All language subtitles for Noam Chomsky - Crisis And Hope - Theirs And Ours.EN-US

[audience applauding]

- It is such a great
honor to be here tonight

to make this introduction.

As we're standing here, I was
thinking back 14 years ago.

It was 1995.

It was mid-November.

There was a forum
on globalization

that was taking place
here at Riverside.

And it was there that I
heard the announcement

that Ken Saro-Wiwa and
eight other Ogoni activists

had been executed in Nigeria.

Ken Saro-Wiwa, who is the
writer-environmentalist

who had dared to
take on the nexus

of corporate and military power,

the military dictatorship of
Nigeria, and Shell Corporation,

which had crisscrossed his
land in the Niger Delta,

Ogoniland, with gas
pipelines above the ground

burning off the gas in flares

the size of apartment buildings,

the children of the Niger Delta
never knowing a dark night,

and yet not profiting
from the drilling

and taking the power
out of the Earth

and giving it to the
most powerful on Earth,

disempowering the
host communities from
which it had come.

I had met Ken Saro-Wiwa in
1994, when a Nigerian activist

brought him into
the studios of WBAI.

We were doing Wakeup
Call that morning

and Bernard White and I
sat there as Ken Saro-Wiwa,

who was not one of the
scheduled guests that morning,

held forth.

And he told the story of what
he was confronting in Nigeria,

saying the world had to know,

and ending by saying,
"I am a marked man."

He returned to Nigeria,
was imprisoned,

was tried, and he was executed.

Last week, as we sat in the
studios of Democracy Now,

we broadcast the voice of
Ken from those days on WBAI

and we broadcast
his son, Ken Wiwa,

who was announcing
that they had just won

a settlement with Shell
that took 14 years,

but they would then win $15.5
million for the Wiwa family

and other victims and
the people of Ogoniland.

[audience applauding]

We also played the words
of Ken Saro-Wiwa's father,

Jim Wiwa, who Jeremy
Scahill and I got to meet

in the Niger Delta in Ogoniland

when we visited three
years after Ken's death,

when Jim Wiwa said
directly to us,

"Shell is responsible
for my son's death."

And as we sat there
listening to the father,

the son, and the grandson,

I was sitting next to
Judith Brown Chomsky;

she was our guest for the hour.

Judith Brown Chomsky was
one of the leading attorneys

in this case that led to
this landmark settlement.

When I asked Noam tonight

how he would like to
be introduced, he said,

"Tell them I'm the
brother-in-law of
Judith Brown Chomsky."

[audience laughing]

[audience applauding]

Judith is married to Noam's
younger brother, David.

Noam was born December
7th, 1928, in Philadelphia.

By the age of 10, he was
writing an extended essay

against fascism and about
the Spanish Civil War.

[audience laughing]

Don't be discouraged.

[audience laughing]

At 14, he was getting his
education, as he tells it,

in the back of the 72nd
Street subway station

here in New York.

You go out the front, that's
where you go buy newspapers

in the front newspaper stand
where people would rush by,

buy their papers and go.

But it was the back,
less-populated stand

where the stragglers would be,

where his uncle ran
that newspaper stand,

and they would sit and
debate and discuss politics.

That's where Noam says he
was getting his education.

I hear that they just
opened the back again

about four years ago,

the south side of the 72nd
Street subway station,

but I understand they
removed the newspaper stand.

Maybe they're a little concerned
about some young Chomskys

getting educated for the future.

[audience laughing]

Well, within two years, that
education clearly got him far,

because, at 16, he was at the
University of Pennsylvania,

he went on to the Harvard
Society of Fellows,

where he continued his
research into linguistics.

By 1953, Chomsky had
broken almost entirely

from the field as it existed.

He became a professor at the
University of Massachusetts,

Massachusetts Institute
of Technology in 1955

at the age of 26.

I forgot to say he'd already
gotten his Ph.D. again

at the University
of Pennsylvania.

And while he broke ground as
a world-renowned linguist,

shattering all previous
paradigms in linguistics,

in a world I know
very little about--

[audience applauding]

He was also taking on
the war in Vietnam,

so much so that his lifetime
partner, his wife Carol,

went back to school to
get her graduate degree

in linguistics so that
she could be, if need be,

the breadwinner if
Noam was imprisoned.

That's how she described it.

She went on to be a professor

at the Harvard Graduate School
of Education of linguistics

and also broke ground on
child language acquisition.

Noam and Carol have
known each other

since I think he was three

and he only lost Carol
a few months ago,

this lifetime partnership a
great model for relationships,

his personal life also
a model for all of us

of what it means to live
a life of integrity.

On Democracy Now, we have
interviewed Noam many times

and I think about 2002;

it was about midnight,
it was May 20th.

Journalist Allan Nairn
and I were in East Timor.

It was a momentous time.

After a quarter of a century
of slaughter, of genocide,

the people of East Timor were
celebrating their freedom,

those who had survived.

The Indonesian
military had killed off

a third of the population.

And I remember that night
clearly as Kofi Annan,

then-UN Secretary
General, took the stage

as they were handing
over the power

from the United Nations to
the people of East Timor

and then Xanana Gusmao, the
rebel leader of East Timor,

the founding president
of East Timor,

ascended to the podium
and unfurled the flag

of the Democratic
Republic of East Timor.

The light of the
fireworks was reflected

in the tear-stained faces
of the people of Timor.

They had resisted
and they had won,

at an unbelievably high
price, but they had won.

We were broadcasting
this historic moment

over the airwaves
of Pacifica Radio

throughout the United States.

And at that moment,
we called Noam,

because it was Noam
Chomsky, since 1975,

actually on his birthday,
on December 7th,

when Indonesia
invaded East Timor,

who never let this story
die, in so many of his books,

so much of his writing,
so many of his speeches,

often introducing to
people this point on a map

so many thousand miles from us,

and he let people know what
was happening in your name.

It was Noam who told us about
what was happening in Timor

and led us to take
us those trips

to try to expose
what was happening.

And I bet almost everyone
here tonight in this sanctuary

has a story about
discovering Noam's writings

or his voice or his words and
how it has changed your life.

When I am most affected
as I travel the country

are the young soldiers
who come up to me.

And when I ask them what
made the difference,

why they turned, how they could
be so brave and courageous

and resisting war, so often
these young men and women

will say, "Someone handed
me a book of Noam Chomsky."

[audience applauding]

Arundhati Roy said something
wonderful about Noam

in her book, War Talk.

Arundhati Roy, who spoke
here in May of 2003.

