a g ­
ined.
C o n s i d e r t h e following facts: In 1962,
P r e s i d e n t K e n n e d y sent t h e U . S . A i r F o r c e
to attack rural South V i e t n a m , where m o r e
t h a n 80 p e r cent of t h e p o p u l a t i o n lived,
as p a r t of a p r o g r a m i n t e n d e d t o d r i v e sev­
eral million people t o concentration c a m p s
(called "strategic h a m l e t s " ) w h e r e t h e y
w o u l d be s u r r o u n d e d b y b a r b e d wire a n d
a r m e d g u a r d s a n d " p r o t e c t e d " from t h e
guerrillas w h o m , w e c o n c e d e d , t h e y were
willingly s u p p o r t i n g .
T h e direct U . S . i n v a s i o n of S o u t h Viet­
n a m followed o u r s u p p o r t for t h e F r e n c h
in their a t t e m p t to r e c o n q u e r their f o r m e r
colony, o u r d i s r u p t i o n of t h e 1954 " p e a c e
p r o c e s s , " a n d a terrorist w a r against t h e
S o u t h V i e t n a m e s e p o p u l a t i o n t h a t h a d al­
ready left s o m e 75,000 d e a d . I n t h e fol­
lowing years, t h e U n i t e d States resisted ev­
ery a t t e m p t to a r r i v e at a peaceful
settlement. In 1964 it began t o p l a n a
ground invasion of South Vietnam which
t o o k place in early 1965, a c c o m p a n i e d by
b o m b i n g of N o r t h V i e t n a m a n d intensi­
fied b o m b i n g of t h e S o u t h . T h e U n i t e d
States also e x t e n d e d t h e w a r t o Laos, a n d
then to Cambodia.
T h e U n i t e d States p r o t e s t e d t h a t it w a s
i n v i t e d in, b u t as t h e L o n d o n
Economist
recognized in the case of Afghanistan
( n e v e r in t h e case of V i e t n a m ) , " a n in­
v a d e r is a n i n v a d e r unless i n v i t e d in by a
g o v e r n m e n t with a claim to legitimacy,"
a n d o u t s i d e t h e w o r l d of n e w s p e a k , t h e
client regime established by t h e U n i t e d
States h a d n o m o r e legitimacy t h a n t h e
Afghan regime established by t h e Soviet
U n i o n . N o r d i d t h e U n i t e d States regard
this g o v e r n m e n t as h a v i n g a n y legitimacy;
in fact, it was regularly o v e r t h r o w n a n d
replaced w h e n its leaders a p p e a r e d t o be
insufficiently enthusiastic a b o u t U . S . p l a n s
t o escalate t h e terror, or w h e n they were
feared t o b e considering a peaceful settle­
ment.
T h e U n i t e d States openly recognized
t h r o u g h o u t t h a t a political s e t t l e m e n t w a s
u n a c c e p t a b l e , for the simple reason t h a t
t h e " e n e m y " would win handily in a p o ­
litical c o m p e t i t i o n . T h e conflict h a d t o be
restricted to t h e military d i m e n s i o n , w h e r e
t h e U n i t e d States could h o p e to reign su­
p r e m e . In t h e w o r d s of D o u g l a s Pike, n o w
h e a d o f t h e I n d o c h i n a a r c h i v e s at Berkeley
a n d m u c h revered in m a i n s t r e a m j o u r ­
n a l i s m as o n e of a n e w b r e e d of " n o n ideological" scholars, t h e S o u t h V i e t n a m ­
ese e n e m y " m a i n t a i n e d t h a t its contest with
t h e [U.S.-installed g o v e r n m e n t a n d the]
U n i t e d States s h o u l d b e fought o u t at t h e
political level a n d t h a t t h e use o f m a s s e d
m i l i t a r y m i g h t w a s in itself illegitimate"
u n t i l forced by t h e U . S . " t o use c o u n t e r force to s u r v i v e . "
F o r t h e past t w e n t y - t w o years, I h a v e
b e e n searching for s o m e reference in m a i n ­
stream journalism or scholarship to an
A m e r i c a n i n v a s i o n of S o u t h V i e t n a m in
1962 (or ever), or a n A m e r i c a n attack
against South Vietnam, or American
aggression in I n d o c h i n a — w i t h o u t success.
