Public Policy 3

The debate between Noam Chomsky and Michel Foucault in 1971 represents a debate that has occurred in politics since ancient times over the importance of concepts like truth and justice. Thinkers like Foucault argue that truth and justice are merely masks to conceal the motives of power. Groups or individuals who claim to represent these ideas use them to hold sway over others, and to make their power over others seem normal or natural. Foucault goes on to argue that political movements should get rid of any notions of truth or justice, and simply be explicit about seeking to gain power. In Plato's Republic, Thrasymachus makes a similar argument, when he says "justice is nothing but the advantage of the stronger."

Before going on to look at Chomsky's response, it is interesting to look at some examples of what Foucault might mean when political figures use ideas like truth and justice. One example could be U.S. foreign policy, or the foreign policy of any state for that matter. The US is obviously the most powerful country in the world in terms of military power and plays a unique role in world affairs. Foreign policy refers to the policies or positions taken by the government towards the governments of  other countries. In its relations towards other countries, US political leaders argue that their policies are true and just, or fair regarding other countries. However, when examining how the US relates to many countries whether it be in the Middle East, Latin America, Southeast Asia, Africa, or anywhere else it seems fairly obvious that power is what really determines foreign policy. Since the 19th century the US has intervened in Latin American and Caribbean countries, often times undermining or overthrowing governments of countries that they deem a threat to their interests, even if these governments are democratically elected. Although these efforts can be found in almost every country in the region, some of the most notorious examples would be in Nicaragua, Cuba, Chile, Brazil, the Dominican Republic, and Haiti. In the middle east, the US continues to support Saudi Arabia, despite a human rights record that is worse than Iran, a country the US frequently condemns for human rights abuses. Even more damning, recently declassified government documents suggest that Saudi Arabia may have played a role in the September 11th attacks, and that people in the federal government have known about this since at least 2002. Here is a link to an article on the 28 pages that were declassified from the Congress' 9/11 report.

Besides foreign policy, another example could be criminal justice in the US, or again any other country. We are commonly told that the so-called administration of justice is a fair and impartial process, and forms the backbone of the legal system. Here, again, it is fairly obvious to see that criminal justice is anything but fair and impartial. Instead, it is a system that is racist and favors the wealthy. This was a topic of interest to Foucault as well, who wrote about this in Discipline and Punish, his book on the history of prisons. One of the major changes Foucault observes is the change in the treatment of criminals, from punishment, often in cruel spectacles of torture and public executions, to the idea of rehabilitation in prisons where criminals are hidden away from the public's view. Foucault does not think that rehabilitation is less cruel, but that it marks a different stage in the treatment of criminals, and continues into modern times. In this stage, control over the criminal becomes even more absolute, as the idea of surveillance comes to become an important technique of maintaining control. The importance of surveillance is an important theme in Foucault's work, and one that is especially relevant today, as the methods of surveillance have come out of the prison and now extend across all of society, even more with forms of cyber surveillance like those practiced by the National Security Agency (NSA), as revealed by Edward Snowden.

William Hogarth, The Reward of Cruelty, 1751

The idea of the "panopticon" a prison where you can see every prisoner is Foucault's model for how modern society functions

Many others have spoken of massive policy failures, like the war on drugs fought since the 1970s have resulted in trillions of dollars of expenditures and thousands if not millions of people sent to prison for drug related crimes, playing a big role in the creation of a mass incarceration state. The US drug war has also spilled over into other states like Mexico who are forced to become participants in this drug war, the results of which has devastated the country, leading to one of the highest murder rates in the world, as journalists, politicians, and basically anyone who fights against drug cartels runs the risk of being murdered. The war on drugs officially began during the Richard Nixon administration. One of Nixon's top aides John Ehrlichmann, after going to prison for Watergate, later admitted that the whole policy of the war on drugs was created to criminalize political opponents of the president, namely African-Americans and the anti war movement. This war was expanded on by Ronald Reagan, who coincidentally had the same political opponents, and continues to this day, with very little opposition from Democrats, many of whom tried to appear even tougher on crime than Republicans during the 1980s and 90s. One of Bill Clinton's sad legacies (of which there are many) was the Crime Bill of 1994, a bill that was authored by Joe Biden when he was a senator, and who used to brag about it until recently, and while Hillary Clinton was going around the country talking about "super predators."  Kamala Harris also had a bad record. Her record as a prosecutor makes it clear that she is tough on poor people, including people of color (apparently Biden thinks the two are the same), often putting people in jail for minor offenses, while letting financial criminals like Steven Mnuchin (dubbed the "king of foreclosures") get away with committing possibly thousands of crimes. Mnuchin was Trump's Treasury Secretary.

Religion is another prime example where truth and justice conceal claims to power. Whether it is evangelical Christian ministers, who make great fortunes off the donations of their supporters, while supporting conservative political causes, or Islamic governments like Iran or Saudi Arabia, or Israel which uses Judaism as its basis, all of these movements have been shown to advance the interests of its leaders, usually at the expense of their supporters.

"Why evangelicals love Trump," The Economist

Finally, science itself can be an expression of power, certainly, at least in the various social sciences like economics or political science. Economists like Richard Wolff and Michael Hudson argue economics is not a science at all but an ideology, or false knowledge, that justifies the capitalist system by presenting the market as a neutral, yet beneficial force (as long as you study and learn its "laws"). In their view, the market is neither neutral nor beneficial since it is both a human construct and without any regulation serves only to make the few rich and prosperous while the vast majority suffer in poverty and debt. In the aftermath of the Cold War in 1989 these views were often scoffed at, but since the crash of 2008, these views have gained much more credibility.

