It would be hilarious if he very slowly slid further and further down over the 20 minutes, until for the last few minutes, he's debating him from the floor
Perhaps, but Buckley is so full of bloated sophistry (not to mention full of himself) that it's an annoying debate. WB's posturing is no better--in effect--than, say, Paul Ryan's or Marco Rubio's, notwithstanding their apparent differences in style and education.
True, the level of discourse was vastly superior to what’s on offer these days, but Buckley was a smug, loathsome windbag. Still, even he would have been disturbed by the cringeworthy brand of ‘journalism’ on FOX News - not to mention the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Alex Jones (yikes)!
Noam Chomsky maniacal? I can only aspire to such maniacal thinking and speaking. I am certainly one of these maniacs who is not guilty at all about the US, but have the same critique as Chomsky, and proudly dissociate myself from the US government and State Department!
Buckley's voice, posture and vocabulary are so fucking glorious that I don't even mind his sophistry. I wish this was the level of dicussion today, we don't even put intellectuals on TV anymore. Now instead of Chomskies and Foucaults, TV just sends some angry teenage girl to talk nonsense about boys and associate that with the left (who can't deny association because it needs votes).
Buckley had a "mid-Atlantic" accent that many theater people and movie actors had at one time. Vincent Price, Katherine Hepburn and many other actors talked like that. It wasn't a fake accent. It was how they were raised to speak, especially with upper class types in New England.
@@FrankCoffman yeah I wasn't saying it was fake just from a certain social class at a certain time. you're right about actors. the most obvious modern example I can think of is Kelsey Grammar from Frasier who also speaks in a very proper mid atlantic-ish dialect. it sounds interesting, a relic from a different time.
@@HoyaSaxaSD ~ Yes, he was a charming gentleman, not like so-called "con-servatives" now. I didn't usually agree with his politics (nor with Chomsky's obsessive anti-Americanism), but I like Buckley personally.
Richard B Anyone who can say Chomsky’s mind is mediocre must be an intellectual giant. I’m humbled by your presence and apologies for any offense. Dropping the Dunning-Kruger on me was very humiliating. (And so creative! Certainly something no one ever sees on the internets!). I look forward to you sharing your works with us, I’m assuming you have a long resume of works that crushes Chomsky.
He's just trying to iron out Chomsky's ideas here. Chomsky moves a mile a minute and it's unclear how much of what he says is actually practical vs some abstract special rule he follows for that one particular instance. Buckley's style had always been to grill people about their stances and get them to entrench their positions, that was literally his job on Firing Line.
@@Spardeous I am into this video about 6 minutes and chomsky won't let Buckley finish his viewpoint before chomsky redirects. Chomsky so far is cherry picking and won't concede the difference between regimes and interests. So far I am getting that communist regime is ok and nothing should be done to help the defenseless people who are losing their freedom. All because a company has interest in creating wealth is his reasoning. Well chomsky south Korea/north Korea is the only measure you need to look at. He doesn't believe in obvious pre measure, he needs a complete invasion to warrant military intervention. I believe in peace, and the way to ensure it is consequences.
@@JonathanCarterAny right-winger who can string two thoughts together is considered an intellectual giant by today’s conservatives (Shapiro and Jordan Peterson come to mind)
That's probably when Chomsky formed the Deep Structure of grammar. "May I complete a sentence? *Sentence.... completeness... I.... hmm. Interesting...*"
One of the strangest, most surreal experiences a person can go through is to eat 3 or more grams psilocybin mushrooms and simply observe William Buckley's face.
Wrong! If you constantly interrupt someone you don’t allow them to make their points whilst at the same time making your own. It’s a tactic I use all the time when debating more intelligent/knowledgeable people than me.
Buckley was CIA and purposefully fuzzing up the debate and blurring/confusing the historical narrative to ensure consistency with the approved version of events when faced with someone aquainted with the actual historical record. Common disinformation technique at the time. Less used today we mostly just repeat a lie enough till it becomes familiar to enough people to capture the zeitgeist.
@onelove also... don't feel like an asshole. He was NOT a nice person. Given his role in the Intel community he was almost certainly a war criminal and psychopath or inhumanely negligent and dishonest. The only time you grieve the passing of a monster is when you consider how LONG it took some other monster to catch and devour him. He like many evolutionary throwbacks probably did much worse than was done to him and ENJOYED it.
