Some days ago the polemicist Oliver Kamm [yes, we can all play that game] wrote a shoddy piece in which he contended that Noam Chomsky had misrepresented a transcript of the Nixon-Kissinger exchanges, a transcript that Oliver Kamm hasn’t seen of course, whereas Noam Chomsky has. Kamm bases his claims on a piece in the Washington Post, although lacking the transcript, he is clueless as to the accuracy or otherwise of the piece. On what grounds, then, did Kamm lend his credence to the Washington Post article? Presumably on the nicely circular grounds that it allowed him to defame Chomsky. His interpretation of the substance of the article is, however, in any case questionable and tendentious, resting largely and hazardously on an unintelligible noise and a sardonic laugh.. I’m sure Kamm must have received several emails pointing out the rather obvious interpretative shortcomings of his post. The responses he chooses to reproduce on his website, however, are from what I might uncharitably call some of his court eunuchs, who tentatively add a few deferential footnotes and minor additions to insights they regard as fundamentally correct.
Perhaps buoyed up by these virtual pats on the back, Kamm now seems to be on a roll and has launched into Chomsky again. I will deal here with just one of the ‘examples’ of Chomsky’s ‘egregious’ unscholarly practices, a mistranscribed ‘quote’ from a 1947 Harry Truman speech. The Truman speech is online here, which Kamm might have pointed out, assuming he knows about it. Chomsky’s mention of the address was initially based on paraphrased accounts which he misquoted as direct speech. He corrected this error but went on to maintain that he’d conveyed the gist of Truman’s argument. You can judge that claim for yourselves if you consult the online transcript. What I’m more concerned with here is Kamm’s uncritical reliance on the Schlesinger and failure even to attempt to gauge it’s accuracy. I offer you firstly the relevant passage from the speech itself and then Schlesinger on Chomsky’s misrepresentation of the speech:
“There is one thing that Americans value even more than peace. It is freedom. Freedom of worship--freedom of speech freedom of enterprise. It must be true that the first two of these freedoms are related to the third. For, throughout history, freedom of worship and freedom of speech have been most frequently enjoyed in those societies that have accorded a considerable measure of freedom to individual enterprise.”
“It is characteristic of Dr Chomsky’s unbeatable instinct for distortion that he can write in the October Commentary: “Truman argued that freedom of enterprise is one of those freedoms to be valued ‘even more than peace’.” What Truman actually said, as the reader will have observed, was that Americans valued freedom even more than peace, and he made it clear that he meant above all intellectual and religious freedom.”
Schlesinger should really say ‘what Truman actually argued’ if he is countering Chomsky, as what is in question is a form of reasoning rather than a form of words.. The rhetorical slight of hand is revealing as a statement of intent. Anyway, when Truman says ‘It is freedom. Freedom of worship--freedom of speech freedom of enterprise,’ it’s clear that the three freedoms mentioned gloss and explicate what he means by ‘freedom’. The rhetorical effect is that of a colon, for, as you can see, the named freedoms only really make logical and grammatical sense in relation to the previous sentence. Truman is, as he should, defining his terms. So, freedom of enterprise is, indeed, one of the ‘freedoms’ Truman speaks of as being ‘more important’ to Americans than peace. Now, does Truman ‘make clear’ that ‘he meant above all intellectual and religious freedom’? Here are Truman’s words again: ‘Freedom of worship--freedom of speech freedom of enterprise. It must be true that the first two of these freedoms are related to the third [emphasis added].’ If the third is a necessary condition of the first two, then it is surely as important, and indeed logically ‘more important,’ than the others. This is an elementary point, and a crucial point in the context of Truman’s speech. In any case, Chomsky’s phrase ‘one of those freedoms’ does not imply that those freedoms are of equal importance, so Schlesinger’s remark is an irrelevance – logically, at any rate, if not rhetorically. Previously, Schlesinger refers to Chomsky quoting Truman saying “All freedom is dependent on freedom of enterprise….”. and adds, “Truman said nothing of the sort, at Baylor or elsewhere. The quotation is fabricated.” Now, clearly Truman did indeed say ‘something of the sort’. Not certainly the exact words (Chomsky later admits this mistake) but it is pretty obvious what Chomsky is referring to and Schlesinger’s initial contention that this bears no relation to what Truman said, here or anywhere, and is pure fabrication does indeed seem rather disingenuous and misleading.
And so, once again, Oliver Kamm accepts a source solely on the grounds that it allows him to criticise Chomsky, without making any attempt to gauge the reliability of the source. His reading of the Schlesinger shows no analytical rigour whatsoever, a disregard for elementary scholarly procedure and an eager anticipation of polemical points. Speaking of which: While it might be tempting to attribute Kamm’s failings to incompetence, I fear that would be too generous. He has, to use the vernacular, been on Chomsky’s case for several years and admits to being a friend of the notorious Chomsky denier, Werner Cohn. You’re free to see a disinterested quest for truth if you like. To my mind, writing one review of an author you despise might seem excusable, writing two a little careless; writing many and over several years seems to suggest an orchestrated campaign.
P.S. I trust this will be my last post on this individual, as reading his blog is bad for my teeth. Also, in order to reply to his tedious polemics one's prose can become, like the dyer's hand, subdued to what it works in.
And I'd rather be writing about Hegel.
Update: Since I posted this, Kamm has another piece, objecting to some of Chomsky's rhetorical tricks, which is kind of like Polonius lecturing someone on prolixity. In particular he takes umbrage at Chomsky pretending that his interlocutor 'can't really mean what he says', and this from the man who is fond of upbraiding people being 'disingenuous', as in "the Liberal Democrats, whose opposition to war was combined with disingenuous declarations of support for British troops". Indeed, the word 'disingenuous' is almost up there with 'egregious' 'ostensible' and 'promulgate' in Kamm's lexical repertoire. He then returns to exactly the same ground as before - Chomsky and Schlesinger, as though some nagging doubt told him that he hadn't quite nailed his man first time round. Well, he still hasn't. Nor will he.