By Noam Chomsky & William F. Buckley Jr. (in imagined dialogue)
What if these two discussed the failure of political science?
Chomsky:
Let us begin with a shared premise, Mr. Buckley: The inherited ideologies of the 20th century—whether dressed in the proletarian garb of Marxism or the tailored austerity of market libertarianism—have profoundly failed to capture the true nature of the human condition. They were, in effect, experiments conducted on the false premise that man is either clay to be molded or a self-maximizing automaton liberated by markets. Both conceptions are dangerously misleading.
Buckley:
I will grant you this, Professor Chomsky: the doctrinaire visions of the left, with their relentless re-engineering of man and society, have long offended the conservative intellect. But I suspect you will not be surprised that I am equally inclined to critique the unfettered faith in markets so often advanced by my own side. Human dignity, after all, is not an economic abstraction. Nor is moral order reducible to aggregate preferences.
Chomsky:
Indeed. And the error both our traditions have made—yours in its sanctification of traditional structures, mine in its revolutionary fervor—is the failure to ground political thought in the biological and psychological realities of our species. We are not blank slates. Nor are we Hobbesian brutes. We are, instead, deeply social, reciprocating creatures—capable of moral judgment, cooperative endeavor, and the transmission of cultural knowledge—shaped by evolutionary pressures over millions of years.
Buckley:
You touch here on a truth that neither Rousseau nor Ayn Rand could accept. Human beings, though diverse in thought and aspiration, share a common architecture of mind. The rejection of this architecture—by progressive ideologues who think identity can be endlessly redefined, and by technocrats who believe algorithms can replace judgment—has led to alienation and, worse, to policy regimes unmoored from reality.
Chomsky:
Quite right. Take, for instance, the universal desire for fairness—a trait observable in children and even in some primates. This is not an ideological construct; it is a cognitive adaptation. And yet, our political institutions are blind to it. They are constructed on the basis of abstractions: “rational choice,” “market equilibrium,” “class struggle.” The empirical study of how people actually think, feel, and relate is largely ignored in favor of ideological purity.
Buckley:
This brings us, then, to the crux. If political science is to be more than the handmaiden of competing utopias, it must become a discipline grounded in what is true about human nature—not merely what is fashionable to believe. The alternative is a continued descent into moral confusion, cultural fragmentation, and technocratic tyranny.
Chomsky:
What we need is a scientific political philosophy—one that draws upon the findings of evolutionary biology, developmental psychology, cognitive science, anthropology, and systems theory. This new foundation must recognize the dual nature of our species: biologically constrained, yet culturally fluid; self-interested, yet cooperative; capable of reason, yet prone to bias and manipulation.
Buckley:
Such a foundation would not deliver perfect answers, nor should we expect it to. But it would provide limits—a sense of what can be changed, and what must be preserved. That, after all, is the essence of both science and conservatism. And I dare say, even radicals such as yourself, Professor, would prefer a revolution tethered to reality than one launched into the void.
Chomsky:
Precisely. And perhaps we might begin by rejecting the false dichotomies that plague our discourse—public vs. private, individual vs. collective, tradition vs. progress. These are not binary opposites but points along a spectrum that must be navigated by an intelligent system, much like the human brain itself.
Buckley:
It is a sign of the times that such a moderate proposal sounds radical. But perhaps radical moderation is what is required now. Let the left abandon its fantasy of the infinitely malleable human. Let the right relinquish its fetish for inflexible order. Let us build, instead, a political science of requisite variety—adaptive, resilient, and deeply human to match the requirements and opportunities in our respective environments.
Chomsky:
A politics that does not treat people as economic digits or revolutionary instruments, but as moral agents embedded in history, biology, and society. That is the task. Not of left or right—but of intelligence.
Conclusion:
In this imagined collaboration, we—avatars of two ideological poles—find common cause in the rejection of failed abstractions. We call not for a new ideology, but a new discipline: one that respects the nature of the human animal, the systems in which it lives, and the fragile civilization it struggles to maintain. It is time to stop writing on the blank slate and start reading what is already inscribed within us.
Appendix: Biographical Notes
Noam Chomsky
Noam Chomsky (b. 1928) is a renowned American linguist, philosopher, cognitive scientist, historian, and social critic, often described as the “father of modern linguistics.” A long-time professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and later at the University of Arizona, Chomsky revolutionized the study of language with his theory of universal grammar, asserting that the ability to acquire language is innate to the human mind. Beyond academia, he has been a fierce critic of U.S. foreign policy, corporate power, and ideological manipulation, becoming one of the most cited living intellectuals across multiple disciplines. His work bridges empirical science and moral philosophy in the pursuit of truth and justice.
William F. Buckley Jr.
William F. Buckley Jr. (1925–2008) was an American public intellectual, conservative author, and founder of National Review, widely credited with shaping the modern American conservative movement. A Yale-educated polymath with a razor-sharp wit, Buckley brought intellectual rigor to postwar conservatism, challenging both the excesses of liberalism and the populist fringes of the right. As host of the influential television show Firing Line, he introduced generations to the power of civil debate. A defender of individual liberty, tradition, and limited government, Buckley also remained committed to literary style and philosophical depth, often engaging ideological opponents with eloquence and respect.
Written by ChatGPT
Directed by Randal Adcock
Randal Adcock 