@@ampark09 Actually Buckley did....There are way more reputable right wingers that could have given Chomsky a better debate. Honestly, at that point in time, Buckley to me had fallen from his glory days and was just a poster boy. Friedman for example would have been a better equal. Also note, many of this high profile and prominent figures of political ideas come from many varying backgrounds of expertise far and wide. I truly believe political expertise to be the most complex and troubling of all due to its scope and impact. This is why you barely see any political experts without heavy bias and full scope of "understanding"
@@ampark09 By points, you must mean your unsupported assertion that Chomsky lost? Just curious why you think Chomsky lost... I'm guessing it's because Buckley looked and sounded very snarky when he got the last word in. I find no substantive argument to conclude that Buckley did anything but dodge and deflect while interrupting Chomsky every time he was about to make a point. So please, clarify to me what about Buckley's position you found compelling. Be specific now!
A master linguist like Chomsky just isn't going to let any sloppiness slide. Amazing to watch. Knowledge, language, and logic seldom co-exist in human beings as they do in Chomsky.
This interview is one of only two I can recall in which Mr Buckley's guest simply reduces him to veritable mincemeat. Who was that other guest? James Baldwin, of course, during a Cambridge Union meeting in 1965. Baldwin is superb.
Yeah James Baldwin is my favourite in the 'Buckley is the only intellectual on the right therefore he must debate everyone' genre. Gore Vidal is fun but as you say Baldwin literally put him in the ground.
I'm not on mushrooms but the guy is really a trip. So full of himself. Is he giving an interview? He is talking endlessly and I dont perceive any questions.
Oh, brother, this "argument" is about as "real" as the Scopes "trial." This was simply round two between the two "limited hangouts" meant to be the "archetypes" for their two camps.
Imagine if Chomsky was a Greek man living in Greece and in fact that country had succumbed to communism. As a university professor he would be one of the first to be lined up against the wall and shot . Does anybody see the irony in that ? People think that during the Cold War the KGB’s psychological warfare and ideological subversion was limited to third world countries! On the contrary their major target was the United States, and what a wonderful job they did.
@@roughhabit9085 somewhat disagree, if he had been a communist professor he would be one of the first to line people up against a wall and then shoot them. That type of thinking is unfortunately still with us, maybe always will be.
I'm so glad these Third World banana republics come begging us for help and these hard lefties call Americans imperialists. You know Bosnia has a race war America has to go over and stop these assholes and some hippie chants where some Cal-Berkeley professor of Peace Studies craps on the country that got his asshole a job. "Well, I think you mean of course you know I mean I know America is a nippiyty imperialist nation" Well go to Honduras asshole. See how much money you make
Who is this “us” that are supposedly being begged for help? I seriously doubt that anybody with actual political power in America is shitposting and LARPing as a country in the comments of a 50-year-old debate.
y2m you sound like an angry man, see your doctor tell him how you feel princess...........PS.. America is a continent did you mean the US? most of your sentence does'nt make a whole lot of sense only saying! Byeeee now remember dont be afraid to ask for help!
@@2010woodcutter Well I assume it's America because everytime someone from a Latin country comes fleeing into this awful place, they'll be the first ones to say Me me Meri-kahn. Also you'll hear some great fucking anger the minute my tax dollars doesn't go to foreign aid or the fact that Americans send the Red Cross and doctors all over the world but hey you have American created social media platforms to shit on America excuse the United States of America
@@2010woodcutter well, it is called the United States of America, and other nations do call north Americans, Americans. Just food for thought, that's all.
@@tiborosz1825Reality is a stranger to you. Either you don't understand the history of points made where it's clear that Chomsky is correct factually, historically and yes the moral points may be debated but issue by issue Buckley pivots every time Chomsky exposes his factually incorrect claims. Again this isn't who is correct in terms of ideology simply who clearly knows the facts of each situation.
@@markhiggins8315 well what is fact in a historical perspective? One might argue there was never a communist state in existence since neither a hívek íz through socialism. Now all arguments against the ideology is null and void because there is no control of the experiment? Bullshit. Chomsky is nitpicking.
