2022 EDIT: I was wrong. Completely wrong. Greenwald is a sleazy unprincipled fascist enabler, a dirtbag of the first order. I do believe it’s legitimate to criticize centrism in the Democratic Party. But that is not what Greenwald is up to these days.
So I take this entire diary back. I was wrong. If there’s anything Greenwald is not, it’s principled.
BEGINNING OF ORIGINAL POST: Earlier today, a diary made the reclist that was an extended critique of blogger Glenn Greenwald's worldview. The diary is heartfelt, well-argued and makes a number of fair points in criticism of Greenwald's post yesterday, "The misery of the protracted presidential campaign season." But ultimately, I'm afraid the diarist misses one of Greenwald's most salient points. And in missing that point, the diarist--sincerely but unfortunately, in my opinion--implicitly comes down on the side of acquiescence to the Democratic Party's continuous rightward shift. (This diary is an expansion on my comments to the previous diary.)
Glenn has a very consistent worldview. Another word for it--in Glenn's case--is principled. It is the opposite of that of so many folks here for whom the issues are secondary to a tribal need to defend the actions of Democratic politicians in whom they have an emotional investment. (I should add that I don't believe the diarist--judging from what he wrote--falls into that category.) In fairness to Greenwald's critiques, Greenwald is often scathing in his dismissal of those who disagree with him. But frankly, when you are talking about things like letting torturers get away with it, it's hard not to have a visceral reaction towards those who make excuses for that. Greenwald is not a partisan, not a "Party man." He is a progressive and to the extent that he has good words for the Democratic Party or Democratic politicians is the extent to which they advance such values as civil liberties, economic justice, social equality and a humane foreign policy. (He is not, as one misinformed commenter described him, a "libertarian." What that commenter probably mean is "civil libertarian" but they don't understand the basic difference between the two terms.) To the extent that Democratic politicians undermine civil liberties or push policies that further oligarchy, Greenwald can be counted on to call them out with acid-etched rhetoric. Not longer after Obama's nomination, Greenwald wrote a post--now quite prophetic--that raised worrisome questions about Obama and whether he was going to be another Democrat who sought political capital by defining himself against the progressive wing of the Democratic Party. Here is Greenwald on July 1, 2008 in a post titled "The Obama campaign's past two weeks":
The choices Obama makes about how he campaigns and the positions he takes are extremely consequential in how political issues in this country are perceived. In the last two weeks alone, Obama has done the following: *intervened in a Democratic Congressional primary to support one of the worst Bush-enabling Blue Dogs over a credible, progressive challenger; * announced his support for Bush's FISA bill, reversing himself completely on this issue; * sided with the Scalia/Thomas faction in two highly charged Supreme Court decisions; * repudiated Wesley Clark and embraced the patently false media narrative that Clark had "dishonored McCain's service" (and for the best commentary I've seen, by far, on the Clark matter, see this appropriately indignant piece by Iraq veteran Brandon Friedman); * condemned MoveOn.org for its newspaper advertisement criticizing Gen. Petraeus; * defended his own patriotism by impugning the patriotism of others, specifically those in what he described as the "the so-called counter-culture of the Sixties" for "attacking the symbols, and in extreme cases, the very idea, of America itself" and -- echoing Jeanne Kirkpatrick's 1984 RNC speech -- "blaming America for all that was wrong with the world"; * unveiled plans "to expand President Bush's program steering federal social service dollars to religious groups and -- in a move sure to cause controversy . . . letting religious charities that receive federal funding consider religion in employment decisions," a move that could "invite a storm of protest from those who view such faith requirements as discrimination" -- something not even the Bush faith programs allowed. That's quite a two weeks. One of the primary reasons that blogs emerged over the last seven years was as a reaction to, an attempt to battle against, exactly this narrative which the media propagated and Democratic institutions embraced -- that it is the duty of every Democrat to repudiate and attack their own base; that the truly pernicious elements are on the "Far Left", whose values must be rejected, while the Far Right is entitled to profound respect and accommodation; that "Strength" in National Security is determined by agreement with GOP policies, which is where "the Center" is found; that Seriousness is demonstrated by contempt for the liberal masses; that every Democrat must apologize for any statement over which Republicans feign offense. Plenty of Beltway institutions already existed for the purpose of cheering on any and all Democrats no matter what they do. If that's all that blogs are supposed to do, then there is no need for them. From the beginning, blogs have been devoted to opposing Democratic complicity and capitulation -- to protesting the lack of Democratic responsiveness to their supporters -- every bit as much as opposing GOP corruption and media malfeasance. That role is at least as important as the others.
An argument can be made that we keep sliding backwards as much because of Democratic complicity as because of GOP schemes. The GOP are what they are. But when every election comes around the Democrats pretend to be something other than what they are. After they are elected they then are almost disdainful of those of us who expect them to fulfill one of their most important roles: advancing a political counter-argument to Reaganism before the public. Obama's way of abdicating this responsibility was exalting "bipartisanship" above all other virtues. Because it wouldn't be bipartisan to use the example of the economic collapse and outrageous wealth and income inequality to press a wholesale--if polite and respectful (it would be possible)--assault on the conservative ideology (shared by many Democrats including, it is now obvious, Obama himself) that resulted in the current Depression. Greenwald believes in accountability and equality under the law. Otherwise, we have lawlessness. Obama ran, explicitly, on restoring the rule of law. Instead, he immediately turned around, once in office, and effectively immunized government officials including Bush and Cheney from accountability for violent felonies that endangered our national security. Greenwald also believes that progressives are powerless unless we can hold politicians politically accountable. BooMan23's argument seems to be that we cannot hold Democrats accountable because the alternative is too awful. How can we hold them accountable if we say that we will support them no matter what? No matter even if they adopt significant and substantive GOP policies and narrative? The alternative is awful, no doubt about that. But by giving up the only lever we have--withdrawal of support--we collude in making things worse. We say, in effect, that each time the goalposts are moved to the right we will acquiesce, that there is no alternative to acquiescence. The GOP probably can't substantively undermine Social Security and Medicare on their own. But a Democrat can do that and Obama and others in his administration, and key Democrats in Congress, appear determined to do just that. And this is after Kathy Hochul's special election Congressional victory showed the Democrats could win in a GOP-leaning district by taking the fight to the Republicans and defending social insurance! If we can't withhold our support for a Democrat who not only pursues policies that we feel are deeply harmful and retrogressive across a broad range of issues and whose actions undermine the most potent Democratic electoral strategy and issue, then how are we not collusive in the ongoing pellmell rush to the Right? BooMan 23's diary is heartfelt and well-argued but it is also a brief for powerlessness and resignation. It argues for us to accept that we are at the mercy of whatever moves Democratic officeholders choose to make. I disagree. I believe by making clear that there will be a price to pay for ignoring the concerns on the Left, we can regain leverage. After the 2006 and 2008 elections, did the GOP tuck its tail between its legs and back off its (crazy, awful) principles? No. In fact, it was the Democratic Party that backed off the putative principles on which it ran...and won. And yes, polls show the GOP is very unpopular in many ways. But it is winning. Democrats can win, too. But not by constantly shuffling backwards. When compromise is your highest principle, you invite extremists to keep pushing the envelope more and more to the Right. Democrats can win by taking the fight to the GOP--as in Kathy Hochul's victory, as in Wisconsin. Those type of Democrats need to be rewarded. But the Democrats who preemptively run up the white flag to the GOP--whether out of an unwillingness to fight or because they are in bed with the same interests who fund the GOP--deserve nether our votes, money or volunteer time. And if they know that and take that seriously, perhaps they will make different choices.