T h e r e is n o such e v e n t in history. R a t h e r ,
t h e r e is a n A m e r i c a n defense o f S o u t h
V i e t n a m against terrorists s u p p o r t e d from
o u t s i d e (namely, from V i e t n a m ) , a defense
t h a t was unwise, t h e d o v e s m a i n t a i n .
I
n short, there are n o D a n c h e v s here.
W i t h i n t h e m a i n s t r e a m , t h e r e is n o o n e
w h o can call a n i n v a s i o n by its p r o p e r
n a m e , or e v e n perceive t h e fact t h a t o n e
h a s t a k e n place. It is u n i m a g i n a b l e t h a t
any American journalist would have pub­
licly called u p o n t h e S o u t h V i e t n a m e s e to
resist t h e A m e r i c a n i n v a s i o n . Such a per­
s o n w o u l d n o t h a v e b e e n sent t o a psy­
c h i a t r i c hospital, b u t h e w o u l d surely n o t
h a v e retained his professional position a n d
s t a n d i n g . N o t e t h a t h e r e it takes n o cour­
age t o tell t h e t r u t h , m e r e l y h o n e s t y . W e
c a n n o t plead fear of state violence, as fol­
lowers o f t h e p a r t y line c a n in a totalitarian
state.
It is c o m m o n n o w t o d e r i d e a n y anal­
ogy b e t w e e n t h e Soviet i n v a s i o n of Af­
g h a n i s t a n a n d t h e U . S . i n v a s i o n of G r e ­
n a d a , a n d i n d e e d they differ radically in
scale a n d character. A c o m p a r i s o n with the
U . S . i n v a s i o n of S o u t h V i e t n a m w o u l d be
m o r e a p p r o p r i a t e , b u t is i n c o n c e i v a b l e
within the mainstream.
A k i n d of o p p o s i t i o n t o t h e V i e t n a m
w a r d i d d e v e l o p in t h e m a i n s t r e a m , of
c o u r s e , b u t it was o v e r w h e l m i n g l y " p r a g ­
m a t i c , " as t h e critics c h a r a c t e r i z e d it, dis­
tinguishing t h e m s e l v e s from t h e " e m o ­
t i o n a l " or " i r r e s p o n s i b l e " o p p o n e n t s w h o
objected to the w a r o n p r i n c i p l e d g r o u n d s .
T h e " p r a g m a t i c " o p p o n e n t s argued t h a t
t h e war could n o t be w o n a t a n acceptable
BOB GALE
cost, o r t h a t t h e goals were n o t clear, o r
t h a t e r r o r s were m a d e i n execution. O n
s i m i l a r g r o u n d s , t h e G e r m a n general staff
w a s n o d o u b t critical o f Hitler after Sta­
lingrad.
H o w h a s t h i s r e m a r k a b l e subservience
t o t h e d o c t r i n a l system been achieved? It
is n o t t h a t t h e facts were u n k n o w n . T h e
d e v a s t a t i n g b o m b i n g of n o r t h e r n Laos a n d
o t h e r a t t a c k s were suppressed b y t h e m e ­
dia—these a r e called "secret w a r s , " m e a n ­
ing t h a t t h e G o v e r n m e n t keeps t h e m se­
cret w i t h t h e complicity o f t h e press—but
in t h e case of t h e A m e r i c a n assault o n
S o u t h V i e t n a m , sufficient i n f o r m a t i o n w a s
a l w a y s available. T h e realities were o b ­
served, b u t n o t seen.
A m e r i c a n scholarship is particularly re­
m a r k a b l e in this respect. T h e official his­
t o r i a n o f t h e K e n n e d y A d m i n i s t r a t i o n , Ar­
t h u r Schlesinger Jr., regarded as a leading
" d o v e , " d o e s , indeed, refer t o aggression
in 1962. " 1 9 6 2 h a d n o t b e e n a b a d y e a r , "
h e writes in his history A Thousand
Days.
"Aggression [was] checked in V i e t n a m . "
T h a t is, the year in which t h e U n i t e d States
u n d e r t o o k direct aggression against S o u t h
V i e t n a m was t h e year in w h i c h aggression
w a s checked in V i e t n a m . Orwell w o u l d
h a v e been impressed.