She has a chapter, The
Loneliness of Noam Chomsky,

where she writes, "When I
first read Noam Chomsky,

"it occurred to me that
his marshaling of evidence,

"the volume of it, the
relentlessness of it,

"was a little, how
shall I put it, insane.

[audience laughing]

"Even a quarter of the
evidence he'd compiled

"would've been enough
to convince me.

"I used to wonder why he
needed to do so much work.

"But now, I understand
that the magnitude

"and intensity of Chomsky's work

"is a barometer of
the magnitude, scope,
and relentlessness

"of the propaganda machine
that he's up against.

"He's like the
woodborer who lives

"inside the third
rack of my bookshelf.

"Day and night, I hear his jaws
crunching through the wood,

"grinding it to fine dust.

"It's as though he disagrees
with the literature

"and wants to destroy the very
structure on which it rests.

"I call him Chompsky.

[audience laughing]

"Being an American
working in America

"writing to convince
Americans of his point of view

"must really be like having
to tunnel through hard wood.

"Chomsky is one of a
small band of individuals

"fighting a whole industry,

"and that makes him not
only brilliant, but heroic."

[audience applauding]

His work so prolific,

his personal support for
so many so important.

Just this afternoon, Norm
Finkelstein was telling me

how he had visited Noam one
summer at the beginning,

went away, came back at the end,

and Noam had already
written two books.

[audience laughing]

And so he said to a friend,
"Noam just finished two books."

And his friend said, "So, I
read two books this summer too."

[audience laughing]

He said, "No, but
he wrote them."

[audience laughing]

And I think of calling
Noam Chomsky in Turkey.

It was February of 2002.

He had not just
gone there to speak,

but to stand with a young
publisher named Fathi Tas,

who was facing years in prison

for publishing Noam
Chomsky's work.

I called Noam to interview
him before he went to court,

not knowing what would
happen to him as well.

When I rang him up, he
answered the phone and he said,

"Amy, do you know
what time it is?"

I thought I had
calculated correctly.

He said, "It's 4:00
in the morning."

I said, "I can call you back."

He said, "No, I'm up now.

"Let's talk."

But it's that
bravery, that courage,

Noam's resistance to
the war in Vietnam

and his writing about
the wars in Vietnam,

the death squads
in Latin America,

what happened to
Vietnam and Cambodia,

what is happening today
in Israel and Palestine,

his opposition to
the wars in Iraq,

his relentlessness that is
such an inspiration to us all.

I think--

[audience applauding]

Looking at The Essential
Chomsky, edited
by Anthony Arnove,

this bookcase that
is on the cover

is filled with Noam
Chomsky's books.

He's written over
a hundred of them.

And it's not just writing,

because when he explodes the
lies, he is saving lives,

because the lies take lives.

I don't know who
said this quote,

but someone once said,

"I think back on my
life at all the times

"I thought I went too far,

"and I realize now I
didn't go far enough."

Well, I think Noam Chomsky
has clearly gone the distance.

And as we celebrate
his 80 years,

I am encouraged by a woman
who told me about celebrating

her grandmother's
106th birthday.

And her grandmother stood
up at her party and said,

"Ah, to be 100 again."

[audience laughing]

We look forward to
hearing Noam Chomsky

for many years to come,
beginning with tonight.

Noam Chomsky.

[audience applauding]

- Thanks.

It was really exciting to
watch Amy a couple of days ago

when she was interviewing Judy.

It's an amazing achievement.

I won't go into the whole story,

but it took a lot of
courage and effort

to win a completely
unprecedented case.

I don't think there's
ever been a case

of a settlement like that that
was, where the evidence was,

which she had in fact
gathered in Nigeria,

was so strong that the
corporation not only settled,

but even allowed the
settlement to be public,

indicating their concern

that they might be
exposed in a trial.

Well, let me say a couple
of words about the title,

which, as always, is shorthand.

There's too much
nuance and variety

to make any sharp distinction
between us and them.

And, of course, neither
I nor anyone else

can presume to speak for us,
but I'll pretend it's possible.

There's also a problem
about the word crisis.

Which one do we have in mind?

There are numerous
very severe crises.

Many of them will be
under discussion here

in a couple of weeks
at the United Nations

and their conference

on the world financial
and economic crisis.

And these crises are
interwoven in very complex ways

which preclude any
sharp separation.

But again, I'll pretend
otherwise for simplicity.

Well, one way to enter this
morass was helpfully provided

by a current issue of the New
York Review, dated yesterday.

The front cover headline reads,

"How to Deal with the Crisis,"

and features a symposium
of specialists.

And it's worth reading,

but with attention to the
definite article, the crisis.

For the West, the
phrase "the crisis"

has a clear enough meaning.

It's the financial crisis
that hit the rich countries

and therefore is of
supreme importance.

But in fact, even for
the rich and privileged,

that's by no means
the only crisis

or even the most severe
of those they face.

And others see the
world quite differently.

For example, the newspaper
New Nation in Bangladesh,

there we read, "It's very
telling that trillions

"have already been
spent to patch up

"leading world
financial institutions,

"while out of the
comparatively small sum

"of $12 billion pledged
in Rome earlier this year

"to offset the food crisis,

"only $1 billion
has been delivered.

"The hope that at
least extreme poverty

"can be eradicated
by the end of 2015,

"as stipulated in the UN's
Millennium Development Goals,

"seems as unrealistic as ever,
not due to lack of resources

"but to a lack of true
concern for the world's poor."

They're talking about
approximately a billion people

facing starvation,
severe malnutrition,

even 30-40 million of them

in the richest
country in the world.

That's a real crisis and
it's getting much worse.

In this morning's Financial
Times, British business press,

it's reported that
the World Food Program

just announced that they're
cutting food aid and rations

and also closing operations.

The reason is that
the donor countries

have been cutting back funding
because of the fiscal crunch

and they're slashing
contributions.

So, there's a very
close connection

between the
horrendous food crisis

and poverty crisis
and the significant,

but less significant,
fiscal crisis.

They're ending up
closing down operations

in Rwanda and Uganda,
Ethiopia, many others.

They have to 20-25%
cut in budget

while food prices are rising
and the financial crisis,

the general economic crisis,

is bringing unemployment and
cutting back remittances.

That's a major crisis.

We might incidentally remember
that when the British landed

in what's now Bangladesh,

they were stunned by
its wealth and splendor.

And didn't take long
for it to be on its way

to become the very symbol of
misery, not by an act of God.