@@evanstj5 that is a matter of opinion. Most of his points are based on his views and assumptions. His analysis on the intentions of the thrird reich is way off and highly debateable. His onvious nitpicking in semantics just shows he is here for a brawl not a discussion.fuck him and his ilk.
6:40 Chomsky: “Your history is quite confused here” 20th Century Buckley: ”this is a matter of nomenclature” 21st Century Buckley: ”this is *my* truth”
20th Century Chomsky: (Echoes one communist scholar while everyone else, left or right disagrees) Those Vietnamese boat people are a myth. 21st Century Chomsky: How was I supposed to know they weren't a myth? This guy *sounds* convincing and knowledgable, but all he did was uncritically echo any US-critical source while minimising what the USSR and Chinese were doing.
@@SeanusAurelius This is the kind of generalizations we get. What *specifically* did he say that was not true? He makes very *specific* arguments and yet the rebuttals are always of a nebulous general quality.
He actually said something even more inane: "This _is not_ a nomenclature." Buckley's implication, obviously, is that Chomsky is somehow being pedantic by insisting on semantic clarity when drawing nontrivial distinctions, but this is just a desperate attempt at obfuscatory evasion on Buckley's part.
@@headie3737 lmfao, bro the pictures are literally cherry picked, depending on what youre watching, Fox would pick pictures of the better looking ones, where cnn would pick the ugliest pictures. Just like every picture of Trump on CNN is bad and every picture of Obama on Fox is bad.
And his comment on Guatemala is amazing. The US in the 1950s overthrew a democratically elected government, leading to decades of repression and civil war. I'm amazed Chomsky is able to stay so cool, while being continually interrupted by one bogus cold war talking point after another.
thucy2 I was thinking something similar. But that is exactly the way to go. He would not have done anyone a favor, certainly not himself, getting upset. Instead, he stayed calm and destroyed Buckley very calmly with facts and reason. I have listened to this a few times now, and I feel Buckley himself realized that we as in a debate with someone that he could not compete with. In my book, Buckley got utterly destroyed and, best of all, very very clearly realized that.
HM MOB I have never seen Chomsky, or Buckley for that matter, get really upset or loud. I hope everyone has seen the debates between Buckley and Gore Vidal. Gore is every bit as pompous as Buckley, but much smarter. If you guys like this, you will love that. I think most intelligent people can argue without getting angry, or at least are able to manage the anger in the moment. I enjoy a heated debate that doesn't include Jerry Springer behavior.
So what? The USA was fighting the spread of global communism. Would the people of Guatemala been better off with communist death camps and door to door purges? This simple minded fault finding is an excuse for critical thinking. Chomsky continuously spit out half-learned factoids of questionable veracity. I think intellectual honesty is important, but Chomsky is more of snake oil salesman than an actual scholar.
These Interviews Are Fascinating To Me To Go Back & Watch With 21stCentary Eyes With All That Has Come To Pass & Much Which Was Warned Of & Sometimes Laughed Off & Guests Mocked For😕
What credit I give Buckley is his willingness to expose himself to great thinkers who would ultimately "defeat" him--Chomsky and Baldwin being especially good at this
Being "pompous" or "pretentious" is always an insult thrown at people you disagree with who are also more educated than you. Chomsky is a guy who's spent his whole life in the Ivy League, why isn't he pompous? You don't like Buckley's mid Atlantic accent? Have you listened to Baldwin or the over the top preacherly style of mlk?
Black Sheep Chomsky’s not pompous because he’s not pompous. It doesn’t matter what “league” you’re from. An ass is an ass in any setting, as Buckley so amply proves. The outward presentation of Buckley is so shallow that it almost comes off as a parody. The sad thing is that it wasn’t.
I think Chomsky made Buckley nervous! Buckley realizes early on that Chomsky was crisp and on point in his responses. He wasn't expecting to have a debate with someone who was well prepared. You can see Buckley shift in his chair and he was sweating(metaphorically).
@@mileshall9235 the only possible way I can guess that you made this take is if you're either entirely judging victory by word count, or that this is bait
Chomsky is giving a masterclass on how to deal with dishonest debate tactics here. It can be difficult to maintain your composure when someone you're speaking with is constantly interrupting you, mischaracterizing what you say, and jumping around from topic to topic. Chomsky handled all of this well and calmly dressed down Buckley.