A n o t h e r respected figure in t h e liberal
p a n t h e o n , Adlai Stevenson, i n t o n e d at t h e
U n i t e d N a t i o n s that in V i e t n a m we were
c o m b a t i n g " i n t e r n a l aggression," a n o t h e r
p h r a s e t h a t Orwell w o u l d h a v e a d m i r e d ;
t h a t is, we were c o m b a t i n g aggression by
t h e V i e t n a m e s e against us in V i e t n a m , j u s t
a s we h a d c o m b a t e d aggression by t h e
M e x i c a n s against us in M e x i c o a c e n t u r y
earlier. W e h a d d o n e t h e s a m e in G r e e c e
in t h e late 1940s, S t e v e n s o n w e n t o n t o
explain, intervening to protect Greece from
" t h e aggressors" w h o h a d " g a i n e d control
o f m o s t of t h e c o u n t r y , " these "aggressors"
being t h e G r e e k s w h o h a d led t h e a n t i N a z i resistance a n d w h o m we succeeded
i n r e m o v i n g with an i m p r e s s i v e display of
massacre, torture, expulsion, a n d general
violence, in favor of t h e Nazi collaborators
o f o u r choice.
T h e analogy was, in fact, m o r e a p t t h a n
Stevenson—apparently a very ignorant
man—was likely t o h a v e k n o w n . As al­
ways, t h e A m e r i c a n p o s t u r e is defensive,
e v e n as we i n v a d e a c o u n t r y half way
a r o u n d t h e w o r l d after h a v i n g failed t o d e ­
stroy t h e political o p p o s i t i o n b y large-scale
violence a n d terror.
A closer look at t h e d e b a t e t h a t d i d d e ­
velop over t h e V i e t n a m war p r o v i d e s s o m e
lessons a b o u t t h e m e c h a n i s m s of i n d o c ­
trination. T h e d e b a t e pitted t h e h a w k s
against t h e d o v e s . T h e h a w k s were t h o s e ,
like j o u r n a l i s t J o s e p h Alsop, w h o felt t h a t
with a sufficient exercise of violence w e
could succeed in o u r a i m s . T h e d o v e s felt
t h a t this w a s unlikely, a l t h o u g h , as Schles­
inger explained, " W e all p r a y t h a t Mr. Al­
sop will b e right," a n d " w e m a y all be sa­
luting t h e w i s d o m a n d s t a t e s m a n s h i p of
t h e A m e r i c a n g o v e r n m e n t " if t h e U . S . suc­
ceeds (contrary t o his expectations) in a
w a r policy t h a t w a s t u r n i n g V i e t n a m i n t o
" a l a n d of r u i n a n d w r e c k . " It w a s t h i s
book that established Schlesinger as a
" l e a d i n g war o p p o n e n t , " in t h e w o r d s o f
Leslie G e l b .
T h e r e is, of course, a possible p o s i t i o n
o m i t t e d from t h e fierce d e b a t e b e t w e e n t h e
h a w k s a n d t h e d o v e s w h i c h allegedly tore
the country apart during these trying
years—the position of t h e peace m o v e ­
m e n t , w h i c h saw t h e w a r n o t merely as a
" m i s t a k e , " b u t as f u n d a m e n t a l l y w r o n g
a n d i m m o r a l . T o p u t it plainly, war crimes,
i n c l u d i n g t h e c r i m e of l a u n c h i n g aggres­
sive war, are wrong, even if t h e y succeed
in their " n o b l e " a i m s . T h i s p o s i t i o n d o e s
n o t e n t e r t h e debate, e v e n t o b e refuted.
I n m a i n s t r e a m a c a d e m i c c i r c l e s , it
w o u l d h a v e been difficult to find a m o r e
c o m m i t t e d critic of the war t h a n J o h n K i n g
F a i r b a n k of Harvard," t h e d e a n o f A m e r i ­
c a n Asian scholars, w h o w a s c o n s i d e r e d so
e x t r e m e as t o be a " c o m s y m p " o r w o r s e
in McCarthyite terminology. F a i r b a n k gave
t h e presidential a d d r e s s t o t h e A m e r i c a n
Historical Society in D e c e m b e r 1968, al­
m o s t a year after t h e T e t offensive h a d
c o n v e r t e d m o s t of t h e c o r p o r a t e elite a n d
o t h e r t o p p l a n n i n g circles t o d o v e d o m . H e
was predictably critical of the V i e t n a m war,
in these t e r m s : T h i s is " a n age w h e n w e
get o u r p o w e r politics o v e r e x t e n d e d i n t o
foreign disasters like V i e t n a m m a i n l y
t h r o u g h a n excess of righteousness a n d
disinterested b e n e v o l e n c e . "
T h e d o v e s felt t h a t t h e w a r w a s " a
T H E P R O G R E S S I V E / 29
It is because of their notable contribution
to thought control that the critics
are tolerated, indeed honored—that is,
those who play by the rules
hopeless c a u s e , " we learn from A n t h o n y
Lake, w h o resigned from t h e G o v e r n m e n t
in protest against t h e C a m b o d i a i n v a s i o n .