Well, the fate of
Bangladesh should remind us

that the terrible food
crisis is not just a result

of Western lack of concern.

In large part, it results
from very definite

and clear concerns of
the global managers,

namely for their own welfare.

It's always well to keep in
mind the astute observation

by Adam Smith about policy
formation in England.

He recognized that
what he called

the principle
architects of policy,

in his day the merchants
and manufacturers,

make sure that
their own interests

are most peculiarly attended to,

however grievous the
impact on others,

including the people of England,

but far more so those
who were subjected

to what he called the savage
injustice of the Europeans

and particularly in conquered
India, his own prime concern.

We can easily think
of analogs today.

His observation, in fact,

is one of the few solid
and enduring principles

of international and
domestic affairs.

Well to keep in mind.

And the food crisis
is a case in point.

It erupted first and
most dramatically

in Haiti in early 2008.

Like Bangladesh, Haiti is
a symbol of utter misery.

And like Bangladesh, when the
European explorers arrived,

they were stunned because it was

so remarkably rich in resources.

Later, it became the source
of much of France's wealth.

I'm not gonna run through
the sordid history,

it's worth knowing, but
the current food crisis

traces back directly to Woodrow
Wilson's invasion of Haiti,

which was murderous and
brutal and destructive.

Among Wilson's many crimes

was to dissolve the Haitian
Parliament at gunpoint

because it refused to pass

what was called
progressive legislation

which would allow US businesses
to take over Haitian lands.

Wilson's Marines then
ran a free election

in which the legislation was
passed by 99.9% of the vote.

That's of the 5% of the
population permitted to vote.

All of this comes down to us

as what's called
Wilsonian idealism.

Later, USAID instituted
programs in Haiti

under the slogan
of turning Haiti

into the Taiwan of the Caribbean

by adhering to the
sacred principle of
comparable advantage.

That is, they should import
from the United States,

while working
people, mostly women,

slaved under
miserable conditions

in US-owned assembly plants.

Haiti's first free
election in 1990

threatened these economically
rational programs.

The poor majority
made the mistake

of entering the political arena

and electing their
own candidate,

Jean-Bertrand Aristide,
a populist priest.

And Washington instantly adopted

standard operating procedures,

moving at once to
undermine the regime.

A couple of months later
came the military coup,

instituting a horrible
reign of terror

which was backed
by Bush, Bush I,

and even more so by Clinton.

By 1994, Clinton decided
that the population

was sufficiently intimidated

and he sent US forces to
restore the elected president,

that's now called a
humanitarian intervention,

but on very strict conditions,

namely that the
president had to accept

a very harsh neoliberal regime;

in particular, no
protection for the economy.

Haitian rice farmers
are quite efficient,

but they can't compete
with US agrobusiness

that relies on a huge
government subsidy,

thanks to Ronald Reagan's
free market enthusiasms.

Well, there's nothing
at all surprising

about what followed next.

In 1995, USAID wrote
a report pointing out,

and I'm quoting it,
"That the export-driven

"trade and investment policy
that Washington mandated

"will relentlessly squeeze
the domestic rice farmer."

In fact, the neoliberal policies
rammed down Haiti's throat

destroyed, dismantled what was
left of economic sovereignty,

drove the country into chaos.

That was accelerating
by Bush II's

banning of international aid
on totally cynical grounds.

In February 2004, the two
traditional torturers of Haiti,

France and the United States,

combined to back a military coup

and send President
Aristide off to Africa.

The US denies him permission
to return to the entire region.

Haiti had, by then, lost
the capacity to feed itself,

making it highly vulnerable
to food price fluctuation.

That was the immediate cause
of the 2008 food crisis,

which led to riots
and enormous protests,

but not getting food.

The story's familiar,

in fact quite similar
in much of the world.

So, going back to the
Bangladesh newspaper,

it's true enough
that the food crisis

results from Western
lack of concern;

a pittance by our standards

would overcome its
worst immediate effects.

But more fundamentally, it
results from the dedication

to Adam Smith's principles
of business-run state policy.

These are all matters
that we too easily evade.

They happen daily,
along with the fact

that bailing out banks is
not uppermost in the minds

of the billion people
now facing starvation,

not forgetting the
tens of millions

enduring hunger in the
richest country in the world.

Well, also sidelined
is an easy way to make

a significant dent in the
financial and the food crises.

It's suggested by the
publication a couple of days ago

of the authoritative annual
report on military spending

by Cypriot and Swedish
Peace Research Institute,

the scale of military
spending is phenomenal,

regularly increasing,
this last year as well,

that the US is responsible
for almost as much

as the rest of the
world combined,

seven times as much as
its nearest rival, China.

No need to waste
time commenting.

This distribution of concerns
reflects another crisis here,

kind of a cultural
crisis; that is,

the tendency to focus on
short-term parochial gains.

That's a core element of our
socioeconomic institutions

and the ideological support
system on which they rest.

One example, now prominent,

is the array of perverse
incentives that are devised

for corporate managers
to enrich themselves.

For example, what's
called the too-big-to-fail

insurance policies
that are provided

by the unwitting public,

and deeper ones that
are just inherent

in market inefficiencies.

One such inefficiency,
and now recognized

to be one of the roots
of the financial crisis,

is the underpricing
of systemic risk,

a risk that affects
the whole system.

So, for example,
and that's general.

Like if you and I make
a transaction, say
you sell me a car,

we may make a good
deal for ourselves,

but we don't price into that
transaction the cost to others,

and there's a cost.

Pollution, congestion,
raising the price of gas,

all sorts of other things,
killing people in Nigeria

because we're getting
the gas from them.

That doesn't count, we
don't count that in.

That's an inherent
market inefficiency,

one of the reasons why
markets can't work.

And when you turn to the
financial institutions,

it can get quite serious.

So, it means that if,
say, Goldman Sachs,

if they're managed properly,
if they make a risky loan,

they calculate the
potential cost to themselves

if the loan goes bad,

but they simply don't
calculate the impact

on the whole financial system,

and we now see how
severe that can be,

not that it's anything new.

In fact, this inherent
deficiency of markets,

this inefficiency of markets,
is perfectly well-known.

10 years ago, at the
height of the euphoria

about efficient markets,
two prominent economists,

John Eatwell and Lance Taylor,
they wrote an important book

called Global Finance at Risk
in which they spelled out

the consequences of these
market inefficiencies,

which we now see, and
they outlined means
to deal with them.

