quote:Parallel to the assumption that all is basically well at home is the widely articulated belief that the problems of international society, too, would be subject to intelligent management, were it not for the machinations of the Communists. One aspect of this complacence is the belief that the Cold War was entirely the result of Russian (later Chinese) aggressiveness. For example, Daniel Bell has described the origins of the Cold War in the following terms: "When the Russians began stirring up the Greek guerrilla EAM in what had been tacitly acknowledged at Teheran as a British sphere of influence, the Communists began their cry against Anglo-American imperialism. Following the rejection of the Marshall Plan and the Communist coup in Czechoslovakia in February, 1948, the Cold War was on in earnest."13 This will hardly do as a balanced and objective statement of the origins of the Cold War -- in particular, the remark concerning the Russians in Greece is not supported by the historical record, though it is hardly necessary to document British and American intervention1 ; but the distortion it reflects is an inherent element in Bell's optimism about the new society, since it enables him to maintain that our Cold War position is purely reactive, and that once Communist belligerence is tamed, the new technical intelligentsia can turn its attention to the construction of a more decent society.
A related element in the ideology of the liberal intellectual is the firm belief in the fundamental generosity of Western policy toward the third world. Ulam, again, provides a typical example: "Problems of an international society undergoing an economic and ideological revolution seem to defy...the generosity -- granted its qualifications and errors -- that has characterized the policy of the leading democratic powers of the West."15 Even Hans Morgenthau succumbs to this illusion. He summarizes a discussion of intervention with these remarks: "...we have intervened in the political, military and economic affairs of other countries to the tune of far in excess of $100 billion, and we are at present involved in a costly and risky war in order to build a nation in South Vietnam. Only the enemies of the United States will question the generosity of these efforts, which have no parallel in history."16 Whatever one may think about the $100 billion, it is difficult to see why anyone should have taken seriously the professed "generosity" of our effort to build a nation in South Vietnam, any more than the similar professions of benevolence by our many forerunners in such enterprises. Generosity has never been a commodity in short supply among powers bent on extending their hegemony.
This is an example of some of the pontifications of a liberal college professor Adam Ulam which Noam Chomsky dissects intellectually. In this article, Chomsky is pointing out that for all their talk, liberals are really no different than conservatives. They simply have a differing opinion on how to keep the elite, capitalist status quo going. Liberals prefer to keep it going by making it feel nicer to the common man where as conservatives have no qualms screwing people over raw.
But at the end of the day, both have an interest in preserving White Privilege and Western capitalist domination.