All agree t h a t it was a "failed c r u s a d e , "
"noble" but "illusory" and undertaken
with t h e "loftiest i n t e n t i o n s , " as Stanley
K a r n o w p u t s it in his best-selling c o m ­
p a n i o n v o l u m e t o t h e P B S television series
o n V i e t n a m , highly regarded for its critical
c a n d o r . T h o s e w h o d o n o t a p p r e c i a t e these
self-evident t r u t h s , o r w h o m a i n t a i n t h e
c u r i o u s view t h a t they s h o u l d b e s u p ­
p o r t e d by s o m e evidence, s i m p l y d e m ­
o n s t r a t e thereby t h a t they are e m o t i o n a l
a n d irresponsible ideologues, or p e r h a p s
outright communists. They are outside the
s p e c t r u m of t h i n k a b l e t h o u g h t .
All of this illustrates t h e genius of d e m ­
ocratic s y s t e m s of t h o u g h t control, which
differ m a r k e d l y from t o t a l i t a r i a n practice.
T h o s e w h o rule b y v i o l e n c e t e n d t o be
" b e h a v i o r i s t " in t h e i r o u t l o o k . W h a t p e o ­
ple m a y t h i n k is n o t terribly i m p o r t a n t ;
w h a t c o u n t s is w h a t t h e y d o . T h e y m u s t
obey a n d this obedience is secured by force.
T h e penalties for d i s o b e d i e n c e v a r y d e ­
p e n d i n g o n t h e characteristics of t h e state.
In t h e Soviet U n i o n t o d a y , t h e penal­
ties m a y be psychiatric t o r t u r e , o r exile, or
prison, u n d e r h a r s h a n d g r i m c o n d i t i o n s .
In a typical U . S . d e p e n d e n c y such as El
Salvador, the dissident is likely t o be found
in a ditch, d e c a p i t a t e d after h i d e o u s tor­
t u r e ; a n d w h e n a sufficient n u m b e r a r e dis­
p a t c h e d , w e can h a v e elections in which
people m a r c h t o w a r d d e m o c r a c y by re­
jecting t h e Nazi-like D ' A u b u i s s o n in favor
of D u a r t e , w h o p r e s i d e d o v e r o n e of the
great m a s s m u r d e r s of t h e m o d e r n period
(the necessary prerequisite t o d e m o c r a t i c
elections, w h i c h o b v i o u s l y c a n n o t proceed
while p o p u l a r o r g a n i z a t i o n s still function).
D e m o c r a t i c s y s t e m s are different. It is
necessary t o c o n t r o l n o t only w h a t people
d o , b u t also w h a t they think. Since the State
lacks t h e capacity t o e n s u r e o b e d i e n c e by
force, t h e t h r e a t t o o r d e r m u s t be excised
a t t h e source. It is necessary t o establish a
f r a m e w o r k for possible t h o u g h t t h a t is
c o n s t r a i n e d b y t h e principles of t h e state
religion. T h e s e n e e d n o t be asserted; it is
better that they be presupposed.
T h e critics reinforce this system by tac­
itly accepting these d o c t r i n e s a n d confin­
ing their c r i t i q u e t o tactical q u e s t i o n s . T o
b e a d m i t t e d t o t h e d e b a t e , they m u s t ac­
cept w i t h o u t q u e s t i o n t h e f u n d a m e n t a l
d o c t r i n e t h a t t h e State is b e n e v o l e n t , gov­
e r n e d b y t h e loftiest i n t e n t i o n s , a d o p t i n g
30 / O C T O B E R 1985
a defensive stance, n o t an a c t o r i n w o r l d
affairs b u t only reacting—though s o m e ­
t i m e s unwisely—to t h e c r i m e s of o t h e r s .
