6 ms·

The fact that someone is using an argument that was also used at one point in time by someone who has a loose relationship with the truth (like Cheney) doesn't

The fact that someone is using an argument that was also used at one point in time by someone who has a loose relationship with the truth (like Cheney) doesn't make that person today into an automatic liar. If the argument was wrong when used 7-8 years ago in a somewhat different context, it's not automatically also wrong in today's context. Peter King and Michelle Bachmann might be bozos, but on the rare occasions where they agree with you it doesn't mean you are also a bozo by some sort of associative property. This seems like the most illogical of smears, to say that because person A and B have the same opinion on a single topic they are similar in all natures (reminding me of the billboards touting the fact that the Unabomber believed in global warming).

_delirium 13y ago
I agree it's not a logically consistent argument, but I read it as slightly different from the Unabomber-believed-in-global-warming arguments, which try to tarnish a position with a universally unpopular figure (the smoking-bans-were-first-proposed-by-Hitler argument is similar). This argument is more along the lines of alleging that "our" side sold us out by taking up the other side's positions. Among Republicans, "the GOP establishment has sold us out by taking up traditionally liberal positions" is an argument that comes up now and then, and among Democrats, you see its opposite, "the Democratic establishment has sold us out by taking up traditionally conservative positions". Greenwald is basically taking the 2nd view, writing an op-ed for Democrats arguing that their leadership is in cahoots with tough-on-national-security conservatives, rather than fighting for liberal values.
- brown9-2 13y ago
  It's not clear to me that the opposition of the "Democratic establishment" in 2005 was so much the idea of wiretapping some Americans by the NSA, but the fact that it was done without warrants nor was it authorized under any existing law. It seems like Congress resolved most of that opposition in the 2008 version of FISA. It's also worth pointing out that the warrantless wiretapping program of 2001-2005 and the current wiretapping authorized under 2008 FISA aren't really the same issue as what the Amash amendment yesterday would have defunded (the collection of phone metadata under section 215 of the Patriot Act). Greenwald is somewhat mixing the issues and reducing this to an issue of just "should the NSA be able to surveil Americans?".
- rayiner 13y ago
  What liberal values? The democrats strongly supported the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, supported the passing and continuation of the Patriot Act, etc. They embraced their status as the "party of the guy that killed Osama" in the 2012 election. And this isn't a new phenomenon. The Democrats moved hard to the right with Clinton, and have ever since become a solidly center-right party with a social-liberal streak. As a practical matter, that was the only thing that could win elections with a voting population that was solidly center-right.
  - RyanMcGreal 13y ago
    > What liberal values? The democrats strongly supported... Democrats are moderate conservatives, not liberals. There are no liberal parties - and certainly no left-wing parties - anywhere in the American mainstream.
    - astine 13y ago
      People need to stop applying the terms "right" and "left" to politics as if they had objective meaning. There was a time that right wing meant monarchist and left wing meant democrat. Then there came a time when right wing meant imperialist-capitalist and left wing meant Marxist. The terms shift in meaning constantly and always simply refer to the two major factions in power at any time.
    - adventured 13y ago
      I happen to agree with this, and I have a question about it if you wouldn't mind answering. Can you elaborate on some policies that a truly liberal party would promote (that we don't see in the US)? Numerous countries in Europe have what are often defined as highly liberal parties by American standards. What do they do, what policies do they champion, that the liberal wing of the Democrat Party in the US doesn't? And so on. (and by liberal here, I'm speaking of what's considered a modern left wing party by European standards (or "socialist" in some circles); versus classic liberalism that would have defined the near laissez-faire capitalism of the 19th century)
      - 13y ago
cmiles74 13y ago
That strikes me as a particularly reductive interpretation of an article that covers a lot of ground. Certainly it's entertaining and funny in a dry, cynical way to point out and laugh at the fact that M. Bachmann is a strong supporter of the NSA and their surveillance policies. Still, if she's bringing the same critical mind to bear on this issue that she sharpened on HPV vaccination, I wouldn't hold it against anyone to be suspicious of her facts and motives. I do think the flocking of these republicans to the NSA's (and by association Obama's) defense indicates the source of a bad smell. You're right, even a broken clock is right twice a day and having the conservatives who once opposed you rush to your defense doesn't automatically mean you've changed all your opinions. On the other hand it does strike me as a good enough reason to be suspicious.
glesica 13y ago
You completely misunderstood his point, did you even read the article? His point is that the popular consensus that Washington is gridlocked by partisan warfare is a myth. In reality, the Democrats and Republicans aren't at war with each other, they agree on quite a lot. The real fight is between establishment politicians and insurgent, more principled members of each party. He uses Bachmann and King as examples of supposedly "extreme" partisans who, according to popular legend, hate Obama on some deep, emotional level and would never support him no matter what he did. Yet yesterday we saw the two of them speak out in favor of the administration and its unchecked power. At the same time, we saw Pelsoi and company, who are painted in the popular press as hardcore liberals (and perhaps even attempts to cultivate such a perception) siding with not only Bachmann and King, but also with the general outlook on the world held by Cheney and his gang. All of this goes to support Greenwald's thesis (given at the beginning and the end, so I'm not sure how you missed it) that the real warfare in Washington is between establishment authoritarians, and those who have become weary (and wary) of the unchecked national security state, not between Republicans and Democrats as is frequently portrayed in the media. This is actually a thesis that Greenwald has been hammering on for many years, in case you haven't read much of his stuff until recently.
- jivatmanx 13y ago
  >All of this goes to support Greenwald's thesis (given at the beginning and the end, so I'm not sure how you missed it) that the real warfare in Washington is between establishment authoritarians, and those who have become weary (and wary) of the unchecked national security state, not between Republicans and Democrats as is frequently portrayed in the media. "The real division is not between conservatives and revolutionaries but between authoritarians and libertarians. " -George Orwell

