5 ms·

Aaron Maté, who made the actual tweet about "Russiagate" that Greenwald merely made a passing reply to, is about as solid in his traditional left-wing bonafides

Aaron Maté, who made the actual tweet about "Russiagate" that Greenwald merely made a passing reply to, is about as solid in his traditional left-wing bonafides as anyone can be, following in the footsteps of his father Gabor, a medical practitioner, researcher and author with a decades-long public profile espousing traditional left-wing values. Aaron Maté's skepticism of the Russia narrative is not out of any support for Trump whatsoever - he's been highly critical of Trump - but is part of a track record of earnest investigative reporting about Russia that few other western journalists can match. One should never forget that as recently as 2012, to consider Russia any kind of threat to the US, which the Romney Republican campaign did back then, attracted mockery and derision from Democrats, and it was only in early 2017, just 4 years ago, that it suddenly flipped such that expressing skepticism about the influence of Russia in US politics suddenly became part of "right-leaning talking points". All Maté is doing is remaining consistent with what has been the accepted Democrat/left-wing position for many years, right up until Clinton lost the unlosable election. When Maté and Greenwald spend their time "criticizing liberals", their criticisms are always focused on the modern-day Democrats' track record of becoming too entangled with the big-corporate and military/intelligence establishment, and in doing so, abandoning their supposed left-wing ideals. Just because some right-wingers criticise the Democrats/liberals for the same reason, does not make Maté and Greenwald right-leaning; they are simply staying true to the left-wing values they've held for decades.

cycomanic 6y ago
Well Greenwald has been posting some antimigration articles messages using language that skims very close to hard-right wording. Maybe he doesn't neatly fit into the (American) left/right schema, but by now he is mainly just a "bad media" propagandist. Also I can't take anyone seriously who claims to criticise mainstream media (almost always the more Liberal slanted one), but goes regularly on Tucker Carlsson without ever seriously criticising them. To see how to properly criticise Fox and Tucker search for the leaked interview with rudger bergman.
- merricksb 6y ago
  > Greenwald has been posting some antimigration articles messages using language that skims very close to hard-right wording That’s an inflammatory claim, that needs direct quotes/links to be taken seriously. But lest it be forgotten that there has long been an acceptance among traditional left-wingers (including Bernie until it became unacceptable to too many of his followers) of the need for some immigration controls in order to protect the most vulnerable workers, and historically the loudest voices for open borders are Laissez-faire/social-Darwinist libertarians, most notably the Kochs. > Maybe he doesn't neatly fit into the (American) left/right schema I think this is quite false: he fits into the traditional left/right spectrum as a bona-fide leftist. It’s the mainstream Democratic Party that has moved towards corporatism and militarism. > regularly on Tucker Carlsson without ever seriously criticising them What would it change for him to criticize them; to try to impress the people who would still hate him anyway? Carlson gives him airtime and the opportunity to express his position to an audience of people whose minds he might be able to change about a few things. Why waste that opportunity with token criticism?
  - cycomanic 6y ago
    >> Greenwald has been posting some antimigration articles messages using language that skims very close to hard-right wording >That’s an inflammatory claim, that needs direct quotes/links to be taken seriously. But lest it be forgotten that there has long been an acceptance among traditional left-wingers (including Bernie until it became unacceptable to too many of his followers) of the need for some immigration controls in order to protect the most vulnerable workers, and historically the loudest voices for open borders are Laissez-faire/social-Darwinist libertarians, most notably the Kochs. Maybe in the context of what counts as left in the US. But the socialist left movement was always an international movement (I give you three guesses what the anthem is called). Regarding some of the Greenwalds words: "Current illegal immigration – whereby unmanageably endless hordes of people pour over the border in numbers far too large to assimilate, and who consequently have no need, motivation or ability to assimilate – renders impossible the preservation of any national identity" http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2005/12/yelling-racist-as-argument-in.html http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2005/12/yelling-racist-as... Calling immigrants "hordes" is quite definitely language that is what I consider "hard-right". It dehumanises people and tries to instil fear and a violent counter-reaction. >> Maybe he doesn't neatly fit into the (American) left/right schema >I think this is quite false: he fits into the traditional left/right spectrum as a bona-fide leftist. It’s the mainstream Democratic Party that has moved towards corporatism and militarism. The mainstream democratic party was never not corporatist and militaristic. There has not been a change. However, I'm interested what in your eye's qualifies Greenwald as a bona-fide leftist (whatever that means) >> regularly on Tucker Carlsson without ever seriously criticising them > What would it change for him to criticize them; to try to impress the people who would still hate him anyway? Carlson gives him airtime and the opportunity to express his position to an audience of people whose minds he might be able to change about a few things. Why waste that opportunity with token criticism? Funny, he does criticise the NYT and many other media outlets though. But you're not wrong, he can express his position to an audience, but he's not trying to change minds, he actually agrees with much that Tucker Carlson says. That means he agrees with the agenda of a billionaire who has been using his media to clearly push a neocon, hard-right agenda worldwide. Considering that Greenwald is somehow building this persona of a media critic who points out the "agenda" of mainstream media, it is somewhat contradictory to go on those shows without a word of criticism and without blinking an eye.
Thorrez 6y ago
Thanks for the comment. I see now it was more complicated than I originally thought. I don't think Greenwald fits cleanly into the US political alignment, and I think that's a good thing. Blind partisanship alignment often causes a lot of bickering and anger toward the other side.

