This post by Glenn Greenwald continues his mission to (one the one hand) point out people on the right saying stupid things and (on the other) attempt to use them to discredit the rightosphere altogether. It’s a fun game, anyone can play, and at his current rate Greenwald seems set to become some sort of Bizarro David Horowitz:
As its leading bloggers vividly illustrate, pro-Bush “conservatism” is a highly authoritarian movement which seeks to vest unlimited and unrestrained power in their Leader, views garden-variety political dissent as blasphemy and treason, and glorifies violence as a justifiable tool to achieve their glorious political ends. The standard language and argumentation of these pro-Bush bloggers reflect those attributes on a daily basis…
And so forth. Not for the first time, his primary target here is Glenn Reynolds: the interesting question, as far as I’m concerned, is whether it’s in the best interests of the leftosphere to treat Reynolds as a demented right-winger. (Regardless of how much of a stretch it may be to do so. Greenwald provides a dozen or so links to putatively sinister Instapundit posts, of which this is a fairly typical, and baffling, example.)
The most effective political blogs of both left and right are community sites, group ventures where funding is solicited and platforms are floated. Compared to them, Instapundit is from another era: one man, some links, relatively little chit-chat. He’s not marshalling the troops: at most, he’s suggesting things for them to read. In terms of personal politics, he’s no fire-breathing righty: he’s pro-gay-marriage, against overturning Roe v. Wade, and at odds with the Republican base on a number of other hot-button issues. Moreover, he’s no Republican loyalist, having done various things like work on Al Gore’s 1988 campaign, vote for Dukakis in that year and Harry Browne in 2000, etc. If Grover Norquist was working for the Democrats, he’d view someone with this many areas of overlap as a blue-chip recruit, not an apostate. It’s interesting that so many prominent sites in the leftosphere - which has become, on the whole, much more pragmatic over the last couple of years thanks to the growth of sites like dKos and MyDD - seem to consider him a rock-solid R vote.
Now, it’s possible that Reynolds qua Reynolds is of greater long-term value to the center-left as a Goldstein figure (in both the 1984 and Protein Wisdom senses) to be periodically burned in effigy and referred to as “Instacracker.” (Or, my personal favorite, “professor of Creationism at Wayback University.”) It’s also possible that support for the Iraq war is the kind of litmus test that can’t be gotten around. And, certainly, not everyone finds his posts interesting. But if you’re a Democrat, and the idea is to actually win in 2008, people like Glenn Reynolds have got to be worth thinking about. (If the idea is just to be able to keep sneering at the “Wayback University” law faculty, well, that’s fine too.)
In that perfectly innocent post to which you refer and which has you so “baffled,” Reynolds said that the NYT “can’t even figure out what side we’re on.”
In the world which you (and Reynolds) inhabit, it is perfectly normal, restrained, and standard fare to casually accuse political opponents and journalists of treason and being on the side of terrorists - that, in case you were too baffled to figure it out, is what Reynolds, who regularly accuses journalists of being on the other side, means when he says that the NYT “can’t even figure out what side we’re on”. Yeah, that specific post was about Nicaragua, but the posts he links to over and over, and his own posts, routinely accuse the NYT and other journalists of helping terrorists, working against America, etc. etc., making clear exactly what he means when he says the NYT “can’t even figure out what side we’re on.” As in:
But to many people, myself included, implying that the NYT wants to help terrorists or that they’re on their “side” is deranged recklessness with some extremely dangerous and stupid rhetoric. I don’t think it’s a strech to suggest that someone who does that is an extremist, but for those for whom such behavior has become acceptable - such as yourself - it is unsurprising that accusations of extremism leave you “baffled.”
It’s ironic as well that you mentioned David Horowitz, since his most recent campaign to urge the publication of the home addresses of NYT reporters and editors provoked a post from Reynolds — who attacked those who criticized Horowitz for doing that. The next time you want to make a comparison to Horowitz, you may want to note that.
And the next time you’re “baffled” by a post you can’t understand, just go ahead and e-mail me and ask me to explain it to you. It’s much better than writing a whole post about arguments which, for whatever reasons and by your own admission, you can’t quite comprehend.