_delirium 13y ago

I agree it's not a logically consistent argument, but I read it as slightly different from the Unabomber-believed-in-global-warming arguments, which try to tarnish a position with a universally unpopular figure (the smoking-bans-were-first-proposed-by-Hitler argument is similar). This argument is more along the lines of alleging that "our" side sold us out by taking up the other side's positions. Among Republicans, "the GOP establishment has sold us out by taking up traditionally liberal positions" is an argument that comes up now and then, and among Democrats, you see its opposite, "the Democratic establishment has sold us out by taking up traditionally conservative positions". Greenwald is basically taking the 2nd view, writing an op-ed for Democrats arguing that their leadership is in cahoots with tough-on-national-security conservatives, rather than fighting for liberal values.

brown9-2 13y ago
It's not clear to me that the opposition of the "Democratic establishment" in 2005 was so much the idea of wiretapping some Americans by the NSA, but the fact that it was done without warrants nor was it authorized under any existing law. It seems like Congress resolved most of that opposition in the 2008 version of FISA. It's also worth pointing out that the warrantless wiretapping program of 2001-2005 and the current wiretapping authorized under 2008 FISA aren't really the same issue as what the Amash amendment yesterday would have defunded (the collection of phone metadata under section 215 of the Patriot Act). Greenwald is somewhat mixing the issues and reducing this to an issue of just "should the NSA be able to surveil Americans?".
rayiner 13y ago
What liberal values? The democrats strongly supported the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, supported the passing and continuation of the Patriot Act, etc. They embraced their status as the "party of the guy that killed Osama" in the 2012 election. And this isn't a new phenomenon. The Democrats moved hard to the right with Clinton, and have ever since become a solidly center-right party with a social-liberal streak. As a practical matter, that was the only thing that could win elections with a voting population that was solidly center-right.
- RyanMcGreal 13y ago
  > What liberal values? The democrats strongly supported... Democrats are moderate conservatives, not liberals. There are no liberal parties - and certainly no left-wing parties - anywhere in the American mainstream.
  - astine 13y ago
    People need to stop applying the terms "right" and "left" to politics as if they had objective meaning. There was a time that right wing meant monarchist and left wing meant democrat. Then there came a time when right wing meant imperialist-capitalist and left wing meant Marxist. The terms shift in meaning constantly and always simply refer to the two major factions in power at any time.
  - adventured 13y ago
    I happen to agree with this, and I have a question about it if you wouldn't mind answering. Can you elaborate on some policies that a truly liberal party would promote (that we don't see in the US)? Numerous countries in Europe have what are often defined as highly liberal parties by American standards. What do they do, what policies do they champion, that the liberal wing of the Democrat Party in the US doesn't? And so on. (and by liberal here, I'm speaking of what's considered a modern left wing party by European standards (or "socialist" in some circles); versus classic liberalism that would have defined the near laissez-faire capitalism of the 19th century)
    - 13y ago

cmiles74 13y ago

That strikes me as a particularly reductive interpretation of an article that covers a lot of ground. Certainly it's entertaining and funny in a dry, cynical way to point out and laugh at the fact that M. Bachmann is a strong supporter of the NSA and their surveillance policies. Still, if she's bringing the same critical mind to bear on this issue that she sharpened on HPV vaccination, I wouldn't hold it against anyone to be suspicious of her facts and motives. I do think the flocking of these republicans to the NSA's (and by association Obama's) defense indicates the source of a bad smell. You're right, even a broken clock is right twice a day and having the conservatives who once opposed you rush to your defense doesn't automatically mean you've changed all your opinions. On the other hand it does strike me as a good enough reason to be suspicious.

glesica 13y ago

You completely misunderstood his point, did you even read the article? His point is that the popular consensus that Washington is gridlocked by partisan warfare is a myth. In reality, the Democrats and Republicans aren't at war with each other, they agree on quite a lot. The real fight is between establishment politicians and insurgent, more principled members of each party. He uses Bachmann and King as examples of supposedly "extreme" partisans who, according to popular legend, hate Obama on some deep, emotional level and would never support him no matter what he did. Yet yesterday we saw the two of them speak out in favor of the administration and its unchecked power. At the same time, we saw Pelsoi and company, who are painted in the popular press as hardcore liberals (and perhaps even attempts to cultivate such a perception) siding with not only Bachmann and King, but also with the general outlook on the world held by Cheney and his gang. All of this goes to support Greenwald's thesis (given at the beginning and the end, so I'm not sure how you missed it) that the real warfare in Washington is between establishment authoritarians, and those who have become weary (and wary) of the unchecked national security state, not between Republicans and Democrats as is frequently portrayed in the media. This is actually a thesis that Greenwald has been hammering on for many years, in case you haven't read much of his stuff until recently.

jivatmanx 13y ago
>All of this goes to support Greenwald's thesis (given at the beginning and the end, so I'm not sure how you missed it) that the real warfare in Washington is between establishment authoritarians, and those who have become weary (and wary) of the unchecked national security state, not between Republicans and Democrats as is frequently portrayed in the media. "The real division is not between conservatives and revolutionaries but between authoritarians and libertarians. " -George Orwell