These proposals were
exactly contrary

to the deregulatory rage that
was then being carried forward

by the Clinton Administration
under the leadership of those

who Obama has now called
upon to put Band-Aids

on the disaster that
they helped create.

Well, in substantial measure,

the food crisis plaguing
much of the South

and the financial crisis of
the North have common roots,

namely the shift towards
neoliberalism since the 1970s

that brought to an end
the post-Second World War

Bretton Woods system
that was instituted

by the United States and Britain
right after World War II.

It had two architects, John
Maynard Keynes of Britain

and Harry Dexter White
in the United States,

and they anticipated
that its core principles,

which included capital controls
and regulated currencies,

they anticipated
that these principles

would lead to relatively
balanced economic growth

and would also free
governments to institute

the social democratic programs,
welfare state programs

that had enormous public
support around the world.

And to a large extent,

they were vindicated
on both counts.

In fact, many economists
call the years

that followed until the 1970s
the golden age of capitalism.

That golden age led not
only to unprecedented

and relatively
egalitarian growth,

but also the introduction
of welfare state measures.

Keynes and White were
perfectly well aware

that free capital
movement and speculation

inhibit these options.

Professional
economics literature

points out what
should be obvious,

that the free flow
of capital creates

what is sometimes
called a virtual senate

of lenders and
investors who carry out

a moment-by-moment referendum
on government policies.

And if they find that
they're irrational,

meaning they help people
instead of profits,

then they vote against
them by capital flight,

by attacks on a
country, and so on.

So, the democratic governments
have a dual constituency:

their own population
and the virtual senate,

who typically prevail.

And for the poor, that
means regular disaster.

In fact, one of the reasons
for the radical difference

between Latin
American and East Asia

in the last half-century

is that Latin America didn't
control capital flight.

In fact, in general, the
rich in Latin America

don't have responsibilities.

Capital flight approximated
the crushing debt.

In contrast, during
South Korea's remarkable
growth period,

capital flight was
not only banned

but could bring
the death penalty,

one of many factors that led
to the surprising divergence.

Latin America has
much richer resources.

You'd expect it to be far
more advanced than East Asia,

but it had the disadvantage

of being under
imperialist wings.

From the 1970s, the
golden age faded.

When neoliberal
rules were observed,

insofar as they've
been observed,

economic performance
deteriorated

and social democratic programs

have been
substantially weakened.

We see that right here.

The United States partially
accepted these rules.

And for the past 30 years,

real wages for the
majority of the population

have stagnated.

Up 'til then, they
essentially tracked growth.

Work hours have increased,
now well beyond Europe.

Benefits, which have always
lagged, have declined.

Social indicators, a
kind of general measure

of the health of the society,

they also tracked growth
until the mid-1970s,

when they began to decline,

reaching the 1960 level by
the end of the millennium.

Well, there has been
economic growth,

but it's finding its way
into very few pockets,

increasingly into the
financial industries,

which have grown enormously

while productive industry
has significantly declined,

and we're seeing it right now.

And with the decline
of productive industry,

of course that means a
decline in living standards;

in fact, even
opportunities to survive

for much of the workforce.

The economy has also been
punctuated by bubbles,

financial crises,
and public bailouts.

So, the huge bailout
of Citigroup right
now is nothing new.

Something quite similar happened

in the early-'80s to its
predecessor, Citibank,

thanks to the US taxpayer.

And these results were described

all through this
period and explained

by a few really outstanding
international economists;

David Felix is one.

But the mythology
about efficient markets

and rational choice prevail,

and that's not at
all surprising.

These myths were
highly beneficial

to very narrow sectors
of privilege and power,

what Adam Smith called the
principle architects of policy.

That's another very
severe institutional

and cultural crisis
which persists.

Actually, the phrase
"golden age of capitalism"

is a little misleading.

It might more accurately
be called state capitalism.

It's worth bearing in mind
that the dynamic state sector

was and remains a primary factor

in development and innovation
through a variety of measures:

research and development,

procurement,
government procurement,

public subsidy, regular
bailouts, and other means.

It's particularly true
in the United States.

It was done here under
a Pentagon cover.

As long as the cutting edge of
high-tech industry advanced,

economy was electronics-based.

For that, the Pentagon
served as a good cover.

In recent years, if you
look at government spending,

it's shifting more towards

the health-oriented
institutions of the government.

That's a reflection of the fact

that the cutting
edge of the economy

is becoming more biology-based.

That includes computers,
the internet, satellites,

most of the rest of
the IT revolution

that finally exploded in the
late-'90s in a tech bubble,

but also much else;

civilian aircraft,
advanced machine tools,

pharmaceuticals,
biotechnology, and a lot more.

The crucial role of the
state in economic development

should be kept in mind
when we read, these days,

dire warnings about
government intervention

in the financial system,

after private management has
once again driven it to ruins,

this time an unusually
severe crisis

and one that harms the
rich and not just the poor,

so it merits special concern.

It's also worth recalling

that large-scale
state intervention

in the economy is nothing new.

On the contrary, it's
always been a central factor

in economic development.

It's a matter, I
wish I had time to,

there's no time
to review it here,

but the history, which I'll
skip, is quite instructive.

These state-guided modes
of economic development

require considerable
deceit in a society

where the public can't
be controlled by force,

so people can't be told
that the advanced economy

relies heavily on the principle

that the population pays the
cost and takes the risks,

and that the profit is
eventually privatized,

and eventual can be a long
time, sometimes decades,

as in the case of computers
and the internet, for example.

After World War II,
Americans were told

that their taxes were
going to support defense

against monsters
about to overcome us.

That's why it was
under Pentagon cover.

So, for example,
in the mid-'60s,

when LBJ warned that there
are only 150 million of us

and there are three
billion of them

and if might makes right,

they're gonna sweep over
us and take what we have,

so we have to stop
'em in Vietnam.

And if that sounds familiar,
it's because it is.

For those who are concerned
to understand the realities

of the whole Cold War system
of controlling the public,

there's a very obvious
moment to inspect carefully.

That's just 20 years ago,

at the time of the
fall of the Berlin Wall

and what followed later.

Now, the celebration of the
20th anniversary this November,

it's already begun
with ample coverage,

and it's surely gonna increase
as the date approaches.

But the very revealing policy
implications of what followed

have been ignored,
as in the past

and probably this
coming November, except
on Democracy now.

[audience laughing]

What happened after
the Berlin Wall fell?

Well, the Bush I Administration
reacted immediately.

It issued a new national
security strategy

and a budget proposal
which laid out

what our new course will
be after the collapse

of what Kennedy
called the monolithic

and ruthless conspiracy
to conquer the world,

Reagan's Evil Empire, was gone.