cycomanic 6y ago

Well Greenwald has been posting some antimigration articles messages using language that skims very close to hard-right wording. Maybe he doesn't neatly fit into the (American) left/right schema, but by now he is mainly just a "bad media" propagandist. Also I can't take anyone seriously who claims to criticise mainstream media (almost always the more Liberal slanted one), but goes regularly on Tucker Carlsson without ever seriously criticising them. To see how to properly criticise Fox and Tucker search for the leaked interview with rudger bergman.

merricksb 6y ago
> Greenwald has been posting some antimigration articles messages using language that skims very close to hard-right wording That’s an inflammatory claim, that needs direct quotes/links to be taken seriously. But lest it be forgotten that there has long been an acceptance among traditional left-wingers (including Bernie until it became unacceptable to too many of his followers) of the need for some immigration controls in order to protect the most vulnerable workers, and historically the loudest voices for open borders are Laissez-faire/social-Darwinist libertarians, most notably the Kochs. > Maybe he doesn't neatly fit into the (American) left/right schema I think this is quite false: he fits into the traditional left/right spectrum as a bona-fide leftist. It’s the mainstream Democratic Party that has moved towards corporatism and militarism. > regularly on Tucker Carlsson without ever seriously criticising them What would it change for him to criticize them; to try to impress the people who would still hate him anyway? Carlson gives him airtime and the opportunity to express his position to an audience of people whose minds he might be able to change about a few things. Why waste that opportunity with token criticism?
- cycomanic 6y ago
  >> Greenwald has been posting some antimigration articles messages using language that skims very close to hard-right wording >That’s an inflammatory claim, that needs direct quotes/links to be taken seriously. But lest it be forgotten that there has long been an acceptance among traditional left-wingers (including Bernie until it became unacceptable to too many of his followers) of the need for some immigration controls in order to protect the most vulnerable workers, and historically the loudest voices for open borders are Laissez-faire/social-Darwinist libertarians, most notably the Kochs. Maybe in the context of what counts as left in the US. But the socialist left movement was always an international movement (I give you three guesses what the anthem is called). Regarding some of the Greenwalds words: "Current illegal immigration – whereby unmanageably endless hordes of people pour over the border in numbers far too large to assimilate, and who consequently have no need, motivation or ability to assimilate – renders impossible the preservation of any national identity" http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2005/12/yelling-racist-as-argument-in.html http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2005/12/yelling-racist-as... Calling immigrants "hordes" is quite definitely language that is what I consider "hard-right". It dehumanises people and tries to instil fear and a violent counter-reaction. >> Maybe he doesn't neatly fit into the (American) left/right schema >I think this is quite false: he fits into the traditional left/right spectrum as a bona-fide leftist. It’s the mainstream Democratic Party that has moved towards corporatism and militarism. The mainstream democratic party was never not corporatist and militaristic. There has not been a change. However, I'm interested what in your eye's qualifies Greenwald as a bona-fide leftist (whatever that means) >> regularly on Tucker Carlsson without ever seriously criticising them > What would it change for him to criticize them; to try to impress the people who would still hate him anyway? Carlson gives him airtime and the opportunity to express his position to an audience of people whose minds he might be able to change about a few things. Why waste that opportunity with token criticism? Funny, he does criticise the NYT and many other media outlets though. But you're not wrong, he can express his position to an audience, but he's not trying to change minds, he actually agrees with much that Tucker Carlson says. That means he agrees with the agenda of a billionaire who has been using his media to clearly push a neocon, hard-right agenda worldwide. Considering that Greenwald is somehow building this persona of a media critic who points out the "agenda" of mainstream media, it is somewhat contradictory to go on those shows without a word of criticism and without blinking an eye.

Thorrez 6y ago

Thanks for the comment. I see now it was more complicated than I originally thought. I don't think Greenwald fits cleanly into the US political alignment, and I think that's a good thing. Blind partisanship alignment often causes a lot of bickering and anger toward the other side.