Sadly these tactics still exist today and people are still falling for it. Just look at every “debate bro” in twitch popularising the same garbage all over again
It makes me sick what kind of cheap tricks these so called intellectuals use in debates (interrupt, switch to topics when the first one failed or ask trick question) simply to win the debate in the eyes of the viewer. To them its not about learning something new and coming to a more clear conclusion they just simply want to be right and assert dominance. How Prof. Chomsky keeps his composure while handling vast amount of historical facts is remarkable.
+Lint Their early work was a little too new wave for my tastes, but when Sports came out in '83, I think they really came into their own, commercially and artistically. The whole album has a clear, crisp sound, and a new sheen of consummate professionalism that really gives the songs a big boost. He's been compared to Elvis Costello, but I think Huey has a far more bitter, cynical sense of humor.
Buckley was the intellectual heavyweight of the conservative movement. There is no one like him today. However, as is very apparent here the entire movement is baseless. Chomsky destroyed him not because he is a liberal but because he is a true intellectual with a command of the facts and the moral clarity to interpret the facts.
+Frank Soos - clearly his command of history is far stronger...and his ability to navigate Buckley's manipulation of the English language is fascinating.
Chomsky is more intelligent and has the benefit of facts and a moral compass. It's not even easy for me to watch because I know there's a whole lot of people who bought into the propaganda that video was selling. I love it when Buckley starts looking agitated though. There's enough war in our history for him to jump between for another 6 hours I'm sure if you let him. Not once making a factual point or distinction.
He wasnt talking about anything, he was getting his proverbial verbosity kicked in. Had no chance to talk about anything because all of his moves...were erroneous and the wonderfully polite Chomsky continued to lather his face layer after layer with humble pie. 🎉
Are my eyes deceiving me? Did I witness the host pick the conversation back up at 9:44, where it left off before the commercial break, instead of moving on to the next segment? Impossible.
@Foggy's Friend All Buckley did was put words in Chomsky's mouth before changing the topic. Under these conditions Chomsky is absolutely right to clarify his stance. If the purpose of this interview/debate is to enable us to compare their respective stances we cannot have people putting words in other people's mouths. That is even more important given Chomsky barely provides an opinion at all and bases his stance on facts. You don't have to believe the facts, instead you are given the ability to check them for yourself: something you can't do with opinions. Buckley also primarily relied on opinions and conjecture. That's a fact for anyone who watches this video, honestly.
@Klaa2What? Lmao Nah. Overall, conservatives are the biggest history nerds out there ..and consistently have been throughout history. Conservatives want to "conserve", so they're bound to the past by default. It's fundamental to their identities/ideology.. Just like looking to the future, criticizing tradition, and trying to constantly progress is fundamentally liberal. Save for intellectuals like Chomsky, the modern left simply cherry picks and highlights the parts of history that help further whatever particular narrative they're pushing. (Some of which are totally legitimate narratives.. such as the military industrial complex and its warmongering or the humanitarian crisis in Israel..) But increasingly, universities and even public schools are politicizing (and sometimes downright rewriting) history. ..which has led to the left becoming overwhelmingly fixated on just the last century of history in their own countries. Conservatives study history as a whole. Important difference. Another important difference between the right and left is that in general, the left doesn't really practice the art of "knowing thy enemy". (Which is why you think conservatives are ignorant about history, for example. ..and that couldn't actually be further from the truth. ..Or the old trope that conservatives want to "control women's bodies" with abortion legislation. ..or that Jordan Peterson is "alt right".
@@CrasterFamily Chomsky exposed Buckley again and again for being dead wrong historically, factually, and just plain making up BS, then dodging his extemporized falsehoods by talking over Chomsky. Buckley projects an act that signifies intellectual verbalizing to some people, but it is dismantled easily and unavoidably by someone with the ability to follow a logical train of thought, in this case, Chomsky.
Imagine 2 such adversaries sitting down for a conversation like this today. There would be difficulty finding the necessary towering intellects to fill the 2 seats on the stage, or finding enough of an audience that would have a clue what they would talk about. A chasm has developed with incompatible languages on each side, in the switch from TV to the disconnected silos of internet social media. No common ground remains to attract consensus or gentlemanly debate.
