I know about Smedley Butler. I've also read Noam Chomsky, and I share his position that a democratic institution, for all of its many faults, is always preferable to a tyrannical, autocratic or authoritarian one.

To read Noam Chomsky, one wonders if that's his position, as he defends communist autocratic regimes far more than capitalist democracies like the USA. Part of his shtick is to criticize his home country the most. But compare his treatment of eg US in Vietnam vs Cambodian genocide. Or the amount of criticism he levels at the USA's activities abroad vs the same amount of the KGB.

In the Israel-Palestine situation he criticizes Democratic Israel far more than, say the Kingdom of Jordan. He criticizes Likud more than the PLO, and writes about the USA's imperialism in supporting a democratic state in the Middle East, while ignoring that during the 50s and 60s the KGB trained the PLO as part of explicit support to undermine Western-backed countries.

I correspond with Chomsky from time to time, and I think he is set in his ways. But I hardly think he would say our democracy has a good track record. You're thinking of Michio Kaku :)

You're mixing topics up in order to muddy the discussion. There's a conversation about power, amplification, human rights, etc at play in both Chomsky's positions and valid criticisms of his positions.

But that doesn't address what we're discussing, it distracts from it.