On October 20th 2020, The New Yorker magazine published an interview between Isaac Chotiner and Noam Chomsky provocatively entitled Noam Chomsky Believes Trump Is ‘the Worst Criminal in Human History.
This naturally caught my attention. Compared to a Hitler or a Stalin, who were directly responsible for the deaths of millions of people, how could Donald Trump possibly be the worst criminal in human history?
My instant disbelief was tempered by my admiration for Chomsky, a formidable intellectual whose achievements in the fields of linguistics, cognitive science, history and political activism are legendary. Clearly, when Chomsky passes an opinion, you have to take it seriously.
Chomsky excoriates Trump on two counts: his indifference to nuclear arms control and his failure to take seriously the threat of climate change.
Re the former, Chomsky writes: The regime thats been slowly built up over the years—Eisenhowers Open Skies proposal, the I.N.F. Treaty, and other pieces—has mitigated the dangers. Trump has been tearing every piece of it to shreds.
to human survival in any recognizable form is environmental catastrophe, and, there, Trump is alone in the world. Most countries are doing at least something about it—not as much as they should be, but some of them rather significant, some less so. The United States has pulled out of the Paris Agreement; is refusing to do any of the actions that might help poorer countries deal with the problem; is racing toward maximizing the use of fossil fuels; and, at the same time, just opened the last major nature reserve in the United States for drilling.
Step by step, eliminate everything that might protect Americans or that will preserve the possibility of the very serious threat of environmental catastrophe. There is nothing like this in history Can you think of anyone in human history who has dedicated his efforts to undermining the prospects for survival of organized human life on earth?
Its hard to find an American President who has been more dedicated to enriching and empowering the and the corporate sector—which is, of course, why theyre happy to tolerate his antics.
The interviewer seems slightly taken aback by this epithet and seeks to gather his thoughts. He mentions three other contenders for the title: Hitler, Stalin and Mao.
Of Stalin, Chomsky says: Stalin was a monster. Was he trying to destroy organized human life on earth? To which the interviewer replies: Well, he was trying to destroy a lot of human lives. Chomsky goes on: Yes, he was trying to destroy lots of lives but not organized human life on earth, nor was Adolf Hitler. He was an utter monster but not dedicating his efforts perfectly consciously to destroying the prospect for human life on earth.
The interviewer now challenges Chomskys assertion with: I dont disagree about Trumps badness. Im not sure if hes intending to destroy the planet so much as hes intending to watch Fox News and is just following terrible policies out of of laziness and nihilism, and being surrounded by crooks and nihilists.
To which Chomsky replies: Im not talking about Trump the human being. I couldnt care less about him. Im talking about the policies. The policies are clear; the understanding is clear. There is nobody thats not living
under a rock that that maximizing the use of fossil fuels and eliminating the restrictions is going to lead to disaster.
The interviewer now argues that Stalin and Hitler were worse criminals than Trump: Thats where it seems like we were slipping up with the Stalin or where their intentions were obviously to get people killed.
Chomsky disagrees, saying: Stalins intentions were to maintain power and control. He didnt purposely want to kill people. He had to kill people as a means toward this end.
And that, in a nutshell, is Chomskys case for the prosecution.