God, I so wish we could have discussions like this today. Whatever one thinks of the points either man is making, it's an intelligent, rational, thoughtful discussion by two gentlemen who are educated and interested in debate. Sheesh. It's been a long time, hasn't it?
@@bladdnun3016 Your opinion here is very different from mine. I think I can safely say that your idea of a "successful discussion" is not remotely close to my opinion of such. So it goes.
@@bladdnun3016 the possibility of a successful discussion is limited here by the dishonesty of Buckley's intent..he's neither aware nor interested in being aware of the facts
Today it appears there is no such thing as intelligent, rational, and thoughtful discussion. I believe higher-order or Socratic thinking is gone forever. Maybe? Maybe not? Dean Seattle
@@dean3434 I agree with you, but only so far as public discourse is concerned. The problem, of course, is that to the vast, vast majority of people this idea of "public" discourse is all that exists. It represents 100% of all discussion for most people.
COLUMBO: “Professor Buckley, you're so smart! I really admire what you people do... my wife's a big fan...” PROFESSOR BUCKLEY: “Well I, in turn, admire what you people do! After all, it takes a different kind of intellect to trudge through a heap of clues and come up with a solution to a petty little case like the one you're involved in now - a more pedestrian intellect, perhaps, but we can't all rise to the genius level, can we?” COLUMBO: “Now you told me that you recorded your lecture onto a Dictaphone - a great little machine, by the way - and you gave the tape to the late Mrs Gray to type up...” PROFESSOR BUCKLEY: “What of it, Mr Columbo? You'll appreciate that I'm a very busy man and I - ” COLUMBO: “The thing is, Professor Buckley, I took a look at your Dictaphone...”
Buckley cuts Chomsky off relentlessly. Chomsky is rarely allowed to speak for more than 10 seconds without interruption. Chomsky is a man of infinite patience.
@@ingregulous3141 Yep...the decades long capacity to help his fellow Americans shake off the stupor of all the imperialist propaganda we've been fed, plus brilliant research in linguistics. If we want to have a future for our country, we need to come to terms with reality
@@conantheseptuagenarian3824 Wasn't meant to be 'cute'. Please explain how it was cute, how Buckley is an intellectual and/or how Chomsky isn't completely independent-minded (more so than just about anyone in the mainstream I can think of).
@@joshuajosephson7313 chomsky is a subversive, commie jew who, even when he gets something right, says everything he can to undermine tradition and decency. he argues in bad faith at nearly all points, buckley be damned.
I used to watch Buckley years ago. Then he sounded so knowledgeable that he got away with his debates with others. He just kept pushing and made his points against weaker debaters. In this case he is dealing with a master of history , language and knowledge. His inept attempts to change directions without answering is sad. Buckley is so outclassed but, because of his ego likely never realized it or just avoided watching this debate ever again so he wouldn't have to see himself in the mirror of this debate!
Watch his debate with James Baldwin at Cambridge, when he became so flustered he started making fun of Baldwin's accent. It's so bad you'll have to replay it to make sure it really happened.
@@saucyrossy3698 Liberal? GTFOH!! I am not a liberal. I don't like either one of these two media personalities. Stop making everything about left or right. Your side or my side. You flipping clown. Everyone knows that Noam had way much more knowledge on the debate topics than William. Go get a life!
There is a point at which discourse is of no further use, and that point is when one side or other demonstrates the intention to hold to the point despite evidence and logic, for reasons that have nothing to do with the subject at hand. Upton Sinclair wrote, "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on his not understanding it."
The word for these people is "obstinate". Octavia Butler has a good quote about them too. " Beware: All too often, We say What we hear others say. We think What we’re told that we think. We see What we’re permitted to see. Worse! We see what we’re told that we see. Repetition and pride are the keys to this. To hear and to see Even an obvious lie Again And again and again May be to say it, Almost by reflex Then to defend it Because we’ve said it And at last to embrace it Because we’ve defended it And because we cannot admit That we’ve embraced and defended An obvious lie. Thus, without thought, Without intent, We make Mere echoes Of ourselves- And we say What we hear others say."