And now that it was gone,

the whole framework of
propaganda collapsed.

So, what was the
response of the planners

in the Bush Administration?

Very straightforward.

In brief, everything will
go exactly as before,

but with new pretexts.

So, we still need same
huge military system,

but for a new reason,

literally because of the
technological sophistication

of Third World powers.

And nobody laughed.

[audience laughing]

We have to maintain
what they called

the defense industrial base.

It's a standard euphemism
for high-tech industry,

the system whereby the
public pays the cost

and takes the risks
and high-tech industry
gets the profits.

We also have to, they said,

"Have to maintain
intervention forces,

"directed mostly at
the Middle East."

And then comes this
interesting phrase.

"Directed at the Middle East,

"where the threats
to our interests

"that required
military intervention

"could not be laid at
the Kremlin's door."

In other words, "Sorry,
folks, we've been lying to you

"for 50 years, but now
the clouds have lifted,

"so you can see if you
choose to," and few chose to.

Actually, the fate of
NATO is very instructive

and highly pertinent right now.

Prior to Gorbachev,
NATO's announced purpose

was to deter a Russian
invasion of Europe.

That was often a little
hard to take seriously;

for example, in 1945.

In May 1945, Winston
Churchill ordered war plans

to be drawn up for what they
called Operation: Unthinkable.

It was aimed at, "The
elimination of Russia."

The plans, which were
declassified 10 years ago,

I'll quote it, called
for a surprise attack

by hundreds of thousands of
British and American troops,

joined by 100,000
rearmed German soldiers,

while the RAF, British
air force, would
attack Soviet cities

from bases in Northern Europe.

And pretty soon, nuclear
weapons were added to the mix.

All of this was
declassified 10 years ago.

Well, the official stand
also wasn't very easy to take

about 10 years later, when
Khrushchev took over in Russia

and he very soon proposed a
very sharp mutual reduction

in offensive military weaponry.

He understood very well that
the much weaker Soviet economy

couldn't possibly
sustain an arms race

with the United States
and still hope to develop.

Well, when the US dismissed
the offer, as it did,

he carried out the
reduction unilaterally.

And Kennedy did react to that.

He reacted with a very sharp
increase in military spending,

which the Russian military
later tried to match.

That's tanking the economy,
as Khrushchev had anticipated.

Actually, that was
the crucial moment

in the Soviet collapse; its
economy stagnated since then.

Well, whatever one thinks of
the defensive pretext for NATO,

at least it had
some credibility.

But what happens when
the Soviet Union is gone

and the pretext disappears?

Well, it got more extreme.

Gorbachev made an
astonishing concession

and he permitted
a unified Germany

to join a hostile
military alliance

run by the global superpower.

That is astonishing in
the light of history;

Germany alone had
practically destroyed Russia

twice in the century.

Now, there was a quid pro quo.

This is Bush I and James Baker.

It had been thought, up
until a couple of months ago,

that Bush and Baker
promised not to expand NATO

to the Eastern European
former Soviet satellites.

But the first careful study
of the original documents

just came out by Mark
Kramer, Cold War historian.

He believes that he's refuting
charges of US duplicity.

But in fact what he shows is
that it's much more cynical

than what had been assumed.

It turns out that Bush and
Baker promised Gorbachev

that NATO wouldn't even
fully extend to East Germany.

Quote them, they told
Gorbachev no NATO forces

would ever be deployed
on the territory

of the former German
GDR or East Germany.

NATO's jurisdiction or forces
would not move eastward.

They also assured Gorbachev

that NATO would be
transforming itself

into a more political
organization.

Well, there's no need to
comment on that promise,

but what follows
tells us a lot more

about the Cold War
and its aftermath.

Right after that,
Clinton came into office.

And one of the
first things he did

was to begin the expansion
of NATO to the east,

in radical violation
of the commitment.

The process accelerated

with Bush's general
aggressive militarism.

These are severe security
threat to Russia.

It naturally reacted
by developing

more offensive
military capacity.

All of this is a serious
threat to human survival.

Obama's national security
advisor, James Jones,

he has a still more
expansive conception.

Now, he calls for expanding NATO

further to the
east and the south,

becoming in effect a US-run
global intervention force,

as it is today in Afghanistan.

The Secretary General of NATO,

Dutch officer de Hoop Scheffer,

he informed a NATO
meeting that NATO troops

have to guard pipelines
that transport oil

and gas that's
directed for the West.

And more generally, NATO
has to protect sea routes

used by tankers and other
crucial infrastructure

of the global energy system.

All of that just
opens up a new phase

of Western imperial domination.

Actually, the polite
term for it is

"bringing stability and peace."

That's what's happening now.

In AfPak, Afghanistan
and Pakistan,

as the region's now called,

Obama is building
enormous new embassies

and other facilities
on the model

of the city within
a city in Baghdad.

These are like no embassies
anywhere in the world

and they are signs
of an intention

to be there for a long time.

Right now in Iraq, something
interesting's happening.

Obama's pressing
the Iraqi government

not to permit the referendum

that's required by the
status of forces agreement.

That's an agreement that
was forced down the throats

of the Bush Administration,

which had to formally
renounce its primary war aims

in the face of massive
Iraqi resistance.

Washington's current
objection to the referendum

was explained two days ago

by New York Times
correspondent Alissa Rubin.

"Obama fears that the Iraqi
population might reject

"the provision that delays
US troop withdrawal to 2012.

"They might insist on immediate
departure of US forces."

An Iraqi analyst in London--

[audience applauding]

The head of the Iraqi Foundation

for Democracy and
Development in London

is quite pro-Western.

He explained, this is an
election year for Iraq.

No one wants to appear that
he's appeasing the Americans.

Anti-Americanism is
popular now in Iraq,

as indeed it's been
throughout in the facts

that are familiar to anyone

who's read the
Western-run polls,

including Pentagon-run polls.

Well, the current US
efforts to prevent

the legally-required referendum
are extremely revealing.

Sometimes they're called
democracy promotion.

Well, while Obama's
signaling very clearly

his intention to
establish a firm

and large-scale
presence in the region,

he's also, as you know, sharply
escalating the AfPak war,

following Petraeus's strategy

to drive the Taliban
into Pakistan,

with potential awful results

for this extremely dangerous
and unstable state,

which is facing insurrections
throughout its territory.

These are the most extreme
in the tribal areas,

which cross the AfPak border.