Thanks for taking the time to respond, Glenn.
Right. In, as you point out, Nicaragua. Twenty years ago. They got the contras and the Sandinistas mixed up, is what the post is saying. Taking the above phrase out of context doesn\’t come close to supporting your larger point.
I\’m not sure what you\’re basing that assessment of me on, Glenn. I agree with you that describing the NYT as \”siding with terrorists\” is stupid, and I\’ve said so. However, based on my own experience, I disagree with the equivalence you draw between Reynolds (and Jane Galt, and so on) and - to return to my favorite example, although God knows there are others - the Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler people; although I can appreciate that it\’s a useful device for you, and one that you have to defend in public. The point of this post is that it\’s a device that may not make for the best long-term political strategy.
There was no irony in my mention of Horowitz: he\’s a bright guy who goes off the deep end whenever he starts in on people he\’s decided are damaging the country, and he\’s reflexively hostile to people who don\’t already agree with him. I do appreciate the offer of explication, though, and I\’m sure I\’ll have occasion to take you up on it in the future.
What I find “baffling” is that this “constitutional lawyer” can spend upwards of 20 hours a day arguing on other people’s jobs while defending the nation’s civil rights in court.
By the way, Glenn, you resort to cheap smears — guilt by association, demands for denouncing this or that with refusal to hop-to your every command constituting, in your mind, an endorsement of the cited offense, claims of proof which, you know,aren’t — all the time while accusing others of “McCarthyite” tactics. Furthermore, you yourself link some of the most hate-drenched sites on the Internet while parading around as Simon Pure.
As they say, only our own farts smell pleasing, eh?
Jesus, I’d hate to be one of your clients. Who are you sticking with billable hours as you write this dreck all the doo-dah day?
I meant “arguing on other people’s blogs,” not “jobs,” of course.
Glenn Greenwald’s recent high-stakes civil-rights lawsuits:
Greenwald v. Instapundit
Greenwald v. Goldstein
Greenwald v. Misha
Greenwald v. Patterico
Greenwald v. Dan Riehl
Greenwald v. Power Line
Greenwald v. Malkin
Greenwald v. RedState
Greenwald v. Practically ever other rightwing blogger in the top 60 on the Truth Laid Bear ecosystem
I’m glad all these frivolous lawsuits are merely filed on-line in pretend e-court rather than clogging up our nation’s dockets.
At least that’s one good consequence of Greenwald’s unending obsessions.
But again: for someone who presents himself as Mr. Big-Shot Constitutional Lawyer, shouldn’t he have something, um, more important to be doing than jacking off on the Internet all day bloody long?
It is not wise to feed the trolls. Not when they comment. Not when they trackback. Not when they write on their own blog. It just gives them what they want: attention - any attention. The attention fades quickly, so they troll more. The only way to get rid of them is to ignore them. (North Korea, for example, is basically a troll in Westphalian state form.)
It is not wise to fire back at the demagogues. They make their shots as extreme as possible, because they seek to fire up their opponents against them, in order to make their opponents so fed up they withdraw from the debate. The good ones (like Ann Coulter or Michael Moore) and the great ones (like Christopher Hitchens) can inspire remarkable outrage from their opponents, and leave them flailing and gasping. Lesser ones just leave us baffled at what point they were hoping to make.
It is not wise to engage with idiots. They will always get you down to their level.
Greenwald is either a troll or a demagogue or an idiot.
By syllogism, it is probably unwise to engage with him.
OXR,
I was a bit disappointed by your smugness, although it probably felt good typing it. And you’ve accomplished a little of the echo chamber getting Reynolds to cite you back, etc.
On this one, I think Glenn Greenwald has the better argument and I say that a veteran of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy. If you have said that it was stupid to insinuate that the NYTimes sides with terrorists, then your snide reference to his citing the deplorable link on the self described “Center Right” Reynolds blog simply makes no sense. And so on.