@Cliff Hanley Except that Buckley doesn't resort to ad hominem. He may at times be a bit sarcastic, and people love to point to his attitude as arrogant and holier than though. But the man still resorted to reason and facts as he understood them. That is light years away from "the O'Reillys and Hannitys" of the world. We need this sort of intellect more than ever. That doesn't mean Buckley is right and Chomsky is wrong. It does mean that there is a valid and different perspective that has a right to be aired. But the inheritors of Buckley are cheap imitators at best, and hucksters at worst.
@@j.criquette3334 But his manner is bullying and obstinate. He doesn't listen or allow his opponent a complete response, he spends the majority of this exchange interrupting or talking over Chomsky. I don't know if he did this because he felt his own arguments couldn't stand on their own against Chomsky's or not, but knowing how intelligent Mr. Buckley was, I have my own opinion of his motivation.
@Johnny West Not true. Chomsky said he was never invited back on Firing Line. I believe him. Now, if you say he was invited back many times, why would Chomsky refuse the invitations? Buckley was angry after the show was aired and with good reason: Chomsky made him look bad. Chomsky's ability to construct an argument and his command of the facts -Greece, the Philippines, colonialism, etc. - you'd have to admit is impressive.
@Johnny West How did western (USA) intervention work out for the people of Vietnam and Cambodia during the period 1962-1975? In the case of Vietnam, 2,500,00 Vietnamese were killed (58,000 Americans), and more are dying today from cancers as a result of chemical defoliants (agent orange). The number of Vietnamese deaths is a figure agreed upon by both the left and right.
what you and your love-it-or-leave-it style psuedo patriots refuse to recognize is that the US IS wrong. It has been wrong way back to when the Monroe Doctrine was adopted. Imperialism is wrong and it never lasts. The US empire will fall too, like Rome. But Rome left civilization and roads and bridges in its wake. The Anglo/Zionist Empire leaves only chaos and destruction.
@@proletariatprincess1 While we're not always right we're not always wrong either. If people like you run this country it will certainly fall. Actually the world could use some imperialism. Instead of ruthless dictators ruining countries and forcing emigration to safe haven WESTERN countries, the one's you despise, Imperialist nations could exert more control on backward nations. Ever since nations were freed from imperialism there's been one war after another. Look at the Middle East after Britain left. And who needs Israel to cause wars. There's plenty of animosity between Arab states. Do you have any sense at all?
True. Bill Buckley didn't give a rat's ass what was being said, as long as that TV camera was pointed at **HIM, HIM, HIM!!!** Like his arch-enemy Gore Vidal, all he wanted was attention...
@@golfer5636 yes his own - and cuts Chomsky's short - but to echo Ryan N: it's still so much more intelligent and enlightening than present day equivalents.
This behavior has been simplified today, Innuendo Studios has a great video on the way postmodern conservatives argue. It's way too fitting for this video, Buckley says something short quippy and wrong only for Chomsky to correct him.
Actually, I think Chomsky is the one who's being obtuse - he keeps changing the subject and trying to get them caught up in semantics so that he doesn't have to actually address Buckley's points. He basically comes off as a Communist sympathizer/propagandist.
buckley is using class debating technique, arguing the anecdote, switching apples with oranges, dissembling, etc. all he’s got is that lazy, sonorous seemingly erudite style that he uses to smother chomsky’s fact-based argument. this philosophical-sounding rhetoric is has one goal-to win. yet another example of “the end justifies the means”. compounding humankind’s struggle with greed,hate, and delusion, and fear if his inevitable demise, i.e. death...
This was from the year I was born and yet shockingly I, like my forebears, was sucked in by the rhetoric of "necessary war" again and again. Chomsky knew so much. If only he'd been listened to. (from the UK)
He face didn’t do shit you liar. Buckley outwitted him
5 лет назад
@@thegoodguywins1 You're talking about something that we've all seen, you fool. It was a clearvictory for Chomsky. Buckley was outmatched, a fact that ive heard honest right-wingers concede.
Chomsky on his conversation with Buckley "It was of no particular significance as far as I was concerned" "Buckley was quite mad by the end of the interview"
@@jamesanthony5681 Buckley wouldn't invite anyone who could articulate the true nature of his (Buckley's) intentions and beliefs, directly or indirectly. His whole shtick was belittling people who disagreed with him, so yeah, Chomsky wouldn't be invited back.
