By Tina Grazier
I once wrote that America would only begin to unite when honest people on the left began to acknowledge the irresponsible and unethical methods they have used to smear and defeat their political opponents. I’m delighted to report a small, but quite significant, step in that direction this morning.
Writing for Salon, Glenn Greenwald dared to boldly take that important step in his piece, “Repulsive Progressive Hypocrisy.” My hat’s off to him:
During the Bush years, Guantanamo was the core symbol of right-wing radicalism and what was back then referred to as the “assault on American values and the shredding of our Constitution”: so much so then when Barack Obama ran for President, he featured these issues not as a secondary but as a central plank in his campaign. But now that there is a Democrat in office presiding over Guantanamo and these other polices — rather than a big, bad, scary Republican — all of that has changed…
He goes on to site a Washington Post/ABC poll that shows “53 percent of self-identified liberal Democrats — and 67 percent of moderate or conservative Democrats — support keeping Guantanamo Bay open, even though it emerged as a symbol of the post-Sept. 11 national security policies of George W. Bush, which many liberals bitterly opposed.”
Mr. Greenwald’s criticism doesn’t stop with Guantanamo. He goes on to list the various war related issues that liberals now embrace even when some have been expanded under Obama and even after excoriating the Bush administration for these policies.
My hat is off to Greenwald. He hasn’t changed his positions, nor should he unless he honestly comes to a different understanding, but his acknowledgement of the hypocrisy of the progressive left does open a door that could lead to less sensational and visceral debate, reporting, and campaigning. It could signal the end to Saul Alinski methods to ruin opponents. It could lead to greater honesty and openness in ever day discourse and debate. These in turn could lead to an American public that is better educated and informed about the issues of the day. It could result in candidates being thoroughly vetted so that voters are given a clear picture of every candidate in every party. It could even lead to a united American experience; the experience that disagreement is expected and encouraged but at the end of the day we are all Americans interested in a strong America.
The real test will come later, when we see where Mr. Greenwald is working next year or if he is still working.
Tina: “I once wrote that America would only begin to unite when honest people on the left began to acknowledge the irresponsible and unethical methods they have used to smear and defeat their political opponents.”
Only people on the left? Do you believe that people on the right have not used irresponsible and unethical methods to smear and defeat their opponents?
I am glad you cited Glenn Greenwald. He is right, and he has been one of the few voices on the left who has consistently gone after President Obama for his violations of promises and his violations of civil liberties. Most liberals have given Obama a free pass on these issues, and that is completely hypocritical.
Not sure what you mean, Jack. Greenwald has long been a critic of Obama, and has been working for Salon for as long as I can remember. The site has many others who criticize the president from a progressive standpoint as well. I don’t think he is in any danger of being fired for his views. But maybe that’s not what you meant.
“I once wrote that America would only begin to unite when honest people on the left began to acknowledge the irresponsible and unethical methods they have used to smear and defeat their political opponents.”
Oh, please. Does the name Donald Henry Segretti ring a bell? You are old enough, but conservative, and as we now know, of limited capacities. More recently: Karl Rove, remember him? There’s an honorable political operative for you.
(snip)
How’s that for imagery?
And, wait a minute … aren’t you a member of that weaselly America too (snip) to have these boys imprisoned and tried (ostensibly) on American soil? Yes, I think that was you “conservatives” who passed some piece of (snip) legislation that made it politically impossible to close the place.
I am annoyed … seriously.
Libs… I’m pretty sure you can be frustrated and yet manage a reply without being mean, so why be mean? We have our differences for sure, but we also have more things in common…including a love of country. We’re all in the same life boat.
This is what happens when you take to censorship. Folk are moved to push those boundaries, and buttons, just for fun.
And you don’t really expect anything like a “poor put-upon you” … do you? Seriously? With your track record, politically speaking?
Ol’ Karl is still hard at work, you know. The splendid thing is … he’s industriously working to thin the Republican field.
Libby: “You are old enough, but conservative, and as we now know, of limited capacities…”
True to colors, you sweet thing, claws out brain disengaged.
Segretti and friends paid a heavy price, if you recall.
” I think that was you “conservatives” who passed some piece of (snip) legislation that made it politically impossible to close the place.”
You self identify as the “bright ones” but somehow everything is always someone else’s fault; a childs position.
If all it takes is a “piece of (snip) legislation” just have old Pelosi/Reid write something up and then bribe a few people behind closed doors…poof!…the “political” possibility will be there!
GWB did what needed to be done for national security. He complied with demands of legal challengers and had Congress write new law to comply with the courts ruling.
Obummer’s motivation was, is, and has always been, purely political…and you, of course, continue to discuss with the same nasty intent to demonize and discredit with distortion, lies, and contempt.
Tina, I’m hoping you will answer the question I asked earlier:
“Only people on the left? Do you believe that people on the right have not used irresponsible and unethical methods to smear and defeat their opponents?”
Chris: “Only people on the left? Do you believe that people on the right have not used irresponsible and unethical methods to smear and defeat their opponents?”
I didn’t write “only people on the left”. And no, I don’t think there haven’t been people on the right that have used irresponsible and unethical methods.
What has been true is that people on the left have been aided and abetted by a lock-step media until quite recently giving them cover. Also, the right does not have a manual of such methods or organized groups being taught in such methods, as the left does. If you can find a manual that rivals Saul Alinski’s “Rules for Radicals” I’ll gladly say I am wrong. The closest I’ve ever seen was a little 3×4 pamphlet put out by David Horowitz. As far as I know we don’t have community organizers teaching from that pamphlet but even if we did it’s more a manual for counter argument than destruction of opponent.
I once wrote that America would only begin to unite when honest people on the left began to acknowledge the irresponsible and unethical methods they have used to smear and defeat their political opponents.”