Your effort to back away from the ‘Bizarro’ Horowitz reference also radiates insincerity. If one makes a feeble effort at snarkiness, at least have the guts to stand your ground. In fact, even as an exercise of snark your post is not particularly impressive. As rational analysis or reasoned argumentation, less so.
Best regards.
have my comments been de-moderated for un-moderation?
if so, care to explain your rules?
Glenn Greenwald writes:
But to many people, myself included, implying that the NYT wants to help terrorists or that they’re on their “side” is deranged recklessness with some extremely dangerous and stupid rhetoric.
Inasmuch as many of the leading opinionistas on the left persist to this day in accusing critics of former President Clinton of being mere haters who were more concerned with collecting a political scalp than with the national well-being, I would be interested to understand why, according to Mr. Greenwald, it is beyond the pale of civil discourse for those on the right to suggest that prominent critics of President Bush have likewise become blinkered by their loathing of a domestic political opponent to the point of losing perspective about the challenges facing the country, and/or engaging in conduct demonstrably contrary to the national interest.
I will, of course, stipulate that accusations of treason are, for the most part, profoundly stupid, regardless of which side of the aisle they come from.
That must have been gratifying. Write a post about someone, and then the someone comes by and vindicates your every word.
There’s been a lot of talk about Glenn Greenwald lately. After reading some of his most recent posts, I can’t help wondering why he’s created such a buzz. His analysis of bloggers like Glenn Reynolds is, as you point out, nonsense; his assertion that labeling political opponents as “traitors” is a widespread tactic of the “rightosphere” (nice phrase, that) is patently false; his observation that right-wing blogs are guilty of an otherwise unknown variety of “extremism” is, in a world that is also inhabited by Kos and the Democratic Underground, laughable; and so on.
His blog is merely one more in a long line of websites devoted to the canonization of one political fringe group while simultaneously excoriating everyone who doesn’t march to that same drummer as being demon-possessed members of the opposing fringe group.
Buzz?
Yawn.
Wow. So Greenwald is willing to draw huge sweeping conclusions about what others believe, based on the most strained and negative possible interpretation of their words–but then when someone questions him in publc, he says that next time you shouldn’t post your critical questions in public, you should just drop him a polite note?
What an amazing man.
My real question is, will his shame at his own blatant dishonesty and hypocrisy ever get the better of him? Or will he just keep acting like a left-wing Ann Coulter?
Attacking Glenn Reynolds is a very effective way to promote Glenn Greenwald.
It’s not an effective way to improve the chances of the Democrats in ‘06 or ‘08.
>They got the contras and the Sandinistas mixed up, is what the
>post is saying. Taking the above phrase out of context doesn’t
>come close to supporting your larger point.
The biggest problem with the rise of blogs as a conduit for political discussion is, the state of education in this country over the last 20 or more years is such that there is a significant number of people whose reading comprehension is well below the 9th-grade level. And thanks to the self-esteem movement, these people are extremely convinced of their intelligence and correctness, and they are more than willing to vocally, repeatedly share this with the rest of us, even in the face of others’ attempts to explain their misapprehension of the text that they believe is proving their point.
Mr. Greenwald is just the latest highly-publicized example of this.
So Greenwald doesn’t get it the first time, and after reading(poorly) your post, still doesn’t get it the second time. Will he get it on your third reiteration in comments? Such demonstrated poor reading skills make it doubtful.
Contras, Sandinistas - It’s all so baffling! Certainly beyond the scope of the ill educated Greenwald and the NYT.
Greenwald sure knows how to dish out comment burn
Greenwald’s problem with Reynolds isn’t that Reynolds is right-wing, because he isn’t. It’s that Reynolds isn’t left-wing. And if you aren’t left-wing, you’re one of the bad guys. You’re one of “them.”
The left wing is circling the wagons in preparation for 2008. Expect to see more of this “if you aren’t with us, you’re against us” from the fringe left in next 18 months.
The second comment in this section says it all. Glenn Greenwald, whatever his virtues, appears to have poor reading comprehension skills, a poor knowledge of recent history, or both. That doesn’t make him a bad person. It just calls into question his worth as a political blogger.