It's an artificial line imposed

by the British called
the Durand Line

and the same people live
on both sides of it,

Pashtun tribes, and
they've never accepted it.

In fact, the Afghanistan
government never
accepted it either

as long as it was independent.

Well, that's where most of
the fighting's going on.

One of the leading
specialists on the region,

Selig Harrison,
he recently wrote

that the outcome of
Washington's current policies,

Obama's policies, might
well be what he calls

an Islamic Pashtunistan,

Pashtun-based separate
kind of quasi-state.

The Pakistani
ambassador had warned

that if the Taliban and
Pashtun nationalism emerge,

we've had it, and we're
on the verge of that.

The prospects become
still more ominous

with the escalation
of drone attacks

that embitter the population
with their huge civilian toll

and, more recently, just a
couple of days ago in fact,

with the unprecedented authority

that has just been granted to
General Stanley McChrystal.

He's taking charge.

He's a kind of a wild-eyed
special forces assassin,

has been put in charge of
heading the operations.

Petraeus's own counterinsurgency
advisor in Iraq,

General David Kilcullen,
colonel, I think,

he describes the
Obama-Petraeus-McChrystal
policies

as a fundamental strategic error

which may lead to the
collapse of Pakistan.

He says it's a calamity
that would dwarf

all other current issues,
given the country's size,

strategic location,
and nuclear stockpile.

It's also not too encouraging
that Pakistan and India

are now rapidly expanding
their nuclear arsenals.

Pakistan's nuclear
arsenals were developed

with Reagan's crucial aid

and India's nuclear
weapons program

just got a major shot in the arm

with the recent US-India
nuclear agreement.

It's also a sharp blow to
the Non-Proliferation Treaty.

The two counties
have twice come close

to nuclear war over Kashmir
and they're also engaged

in a kind of proxy
war in Afghanistan.

These developments pose
a very serious threat

to world peace, even
to human survival.

Well, a lot to say about this
crisis, but no time here.

Coming back home,
whether the deceit here

about the monstrous
enemy was sincere or not,

Johnson's case might
well have been sincere,

suppose that say 50 years ago,

Americans had been
given a choice

of directing their tax money

to development of
information technology

so that their grandchildren
could have iPods

and the internet or else
putting the same funds

into developing a livable

and sustainable
socioeconomic order.

Well, they might very well
have made the latter choice.

But they had no choice,
and that's standard.

There's a striking gap
between public opinion

and public policy on a
host of major issues,

domestic and foreign, and,
at least in my judgment,

public opinion is
often a lot more sane.

It also tends to be fairly
consistent over time,

which is pretty astonishing,

because public concerns
and aspirations,

if they're even mentioned, are
marginalized and ridiculed.

It's one very
significant feature

of the yawning, a
democratic deficit,

as we call it in
other countries.

That's the failure of formal
democratic institutions

to function properly, and
that's no trivial matter.

Arundhati Roy has a
book soon to come out

in which she asks
whether the evolution

of former democracy in
India and the United States,

in fact, not only
there, her words,

"Might turn out to be the
endgame of the human race,"

and that's not an idle question.

It should be recalled
that the American republic

was founded on the principle

that there should be
a democratic deficit.

James Madison, the main framer
of the constitutional order,

his view was that power
should be in the hands

of the wealth of the nation,

the more responsible set of men,

who have sympathy for property
owners and their rights.

And Madison sought to construct
a system of government

that would, in his words,

protect the minority of the
opulent from the majority.

That's why the constitutional
system that he framed

did not have coequal branches.

The executive was supposed
to be an administrator

and the legislature was
supposed to be dominant,

but not the House
of Representatives,
rather the Senate,

where power was vested

and protected from the
public in many ways.

That's where the wealth of the
nation would be concentrated.

This is not overlooked
by historians.

Gordon Wood, for example,

summarizes the thoughts
of the founders,

saying that the Constitution
was intrinsically

an aristocratic document
designed to check

the Democrat tendencies
of the period,

delivering power to a
better sort of people

and excluding those who
were not rich, well-born,

or prominent from
exercising political power.

All through American history,

there's been a constant struggle

over this constrained
version of democracy,

and popular struggles have
won a great many rights.

Nevertheless, concentrated
power and privilege

clings to the
Madisonian conception.

It changes form as
circumstances change.

By World War II, there
was a significant change.

Business leaders and
elite intellectuals

recognized that the public
had won enough rights

so that they can't be
controlled by force,

so it would be necessary
to do something else,

namely to turn to control
of attitudes and opinions.

These were the days when the
huge public relations industry

emerged in the freest
countries in the world,

Britain and the United States,

where the problem
was most severe.

The public relations
industry was devoted

to what Walter Lippmann
approvingly called

a new art in the
practice of democracy,

the manufacture of consent.

It's called the
engineering of consent

in the phrase of his
contemporary, Edward Bernays,

one of the founders
of the PR industry.

Both Lippmann and
Bernays had taken part

in Woodrow Wilson's
state propaganda agency,

which, Committee on
Public Information,

that was its Orwellian term,

it was created to try to
drive a pacifist population

to jingoist fanaticism and
hatred of all things German.

And it succeeded,
brilliantly, in fact.

And it was hoped that the
same techniques could ensure

that what are called
the intelligent
minorities would rule

and that the general public,

who Lippmann called ignorant
and meddlesome outsiders,

would serve their function as
spectators, not participants.

These are all very
highly respected

progressive essays on democracy

and by a man who was the
leading public intellectual

of the 20th century

and was a
Wilson-Roosevelt-Kennedy
progressive,

as Bernays was.

And they capture the thinking
of progressive opinion.

So, President Wilson, he held
that an elite of gentlemen

with elevated ideals
must be empowered

to preserve stability
and righteousness,

essentially the perspective
of the founding fathers.

In more recent years,

the gentlemen are transmuted
into the technocratic elite

and the action
intellectuals of Camelot,

Straussian, neocons,
other configurations.

But throughout,

one or another variant
of the doctrine prevails.

The quote from Samuel Huntington

that you heard is an example.

And on a more hopeful note,

a popular struggle
continues to clip its wings,

and quite impressively in
the wake of 1960s activism,

which had quite a
substantial effect

on civilizing the society
and raised the prospects

for further progress
to a much higher plane.

It's one of the reasons why
it's called the time of troubles

and bitterly denounced: too
much of a civilizing effect.

Well, what the West
sees as the crisis,

namely the financial crisis,

that'll presumably be
patched up somehow or other,

but leaving the
institutions that created it

pretty much in place.