It is amazing how Buckley did not manage to choke on his own BS. Whenever he would lose a point of discussion, his first most reliable tactic was to redefine the words his spoke or those of his opponent to suit his argument. As a rhetorician, he should have cared more about words. If not for his eloquence of style, he would not never garnered his position based on the content of his arguments.
exactly! And you can see his forehead get a bit sweaty and a bit red as well as that twitchy eye thing he does. The problem with Buckley is he didn't seem to even want to understand things. He just wants to project an opinion, as opposed to learn.
You are WRONG because you did not OBSERVE. Buckley is host and Chomsky guest. Buckley began quite courteously, but let Chomsky's rudeness poison the atmosphere so that some of the time both talked simultaneously. Chomsky is a superficial soul, Buckley oddly hat a moderator when Groucho Marx was guest, but Groucho Marx is a gentleman, as is Christopher Hitchens. Buckley's power of reflection is far superior to Chomsky's, one sees how Buckley's mood is influenced by the demeanor and intelligence of the guest. Chomsky would have been silenced or asked to leave at Oxbridge.
Both Buckley and Chomsky are not what they appear to be. Buckley's CIA affiliation is known, who financed Chomsky's MIT - USG. Both Buckley and Chomsky are part of a puppet theater, Buckley and Chomsky put on a show for the populace. By the way, was Buckley Bonesman?
Chomsky totally outclassed Buckley with facts and data and knowledge of history. Buckley's approach is to confuse and unbalance his opponent with diversions constant interruptions.
@@MadScientist267No, you are apparently either ignorant or willfully blind. It is beyond obvious that an exchange like this could never occur on many campuses due to immature goons' disruptions; nor would any mainstream media outlet put it together. The hatred and vitriol for conservatives has been fully exposed and is openly practiced; it is without a doubt that the left are responsible for this.
The composure that Mr. Chomsky keeps during this interview is legendary. We need more shows like this, especially now. Where there is an actual educational discussion about important issues.
Not sure I would like a show where one party just can't finish a sentence... Agreed we are so illiterate on television these days that anything would be better but that's not an ideal debate by any means. Proof? What did you learn about the geopolitical situation back then eventually? Nothing. The only thing that you (or anyone) remember of this is how Buckley was arrogant and Chomsky was brave and consistent. That is pretty much the definition of a clash, not a debate. And in that regard it's very 2020 already. That kind of show would be the 2020 television status quo with a twist: people invited happen to be smart.
@@bachirmessaouri4772 ugh. so true. but...the level of vocabulary alone would've already raised the intelligence of any modern network tv viewer, by several IQ points...
podcasts... and it's only for niche audiences that are already fairly well-informed so their utility in fixing this anti-intellectual problem is maybe limited.
The only real fact mention here was Dresden getting bombed Most of the time Chomsky is speaking opinions, not facts. Things like "rights" "obligations" and "justice" are opinion based only. For example, watch a Bin Laden interview and you'll hear Bin Laden talk about the rights of slavery, the obligation to martyr and the justice of terrorism because those are his opinions.
@@jude999. Well they force feed Chomsky to hungry university students, at college. So it's the easy thing for many young "intellectuals" to do - to be impressed by Chomsky and defend him as if his words/views have credence. To get Buckley, one has to have the mental strength to go and find him, explore him and be challenged by him. You know most university kids are overweight, yeah? 😆
I think, I admire Mr Chomsky in this conversation more for his patience, he is superior to his opponent in every possible way, he is constantly being distracted by that clown, but still stay calm and present his arguments with class and with elegance.
Chomsky has a lot of tension in his body language. His voice is calm when he can keep his hands crossed in his lap. When he feels defensive, he opens his hands, his voice pitch rises, and his tempo speeds up. He was clearly scrambling to get away from his France analogy. By the final bell, Chomsky was running very hard.
All of chomsky arguments are anti American presuming n not with any proof that we are imperialist. Alot of countries want to associate with us for prosperity, safety n leadership which we incur with financial help more than any nation.
I seem to remember that many impressionistists and standup comedians of Buckley's day, up to and including Robin Williams, used to imitate and satirize his odd, supercilious manner of speaking. Bill Buckley was always good for a laugh. Here he tries to deal with a very learned and highly skilled rhetorician and debater (Chomsky) by talking over him, interrupting every point he tries to make, and deflecting every response with pomposity and condescension. Pomposity and condescension were0 Buckley's refuge. They must have worked brilliantly for him in the seminar rooms of Yale and the offices of National Review. When confronted by someone as able and articulate as Chomsky, Buckley comes off as brittle, reactionary, petty - and the loser of the debate.