If e v e n t h e harshest critics tacitly a d o p t
these p r e m i s e s , then, t h e o r d i n a r y p e r s o n
m a y ask, w h o a m I t o disagree? T h e m o r e
intensely t h e d e b a t e rages b e t w e e n t h e
h a w k s a n d doves, t h e m o r e firmly a n d ef­
fectively t h e doctrines of t h e state religion
a r e established. It is because of their n o ­
table c o n t r i b u t i o n to t h o u g h t c o n t r o l t h a t
t h e critics are tolerated, i n d e e d honored—
t h a t is, those w h o play by t h e rules.
T
hese d i s t i n c t i o n s b e t w e e n totalitar­
ian a n d d e m o c r a t i c systems of
t h o u g h t control are only r o u g h a p ­
p r o x i m a t i o n s . In fact, even a totalitarian
state m u s t be c o n c e r n e d a b o u t p o p u l a r at­
t i t u d e s a n d u n d e r s t a n d i n g . A n d in a d e ­
m o c r a c y , it is t h e politically active seg­
m e n t s of t h e population, the m o r e educated
a n d privileged, w h o are of p r i m e concern.
T h i s is o b v i o u s in t h e U n i t e d States, w h e r e
t h e p o o r t e n d n o t e v e n t o vote, a n d m o r e
significant f o r m s o f p o l i t i c a l p a r t i c i p a ­
tion—the design a n d f o r m u l a t i o n of polit­
ical p r o g r a m s , c a n d i d a t e selection, t h e req­
uisite material support, educational efforts,
o r propaganda—are t h e d o m a i n of privi­
leged elites.
T h r e e - q u a r t e r s of t h e p o p u l a t i o n m a y
s u p p o r t a nuclear freeze, a n d s o m e m a y
e v e n k n o w that this is official Soviet policy
as well, b u t that h a s n o i m p a c t o n t h e pol­
icy of m a s s i v e g o v e r n m e n t i n t e r v e n t i o n to
subsidize high-tech industry through a
state-guaranteed m a r k e t for a r m a m e n t s ,
since n o serious alternative is available in
t h e system of political e c o n o m y . P o p u l a r
resistance to military aggression does serve
as an i m p e d i m e n t to the planners, as has
b e e n e v i d e n t in the last few years with re­
gard to Central America. But such resist­
a n c e , while s o m e t i m e s effective in raising
t h e costs of state violence, is of limited
efficacy as long as it is n o t based o n u n ­
d e r s t a n d i n g of t h e forces at w o r k a n d t h e
r e a s o n s for their systematic b e h a v i o r , a n d
it t e n d s to dissipate as quickly as it arises.
At the s a m e t i m e , a frightened a n d in­
secure populace, t r a i n e d to fear Soviet d e ­
m o n s a n d T h i r d W o r l d hordes, is suscep­
tible to jingoist fanaticism. This was shown
dramatically by the G r e n a d a invasion. T h e
U n i t e d States is again " s t a n d i n g tall,"
P r e s i d e n t Reagan p r o c l a i m e d after 6,000
elite t r o o p s m a n a g e d t o o v e r c o m e t h e re­
sistance of a handful of C u b a n s a n d G r e -
n a d i a n s , a n d t h e reaction here could n o t
fail t o a w a k e n m e m o r i e s of p o p u l a r re­
sponse w h e n o t h e r great powers w o n cheap
victories n o t t o o m a n y years ago.
T h e m o r e subtle m e t h o d s of indoctri­
n a t i o n j u s t illustrated are considerably
m o r e significant t h a n outright lying or
s u p p r e s s i o n of u n w a n t e d facts, t h o u g h t h e
latter are also c o m m o n e n o u g h . E x a m p l e s
a r e legion.