A couple of days ago,
the Treasury Department,

as you read, permitted
early TARP repayments,

which actually reduce capacity,

it was touted as giving
money back to the public.

In fact, as was
pointed out right away,

it reduces the capacity
of banks to lend,

although it does allow
them to pour money

into the pockets of
the few who matter.

And the mood on Wall
Street was captured

by two Bank of
New York employees

who predicted that their
lives and pay would improve,

even if the broader
economy did not.

That's paraphrasing
Adam Smith's observation

that the architects of policy
protect their own interests,

no matter how grievous
the effect on others,

and they are the
architects of policy.

Obama made sure to staff
his economic advisors

from that sector,

which has been pointed out too.

The former chief economist
of the IMF, Simon Johnson,

pointed out that the
Obama Administration

is just in the pocket
of Wall Street.

As he put it,
"Throughout the crisis,

"the government has
taken extreme care

"not to upset the interests
of the financial institutions

"or to question
the basic outlines

"of the system that got us here

"and the elite
business interests

"who played a central role
in creating the crisis

"with the implicit
backing of the government.

"They're still there

"and they're now
using their influence

"to prevent precisely the set
of reforms that are needed,

"and fast, to pull the
economy out of its nosedive."

He says, "The government
seems helpless

"or unwilling to act against
them, which is no surprise,

"considering who constitutes
and who backs the government."

Well, there's a far
more severe crisis,

even for the rich and powerful.

It happens to be discussed
in the same issue

of the New York Review
that I mentioned,

article by Bill McKibben.

He's been warning for years

about the dire impact
of global warming.

His current article,
worth reading,

that relies on the
British Stern Report,

which is sorta the
gold standard now.

On this basis, he concludes,
not unrealistically,

that 2009 may well turn
out to be the decisive year

in the human relationship
with our home planet.

The reason is that there's
a conference in December

in Copenhagen which
is supposed to set up

a new global accord
on global warming,

and he says it'll
tell us whether or not

our political systems are up
to the unprecedented challenge

that climate change represents.

Now, he thinks that
the signals are mixed.

To me, that seems
kind of optimistic,

unless there's really a
massive public campaign

to overcome the
insistence of the managers

of the state corporate sector

on privileging short-term
gain for the few

over the hope that
their grandchildren

might have a decent future.

Well the picture could
be a lot more grim

even than the Stern
Report predicts, and
that's grim enough.

A couple days ago, a
group of MIT scientists

released the results
of what they described

as the most comprehensive
modeling yet carried out

on the likelihood
of how much hotter

the Earth's climate will
get in this century,

which shows that without
rapid and massive action,

the problem will be
about twice as severe

as previously estimated
a couple years ago.

And it could be
even worse than that

because their model does
not fully incorporate

positive feedbacks
that can occur.

For example, the
increased temperature

that is causing melting
of permafrost in
the arctic regions,

which is gonna release
huge amounts of methane.

That's worse than CO2.

The leader of the project
says there's no way

the world can or
should take these risks

and he says the least-cost
option to lower the risk

is to start now and
steadily transform

the global energy system
over the coming decades

to low or zero
greenhouse-gas-emitting
technologies,

and there's very
little sign of that.

Well, furthermore, while new
technologies are essential,

the problems go
well beyond that.

In fact, they go beyond the
current technical debates

about just how to work
out cap-and-trade devices

being discussed in Congress.

We have to face something
much more far-reaching.

We have to face up to
the need to reverse

the huge state-corporate and
social engineering projects

of the post-Second
World War period.

We very consciously--

[audience applauding]

And they very consciously
promoted an energy-wasting

and environmentally destructive
fossil fuel economy.

It didn't happen by accident.

That the whole massive
project of suburbanization,

then destruction, and later
gentrification of inner cities.

The state-corporate program
began with a conspiracy

by General Motors,
Firestone Rubber,

Standard Oil of
California to buy up

and destroy efficient electric
transportation systems

in Los Angeles and
dozens of other cities.

They were actually convicted
of criminal conspiracy

and given a tap on the
wrist, like a $5,000 fine.

The federal government
then took over.

It relocated infrastructure

and capital stock
to suburban areas

and also created a huge
interstate highway system

under the usual
pretext of defense.

Railroads were displaced

by government-financed
motor and air transport.

The public played almost no
role, apart from choosing within

the narrowly-structured
framework of options

that are designed by
state-corporate managers.

They are supported
by vast campaigns

to fabricate consumers
with created wants,

borrowing Veblen's terms.

One result is the
atomization of the society

and the entrapment of isolated
individuals with huge debts.

These efforts grew
outta the recognition

that I mentioned a century ago,

that democratic achievements
have to be curtailed

by shaping attitudes
and beliefs;

as the business press put it,

directing people to
superficial things of life,

like fashionable consumption.

All of that's necessary to
ensure that the opulent minority

are protected from ignorant
and meddlesome outsiders,

namely the population.

Let me just add a
personal note on that.

I came down here this
afternoon by the Acela;

you know, the jewel in the crown

of new high-speed
railroad technology.

The first time I came
from Boston to New York

was 60 years ago, and there
was improvement since then.

It was five minutes faster
today than it was 60 years ago.

[audience laughing]

[audience applauding]

While state-corporate power

was vigorously promoting
privatization of life

and maximal waste of energy,

it was also undermining
the efficient choices

that the market doesn't
and can't provide.

That's another
highly destructive

built-in market inefficiency.

So, to put it simply,

if I wanna get home from
work in the evening,

the market does
allow me a choice

between, say, a
Ford and a Toyota,

but it doesn't allow me a choice
between a car and a subway,

which would be much
more inefficient.

And maybe everybody wants it,

but the market doesn't
allow that choice.

That's a social decision.

And in a democratic society,

it would be a decision
of an organized public,

but that's just what
the elite attack

on democracy seeks to undermine.

Now, these consequences
are right before our eyes

in ways that are
sometimes surreal.

A couple of weeks ago,

the Wall Street
Journal had an article

reporting that the
US transportation
chief is in Spain.

He's meeting with
high-speed rail suppliers.

Europe's engineering
and rail companies

are lining up for
some potentially
lucrative US contracts

for high-speed rail projects.

At stake is $13 billion
in stimulus funds

that the Obama
Administration is allocating

to upgrade existing rail
lines and build new ones

that would one day
rival Europe's.

So, think what's happening.

Spain and other
European countries

are hoping to get
US taxpayer funding

for high-speed rail and
related infrastructure.

