8 ms·

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 tarn

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)
    - rayiner 13y ago
      You don't even need to look to Europe. Just look to American politics in the 1970's. I'll give a very concrete example of an issue I happen to care about: environmentalism. In the 1960's and 1970's, the environmental movement was about protecting nature for the value of nature itself. The Wilderness Act of 1964 uses the language: "A wilderness, in contrast with those areas where man and his own works dominate the landscape, is hereby recognized as an area where the earth and community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain." Today, the intellectual mainstream of the movement has shifted to neoclassical economic justifications: the value of environmental services provided by e.g. wetlands and mountain ranges, the potential economic costs of climate change, market failures resulting from the externalities of pollution. The progressivism and idealism is gone, replaced with detailed analysis of how pro-environment policies fit into our existing economic and value structure.

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)
  - rayiner 13y ago
    You don't even need to look to Europe. Just look to American politics in the 1970's. I'll give a very concrete example of an issue I happen to care about: environmentalism. In the 1960's and 1970's, the environmental movement was about protecting nature for the value of nature itself. The Wilderness Act of 1964 uses the language: "A wilderness, in contrast with those areas where man and his own works dominate the landscape, is hereby recognized as an area where the earth and community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain." Today, the intellectual mainstream of the movement has shifted to neoclassical economic justifications: the value of environmental services provided by e.g. wetlands and mountain ranges, the potential economic costs of climate change, market failures resulting from the externalities of pollution. The progressivism and idealism is gone, replaced with detailed analysis of how pro-environment policies fit into our existing economic and value structure.