Consider, for instance, t h e c u r r e n t de­
b a t e as t o w h e t h e r t h e r e is a " s y m m e t r y "
b e t w e e n El S a l v a d o r a n d Nicaragua, each
c o n f r o n t e d with rebels s u p p o r t e d from
a b r o a d w h o are a t t e m p t i n g t o o v e r t h r o w
the government. The Reagan Administra­
t i o n claims t h a t in o n e case t h e rebels are
" f r e e d o m fighters" a n d t h e g o v e r n m e n t is
a n illegitimate t y r a n n y , while in t h e o t h e r
case t h e rebels are terrorists a n d t h e gov­
e r n m e n t is a still s o m e w h a t flawed d e ­
mocracy. T h e critics question w h e t h e r
N i c a r a g u a is really s u p p o r t i n g t h e guerril­
las in El S a l v a d o r or w h e t h e r N i c a r a g u a
h a s already s u c c u m b e d to t o t a l i t a r i a n i s m .
Lost in t h e d e b a t e is a m o r e striking
s y m m e t r y . In each c o u n t r y , a terrorist m i l ­
itary force is m a s s a c r i n g civilians, a n d in
each c o u n t r y we s u p p o r t t h a t force—the
g o v e r n m e n t of El S a l v a d o r a n d t h e contras. T h e significance of this s y m m e t r y is
lost as w e d e b a t e t h e accuracy of t h e gov­
e r n m e n t case, m e a n w h i l e c o n t i n u i n g t o la­
b o r u n d e r t h e m y s t e r i o u s collective a m ­
nesia t h a t p r e v e n t s us from seeing that
there is little h e r e t h a t is new.
Or, t o t u r n t o a n o t h e r p a r t of t h e world,
c o n s i d e r w h a t is universally called " t h e
peace p r o c e s s " in t h e M i d d l e East. Israelis p o n s o r e d polls reveal t h a t t h e p o p u l a t i o n
of t h e territories u n d e r Israeli military oc­
cupation overwhelmingly oppose the
" p e a c e p r o c e s s , " regarding it as d e t r i m e n ­
tal t o their interests. W h y s h o u l d this be
so? Surely of all t h e people in t h e region,
they are a m o n g t h o s e w h o m u s t b e yearn­
ing t h e m o s t for peace. But n o j o u r n a l i s t
s e e m s t o h a v e i n q u i r e d i n t o t h i s strange
paradox.
T h e p r o b l e m is e a s i l y s o l v e d . T h e
" p e a c e p r o c e s s , " as was e v i d e n t at t h e t i m e
of t h e C a m p D a v i d A c c o r d s a n d s h o u l d
be t r a n s p a r e n t in retrospect, w a s designed
in such a way as t o r e m o v e t h e m a j o r A r a b
military force, Egypt, from t h e conflict, so
t h a t Israel w o u l d be free t o intensify set­
t l e m e n t a n d repression in t h e c o n q u e r e d
territories a n d to attack its n o r t h e r n neigh­
bor. It is hardly a cause for w o n d e r that
t h e v i c t i m s of t h e " p e a c e p r o c e s s " over­
w h e l m i n g l y c o n d e m n a n d reject it.
In this case, too, it w o u l d be salutary
t o o v e r c o m e o u r m y s t e r i o u s collective a m ­
nesia a b o u t t h e facts of recent history.
A n y o n e w h o troubles to review t h e d i p ­
l o m a t i c record will quickly learn that there
h a v e been possibilities for peace with a
m o d i c u m of justice for a b o u t fifteen years,
blocked in every instance by U.S.-Israeli
rejectionism. In t h e early 1970s, this rej e c t i o n i s t stance was so e x t r e m e as to block
e v e n A r a b initiatives (by Egypt a n d Jor­
d a n ) to attain a general peace s e t t l e m e n t
t h a t entirely ignored Palestinian rights.
Since the international consensus
shifted t o a d h e r e n c e to a two-state settle­
m e n t a d e c a d e ago, a n y such possibility
h a s consistently been b a r r e d by t h e U n i t e d
States a n d Israel, which persist in rejecting
a n y claim by t h e i n d i g e n o u s p o p u l a t i o n t o
t h e rights t h a t are accorded w i t h o u t q u e s ­
t i o n t o t h e Jewish settlers w h o largely dis­
placed t h e m , including the right to na­
tional self-determination somewhere
w i t h i n their former h o m e .