What I find interesting is he says this:
“But to many people, myself included, implying that the NYT wants to help terrorists or that they’re on their “side” is deranged recklessness with some extremely dangerous and stupid rhetoric.”
But he also says this:
“As its leading bloggers vividly illustrate, pro-Bush “conservatism” is a highly authoritarian movement which seeks to vest unlimited and unrestrained power in their Leader, views garden-variety political dissent as blasphemy and treason, and glorifies violence as a justifiable tool to achieve their glorious political ends. The standard language and argumentation of these pro-Bush bloggers reflect those attributes on a daily basis…”
Good thing there’s no dangerous or stupid rhetoric in that last quote. The New York Times is a newspaper for God’s sake, it is not above criticism and it is not a country unto itself. If criticising the current government is a manefestation of patriotism, isn’t criticising those who criticise an even stronger form of patriotism?
Greenwald seems to be the latest incarnation of the fire-breathing, outraged lefty accusing the right blogosphere of inciting violence. In the real world, Democratic partisans scream about Republican vote suppression while they slash tires, attack Republican campaign offices and stuff ballot boxes (St. Louis, Detroit) with dead people’s votes. In the blogosphere we have Greenwald, DU, KOS and Maha.
It is pure projection.
Mr. Greenwald, why do you wish to place the political commitments and activities of the NYT beyond reproach? It may be perfectly true that they are not “siding with the terrorists.” However, to simply gloss over their attacks on our intelligence collection programs as if there is nothing to note shows a profound inability to understand the world as it really is. People may die because of these exposures. You and the NYT apparently don’t care because it makes you feel good to pretend otherwise.
Is it any wonder that you are running into angry opposition from people more forward-looking and mature than yourself? No one is taking away your precious rights, Mr. Greenwald, but you are damn right that we are questioning your judgement and looking for ways to minimize the damage that you and your kind do to this nation.
The subtlety that Glenn G. has managed to obscure is that the offensive Glenn R. quote is “the NYT ‘can’t even figure out what side we’re on.’” (emphasis added)
Neither the statement nor the linked item says anything at all about the NYT’s “patriotism” or defacto aid to terrorists (intentional or otherwise), but rather challenges their accuracy concerning well know historical facts and what it says about their much self-lauded system of editors and fact checkers. Glenn R.’s point would be just as valid had he referenced an article stating the Earth was the fouth planet from the Sun by writing “the NYT ‘can’t even figure out what planet we’re on.’”
It is not possible to rationally debate with people who believe that moral superiority derives from victimhood. Greenwald looks at the Reynolds post on NYT and Nicaragua and sees “Rethuglikkkans call anyone who disagrees with them ‘Traitors’”, because that creates victims. That Reynolds was referring to the Sandanista/Contra confusion isn’t important, because Greenwald’s narrative is the one that counts.
We see the same thing in the periodic controversy over the Confederate Battle Flag. Because the ‘Civil Rights’ crowd sees it is a symbol for racism, (making them victims and therefore empowered) anyone who uses it is therefore a racist, no matter what the intent of the person who uses the flag means by it. Ditto for all the other issues over which the Civil War was fought: “States’ Rights” is now a ‘code word’ for racism, as is opposition to high taxes.
The reflex to play the Victim Card and thereby trump rational discourse has gotten to the point that ‘racist’ effectively means ’someone winning an argument with a liberal’. It’s the modern equivalent of accusing someone of being a witch; the accusation cannot be refuted logically (for it is an illogical charge), and any character witnesses for the defense will be charged with racism themselves, so as to make their support meaningless.
In the Cartoon Wars, the ideas that the cartoonists meant to convey (some of those cartoons don’t even depict M. at all; other cartoons subsequently added by Muslim agitators are used to retroactively taint the others…) are irrelevant. The only thing that matters is that “We are Outraged!”. (Blessed indeed are the Outraged, for theirs is the Moral High Ground, from which the range of their Katyushas is improved somewhat.)