And at the very same time,
Washington is busy dismantling

leading sectors of US industry

and ruining the lives of
workers and communities

who could easily
do it themselves.

It's pretty hard to conjure
up a more damning indictment

of the economic system
that's been constructed

by state-corporate managers.

Surely, the auto industry
could be reconstructed

to produce what
the country needs

using its highly-skilled
workforce.

[audience applauding]

But that's not
even on the agenda.

That's not even being discussed.

Rather, we'll go to Spain

and we'll give 'em taxpayer
money for them to do it

while we destroy the
capacity to do it here.

It's been done before.

So, during World War II,

it was kind of a
semi-command economy,

government-organized economy.

That's what happened.

Industry was reconstructed

for the purposes of
war, dramatically.

It not only ended
the Depression,

but it initiated the most
spectacular period of growth

in economic history.

In four years, US
industrial production

just about quadrupled as the
economy was retooled for war,

and that laid the basis for
the golden age that followed.

Well, warnings about the
purposeful destruction

of US productive capacity have
been familiar for decades,

maybe most prominently by
the late Seymour Melman,

who many of us knew well.

Melman was also one of
those who pointed the way

to a sensible way to
reverse the process.

This state-corporate
leadership, of course,

has other commitments, but
there's no reason for passivity

on the part of the public,
the so-called stakeholders,

workers and community.

I mean, with enough
popular support,

they could just
take over the plants

and carry out the task

of restricted
construction themselves.

[audience applauding]

It's not a very exotic proposal.

One of the standard
texts on corporations

in the economics
literature points out

that nowhere is it
written in stone

that the short-term interests

of corporate shareholders
in the United States

deserve a higher priority

than all other
corporate stakeholders,

workers and community.

That's a state-corporate
decision.

That has nothing to do
with economic theory.

It's also important
to remind outselves

that the notion of
workers' control

is as American as apple pie.

[audience applauding]

It's kinda been
suppressed, but it's there.

In the early days of the
Industrial Revolution

in New England, working people
just took it for granted

that those who work in
the mills should own them.

And they also regarded wage
labor as different from slavery

only in that it was temporary,
also Abraham Lincoln's view.

There have been immense efforts

to drive these thoughts
out of people's heads

to win what the
business world calls

the everlasting battle
for the minds of men.

Now, on the surface, they
may appear to have succeeded,

but I don't think you
have to dig too deeply

to find out that they're
latent and they can be revived,

and there have been some
important concrete efforts.

One of them was undertaken 30
years ago in Youngstown, Ohio,

where US Steel was
going to shut down

a major facility that was at
the heart of this steel town.

And there were
substantial protests

by the workforce and
by the community.

Then there was an effort
led by Staughton Lynd

to bring to the
courts the principle

that stakeholders should
have the highest priority.

Well, the effort
failed that time,

but with enough popular
support it could succeed.

And right now is a propitious
time to revive such efforts,

although it'd be necessary
and we have to do this

to overcome the effects of
this concentrated campaign

to drive our own history and
culture out of our minds.

There was a very
dramatic illustration

of the success of this
campaign just a few months ago.

In February, President
Obama decided to show

his solidarity with
working people.

He went to Illinois to
give a talk at a factory.

Now, the factory he chose was
the Caterpillar Corporation.

Now, that was over the strong
objections of church groups,

peace groups, human
rights groups,

who were protesting
Caterpillar's role

in providing what amounted to
weapons of mass destruction

in the Israeli
occupied territories.

Apparently forgotten,
however, was something else.

In the 1980s, after
Reagan had dismantled

the air traffic
controllers union,

Caterpillar managers decided
to rescind their labor contract

with the United Auto Workers
and to destroy the union

by bringing in scabs
to break a strike.

That was the first time that
had happened in generations.

Now, that practice is illegal
in other industrial countries,

apart from South
Africa at the time.

Not now.

No, the United States is
in splendid isolation,

as far as I'm aware.

Well, at that time, Obama
was a civil rights lawyer

in Chicago and he certainly
read the Chicago Tribune,

which ran quite a good

and very careful
study of these events.

They reported that
the union was stunned

to find that unemployed workers

crossed the picket
line with no remorse,

while Caterpillar workers
found little moral support

in their community.

This is one of the
many communities

where the union had lifted

the standard of living
for entire communities.

Wiping out these memories
is another victory

in the relentless campaign

to destroy workers'
rights and democracy,

which is constantly waged

by the highly class-conscious
business classes.

Now, the union leadership
had refused to understand.

It was only in 1978 that
UAW President Doug Fraser

recognized what was happening

and criticized the leaders
of the business community,

I'm quoting him, for waging
a one-sided class war

in this country, a war
against working people,

the unemployed, the
poor, the minorities,

the very young and the very old,

and even many in the middle
class of our society,

and for having
broken and discarded

the fragile unwritten
compact previously existing

during a period of
growth and progress.

That was 1979.

And, in fact,
placing one's faith

in a compact with owners and
managers is a suicide pact.

The UAW's discovering
that right now,

as the state-corporate
leadership proceeds to eliminate

the hard-fought gains
of working people

while dismantling the
productive core of the economy

and sending the transportation
secretary to Spain

to get them to do what
American workers could do,

at taxpayer expense, of course.

Well, that's only a
fragment of what's underway

and it highlights the importance

of short- and
long-term strategies

to build and part-resurrect
the foundations

of a functioning
democratic society.

One short-term goal is to revive

a strong independent
labor movement.

In its heyday, it
was a critical base

for advancing democracy
and human and civil rights.

It's a primary reason
why it's been subjected

to such unremitting attack
in policy and propaganda.

An immediate goal right
now is to pressure Congress

to permit organizing rights,

the Employer Free Choice
Act legislation that was--

[audience applauding]

That was promised, but now
seems to be languishing.

And a longer-term goal
is to win the educational

and cultural battle that's
been waged with such bitterness

in the one-sided class war

that the UAW president
perceived far too late.

That means tearing apart
an enormous edifice

of delusions about
markets, free trade,

and democracy that's been
assiduously constructed

over many years and to
overcome the marginalization

and atomization of the public.

Now, of all the crises
that afflict us,

I think, my own feeling is that

this growing democratic
deficit may be the most severe.

Unless its reversed,

Arundhati Roy's forecast
might prove accurate,

and not in the distant future.

The conversion of
democracy to a performance

in which the public
are only spectators

might well lead inexorably
to what she calls

the endgame for the human race.

Thanks.

[audience applauding]