Articulate A m e r i c a n o p i n i o n l a u d s this
stance, urging t h e Palestinians t o accept
t h e L a b o r Party p r o g r a m t h a t d e n i e s t h e m
a n y n a t i o n a l rights a n d regards t h e m as
h a v i n g " n o role to p l a y " in a n y s e t t l e m e n t ,
as L a b o r d o v e A b b a E b a n h a s said. T h e r e
is n o protest here, or even m e r e r e p o r t i n g
of t h e facts, w h e n t h e U . S . G o v e r n m e n t
blocks a U . N . peace initiative, stating t h a t
it will accept only negotiations " a m o n g t h e
parties directly c o n c e r n e d with t h e A r a b Israeli d i s p u t e , " crucially excluding t h e
Palestinians, w h o a r e n o t o n e of these par­
ties.
Analogous rejectionist a t t i t u d e s o n t h e
part of Libya a n d t h e m i n o r i t y P L O R e ­
j e c t i o n F r o n t are c o n d e m n e d here as racist
a n d extremist; t h e q u i t e c o m p a r a b l e U . S . Israeli stance, o b v i o u s l y racist in essence,
is considered t h e soul o f m o d e r a t i o n .
I
will not proceed with further e x a m p l e s .
T h e crucial p o i n t is t h a t t h e p a t t e r n is
pervasive, persistent, a n d o v e r w h e l m ­
ingly effective in establishing a framework
o f thinkable t h o u g h t .
M o r e than sixty years ago, Walter
L i p p m a n n discussed t h e concept of " m a n ­
ufacture of c o n s e n t , " an art that is "ca­
pable of great r e f i n e m e n t s " a n d that m a y
lead to a " r e v o l u t i o n " in " t h e practice of
d e m o c r a c y . " T h e idea was taken u p with
m u c h e n t h u s i a s m in business circles—it is
a m a i n p r e o c c u p a t i o n of t h e public rela­
t i o n s industry, whose leading figure, Ed­
w a r d Bernays, described " t h e engineering
o f c o n s e n t " as the essence of d e m o c r a c y .
In fact, as G a b r i e l K o l k o notes, " F r o m
t h e t u r n of t h e century until this day [the
public m i n d ] was t h e object of a cultural
a n d ideological industry t h a t was as u n ­
relenting as it w a s diverse: ranging from
t h e school t o t h e press t o m a s s culture in
its m u l t i t u d i n o u s d i m e n s i o n s . " T h e rea­
son, as an A T & T vice-president p u t it in
1909, is t h a t " t h e public m i n d . . . is in m y
j u d g m e n t t h e only serious d a n g e r c o n ­
fronting t h e c o m p a n y . "
T h e idea was also taken u p with vigor
in t h e social sciences: T h e leading political
scientist Harold Lasswell wrote in 1933 that
w e m u s t avoid " d e m o c r a t i c d o g m a t i s m s , "
such as the belief that people are " t h e best
j u d g e s of their o w n i n t e r e s t s . " D e m o c r a c y
p e r m i t s the voice of the people t o be heard,
a n d it is the task of t h e intellectual t o en­
sure that this voice e n d o r s e s w h a t farsighted leaders k n o w t o be t h e right course.
P r o p a g a n d a is to d e m o c r a c y w h a t vi­
o l e n c e is t o t o t a l i t a r i a n i s m . T h e t e c h ­
n i q u e s h a v e been h o n e d to a high art, far
b e y o n d a n y t h i n g t h a t Orwell d r e a m t of.
T h e device of feigned dissent, i n c o r p o r a t ­
ing the doctrines of t h e state religion a n d
e l i m i n a t i n g rational critical discussion, is
o n e of the m o r e subtle m e a n s , though m o r e
c r u d e techniques are also widely used a n d
a r e highly effective in protecting us from
seeing what we observe, from knowledge
a n d u n d e r s t a n d i n g of t h e world.
T h e r e are n o D a n c h e v s here, except at
t h e r e m o t e margins of political debate.
F o r those w h o stubbornly seek free­
d o m , there can be n o m o r e urgent task
t h a n to c o m e to u n d e r s t a n d t h e m e c h a ­
n i s m s a n d practices of i n d o c t r i n a t i o n .
T h e s e are easy to perceive in t h e totali­
t a r i a n societies, m u c h less so in the system
o f "brainwashing u n d e r freedom" to which
w e a r e subjected a n d which all t o o often
w e serve as willing o r u n w i t t i n g instru­
ments. M
THE PROGRESSIVE
/ 31