The problem with this mentality is that there are no objective criteria for victimization. A member of an officially approved victim group can spout the most hateful rhetoric, and be reflexively defended, while every utterance from the dextrohemisphere is tainted by the Original Sin of having issued from a diseased mind. The ‘real motive’ of the writer is always imputed to be as evil as possible. This then builds up a repository of ‘proof’ of the inherent evilness, which is used to justify future assumption of intent.
Of course, since my remarks above can be so easily twisted to write me of as a racist myself, I need not fear that I’ve had any positive effect on the Greenwalds of the world. Besides, I used the word ‘ditto’ above, which obviously makes me a Limbot.
“As its leading bloggers vividly illustrate, pro-Bush ‘conservatism’ is a highly authoritarian movement which seeks to vest unlimited and unrestrained power in their Leader.”
That’s pretty rich. Because if we agree with some of Bush’s underlying premises, but not with his actions, we’re still tantamount to electing and supporting him as Fuhrer of Axis Amerika.
Being able to see good logic and reasoning, even in the thoughts of men you would consider wrong or just plain evil, is something many people lack.
Example:
Hitler was a profound and supreme orator. He was capable of moving crowds with gestures and tone as a maestro of an orchestra leads.
I do not, however, think Hitler was a good man. Just a good orator. He had an excellent grasp and understanding of his countrymen.
The same can be said of Bush and his actions:
He has displayed an excellent grasp of the actions and motivations of America’s enemies. That he’s willing to realize what’s in plain sight is admirable. That he has been willing to act is also commendable.
However, he has also committed a lot of intellectual and political atrocities. Stem cell, gay marriage, “Religion of Peace”, etc. I am far from being a Bush groupie, but by the logic you follow, agreeing with the “War on Terror” makes me a rightwing nutjob, a Republican sycophant, and Bush’s greatest sponsor.
Well, I guess the Democratic party needs some kind of platform.
~~~
Democrats in 2008!
Because if you disagree with us, we’ll call you nasty names and imply you’re a fascist!
How HAVE the Democrats been losing all these years with a policy like this?
God, I wish people would stop giving Greenwald oxygen. Just let him die already.
So, to recap:
The NYT publishes top-secret details on how we track the finances of terrorist organizations. Reynolds and other bloggers respond that this empowers terrorists. This is nearly indisputable. How could knowing the ins-and-outs of our defenses not help them?
But Greenwald doesn’t focus on whether the Times was justified in its decision to publish. He’d rather stand aghast that rightwing blogs would so cavelierly toss around mean words like “reckless,” “extremely dangerous,” or “stupid.” How anyone but extremists talk like this in a civil society? And, after all, extremism must be condemned in the strongest terms.
Oh, wait. I guess it’s okay to use those words. As long as we’re talking about extremists, rather than the New York Times. As long as we’re talking about critics of media orthodoxy, not those who give away secrets to the enemy.
How can any rational political commentator accuse Reynolds of being a conservative agitator? I’ve known conservatives, I’ve been a conservative, and Reynolds is no conservative.
The comments by Jo above were accurate - Greenwald is drawing lines in the sand and saying ‘you’re either for us or against us’. I thought the Democrats were supposed to be the party of nuance and careful calibration.
What a maroon.
Glenn, you have beautiful rhetorical misdirection in your response. You write, “But to many people, myself included, implying that the NYT wants to help terrorists or that they’re on their “side” is deranged recklessness with some extremely dangerous and stupid rhetoric.”
The problem is that in the quotation to which you are responding in this passage never accuses, or even implies, that the NYT “WANTS” to aid terrorists. In restating the way you do, you misconstrue the original point: instead of addressing the possibility that, whether intended or not, the NYT may, as a downstream consequence of their reporting, empower terrorists, you reframe the question in terms of whether the NYT actively joins “sides” with terrorism. Clearly, the NYT in no way, shape, or form means to aid terrorists; that does not, however, logically eliminate the possibility that that may, in fact, be doing so.
Now, that casuistry aside, the right-leaning blog crowd are a bit…rabid. Still, no more so than the left-leaning blog community. Cheers.