 

Since this is a political science course, let's examine a little more some of the foundations of this branch of knowledge. As mentioned already, political science often presents the policymaking process as a rational process which I have showed already is not true, but in a larger sense political science often categorizes all the countries of the world in a simplified way as either democratic or non-democratic. I find this to be a very simplified way of viewing the world, that you could reduce all the countries of the world (almost 200 according to the UN) and fit them into one of two categories. Besides that, let's look at these categories itself. How do we know we really live in a democracy? Democracy derives from ancient Greek meaning "rule of the people," but do the people actually rule? Does government policy even reflect simple majority preferences? As I have shown already that is really not the case, yet most political scientists would insist that we live in a democracy. They base this on the fact that we have elections and a "competitive" political system, meaning there is not just one group that holds power in government. We do have elections and its importance should not be forgotten, although there are ongoing attempts to undermine or take away people's right to vote in many states underway. It is really the idea we have a competitive system that I would critique. I would argue the choices between Democrats and Republicans are almost non-existent, it is like choosing between Coke and Pepsi, yes, there may be some minor differences between the two, but not much. Even though this is my opinion I would submit as evidence everything I just mentioned above, in terms of foreign policy, criminal justice, and many other issues there are hardly any significant differences between both parties. Even on issues like immigration, for all the negative attention given to Trump, the same policies are being carried out by the Biden administration, and the Obama administration deported more people in his first term than Trump did! This goes back to what I said in the first class that we do not have "real" politics anymore, that both parties are incapable of doing anything to improve the living standards of people in this country which of course would require taking on the entrenched power of finance and corporate elites. Anyway, this insistence that we live in a democracy is in Foucault's terms an expression of power, especially when you drown out or ignore critical voices. If you have time check out the interview between Chris Hedges and Sheldon Wolin. Wolin was a political theorist who coined the term "inverted totalitarianism" to describe the U.S. system. It is somewhat of a clunky sounding term, but basically what he means is "corporate totalitarianism," or totalitarianism in the service of corporations, including banks.

Now, we are hearing of the threat to democracy posed by the Russian government under Putin. However, what we are not told is that Russia, much like the U.S., is a capitalist country in crisis that desperately seeks to divert attention towards an external threat. Russia's response to the pandemic has been almost as bad as the U.S. The historian Arno Mayer writes that countries are often driven to war to deal with domestic political and social crises, as he writes, in the 1971 book Dynamics of Counterrevolution that

strained and unstable internal conditions tend to make elites markedly intransigent and disposed to exceptionally drastic, not to say extravagantly hazardous, preemptive solutions. Beleaguered and vulnerable governments and political classes are more likely to be disposed for than against recourse to mounting external conflict or war. By both reflex and calculation they assume that the members of a seriously torn polity and society will pull together once they are confronted with a common and imminent external threat and foe. Such governments incline to use heightened external conflict or war as an instrument of internal social cohesion, as an antidote to insurrection, revolution, civil war, or secession that they claim to be imminent. The ultimate objective is to monetize a striking diplomatic or military victory to restore, preferably to enhance, the waning power and prestige of internally enfeebled regimes, governments and elites

Mayer is writing about the cause of World War I but this theory works just as well explaining the actions of both Russia and the U.S.

Given all these examples, it seems that Foucault's argument is correct. Chomsky, on the other hand, does not disagree that power often hides behind claims of truth and justice, but disagrees with Foucault's idea to get rid of all notions of truth and justice. Foucault is not the first person to argue that power is often concealed, that is not really an original argument. As far as getting rid of all claims of truth and justice, Chomsky points out several contradictions with this position. For one, it takes away a person's ability to question whether something is right or wrong. If a person wants to stand up for certain causes, and oppose certain forces, as Foucault did, you have to have some belief that what the authorities are doing is wrong, but if everything is just about power, you really have no grounds to claim what the authorities are doing is wrong, they are just another group seeking power. Also, if you make a statement like "there is no such thing as truth" you are implying that statement is true, which leads to a contradiction. When Chomsky confronts Foucault with arguments like these he does not seem to be able to respond well. Ultimately, Chomsky argues even a flawed or imperfect idea of truth and justice is better than nothing at all. By flawed, he means that what we believe to be true and just is limited, we do not know everything, but are still put in situations where we have to act.

Perhaps, the most interesting part of Chomsky's response are his views on civil disobedience. Civil disobedience is the idea of breaking the law in the service of a moral or political agenda. Chomsky goes as far to say that most acts of what is called "civil disobedience" are not really illegal, they are in fact legal if they are acts of resistance against a government that has done something illegal, for example the illegal invasion of a country, or the extra-judicial killings of citizens without due process. In instances like these, the government is acting illegally, and so acts of resistance against this government is not actually illegal and could not be considered breaking the law. Of course, in the eyes of the government this may not be the case, as it will bring the full power of the state, including its legal apparatus against those it brands as criminals, but it is interesting that Chomsky maintains the position that the state does not get to decide what is legal and illegal, instead basing the idea of justice on a higher law or natural law that the state must abide by. However, if you take Foucault's position on justice then you cannot make this claim.

When discussing public policy, it is important to keep both idea in mind. Policy should be guided by what we understand to be true and what we believe to be just, but must also recognize that powerful interests often dictate what policy becomes. We will continue this discussion next class.

For the assignment next class, choose a quote from Chapter 1 "The Varied Role of Ideas and Politics" in Ideas and Politics in Social Science Research by Jah Mehta.