Buckley is a classic case of it's not what you say but how you say it. This type of affectation wouldn't fly now I don't think, which shows we are progressing. Although I suppose a different type of bullying exists now, nowhere near as cunning as Buckley.
Buckley was a heck of a character. Intellectual, pompous, wore shirts badly in need of pressing...and when his eyes bulge and his English posh accent takes over - fun to watch him!
A most interesting debate. If only debates could be done in the same manner today but the world is increasingly filled with bullies and left with a greater scarcity of such debates in our time and fewer still in the future
Not just bullies but lazy people who have no interest in educating themselves in a manner that would allow them to engage in a conversation such as this.
I mean just because their genuine intellectuals doesn't mean they aren't still interrupting eachother at every sentiment or idea brought forth, no agreeing upon one single thing and they both walk away at the end, clung to their own ideologies. That's what a debate between 2 opposing idealists look like. And the one asking the questions has always been a greaseball. Just as now. The problem today is people choose to read short "facts" swiping at a speed unfathomable on their phones as opposed to a lengthy article or "book" filled with words all related generally to the same idea
"...such intellects..." In the plural. Really? I saw very little intellectual activity coming from Buckley, just spoiling tactics as Chomsky advanced a better understanding of history, politics and, critically, the meaning of words.
That's also redundant and an example of how shallow Buckley was. His speaking style depended on his ability to impress people by always adding extraneous and unnecessary words as well as interrupting his counter part every 10 seconds.Not only was Buckley a pompous ass he was also very condescending in they way he spoke. Chomsky ate his lunch here.
john noe Buckley was quite adept at rhetoric, I would say. A lot of Buckley’s schtick was pure rhetoric, with no substance/precise formulation of ideas behind it. It’s amazing to see people that skilled at it because these days, if you’re educated you use less rhetoric and talk more like Chomsky does here. So people who resort to purely rhetorical debate tactics these days usually don’t need to be that good at it.
The breadth and depth of knowledge of Noam Chomsky is just mind-blowing - not simply his familiarity with historical fact, but his ability to summarize and contextualize the information so it becomes rhetorically poignant and discursively relevant. In awe of this man.
No Buckley know it better tham Chomsky. Chomsky is just slimy and tries to make everything confusing to make it seem like any counties intervention unto another power and colonization. Chomsky dosent care how communist have brought suffering and death to North Korea, Vietnam, China, and anywhere else it really touched.
Most impressive trait of Chomsky for me is his emotional equanimity. Many have his depth of intellect but few integrate it so well or calmly in service of Socratic understanding as he
@@jimosborne2 yeah, those two are a great juxtaposition actually. McKenna makes more and more sense to me as I get older, bless his optimistic generosity
Sure he did, his argument about a post industrial, post world war 2 American imperialism was well rehearsed. And has history has proven completely wrong. The EU rose on it's own. Greece went from communism to socialism and never really recovered from bad policy. We helped Europe with soldiers and then the Marshal plan and every time since then whenever they needed funds. We helped our allies, nothing Imperial about that.
Buckley is a terrible interviewer. I was interested to hear Noam Chomsky's argument but all I hear Buckley interrupting with his arrogant hubris crap. I swtiched off half way through cos it was getting frustrating.
Joseph Poirier true and nowhere in the video did Chomsky say, explicitly, that "western imperialism is the root of all ills" so do you conclude that Chomsky wasn't against western imperialism? Simpleton!
@@mattkierkegaard9403 what a stupid uneducated comment. Chomsky is openly critical of Marx. Why did you chose such a distinguished name as your internet handle? To stress how ignorant you are?
Buckley was always so self-righteous to the point that his facial expressions reminded me of a man at the point of constipation. Watching him in these Interviews you would swear that was a Satirical Character in a 80s Comedy Sketch from S.N.L.
Buckley's embarrassment increases as he realizes that he is totally out-matched by Chomsky. Worse yet is that Buckley's ignorance is being exposed to the viewers and to Buckley as well.