Has Glenn Greenwald ever explained why he's a libertarian and not a liberal?

[LoZoccolo]

[FarLeftFist]

1. When he backed the wars. No, when he backed Citizens United. No, wait...

When he backed Ron Paul. I guess forever.

[Luminous Animal]

5. Here is what Greenwald feels about Citizens United.

But I also think that whatever solutions we try and find for that need to be consistent with the clear constitutional prescriptions of the First Amendment, and allowing the government to ban or regulate corporations from speaking out on elections, to me, seems very problematic.

So I think there are ways around it. I think public financing of campaigns can equalize the playing field. I think some constitutional amendment might be viable, but I do think it’s a very difficult question constitutionally to allow the government to start saying who can speak about our elections and who can’t. So, I think the First Amendment needs to be just as honored as the Fifth Amendment when we talk about these issues."

"
http://www.alternet.org/rights/145610/dennis_kucinich_vs._glenn_greenwald%3A_is_citizens_united_a_deathblow_for_democracy_or_a_1st_amendment_victory/

He believes it was correctly decided within the structure of our current system and that it is the system itself that should be changed.

And he has repeatedly said (and has written many paragraphs stating such) that he does not support Ron Paul. Thus, you are catapulting a baseless smear.

[FarLeftFist]

7. Except he's dead wrong IMHO.

He failed to recognize that our founders were concerned about freedom of speech for the “People” of America, not the words presented by non-human corporations, PACs or labor unions. The Bill of Rights, by definition, protects the “individual” rights of American citizens (persons).

[Luminous Animal]

9. The founders did not expect that the Supreme Court would use the 14th Amendment

to justify "personhood" for corporations. Once that happened, all sorts of case law for 100 years set a legal precedent for Citizens United. That is why Greenwald feels that there could be a Constitutional Amendment solution.

But I am curious, are you also advocating that organizations like the NAACP, the ACLU, Planned Parenthood, the Sierra Club, etc.... also be barred from political speech? Because they are incorporated, as well.

[FarLeftFist]

11. It wouldn't be such a problem if...

It wouldn't be such a problem if a corpration were allowed one vote and was restricted to a $2500 campaign contribution like an ordinary citizen, but when they are allowed to contribute unlimited funds and influence elections through s-pacs that doesn't sound like any citizen I know of. And the whole Cato institute thing, ON TOP of being a war supporter. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, and I do agree with Glenn on many things as well as disagree but let's be honest, Glenn is NOT a Liberal.

Edit: I take Glenn with a grain of salt, I'm not a fan nor am I a hater. It is what it is. If Glenn wants to appeal more to someone like me and get on my good side (which I doubt, why would he?) maybe I'll reconsider after he fights to help more Libs/Progressives elected. Possibly even an Obama endorsement (I won't be holding my breathe though).

[Luminous Animal]

17. He wrote two articles for the Cato institute in 6 years and appeared on a anti-drug war panel

sponsored by Cato. Markos from Daily Kos also wrote for Cato. Will you smear him with that, too? David Brock of Media Matters was a Republican operative, will you smear him with that, too? There is one very active prominent ex-Bush supporter on this board; if you don't know already, I can PM you the name, will you smear that person, too? I'm not sure why you expect Glenn to work for electoral politics. He never has. He is as hard on Democrats in regards to civil liberties as he was with Republicans. That is what he writes about. That is where both his expertise and passion lies.

It was the Bush admin's gross overreach that led him to a broader political awakening and become a defender of civil liberties beyond his private practice sphere. It was what inspired him to write "How Would a Patriot Act", slamming the Bush/Cheney admin on nearly every page. And during the Bush years, he was smeared unmercifully for doing so. He is a proponent of the Civil Rights act and, in terms of any expansion of civil rights, a proponent of big government (i.e., the Federal govt.) to not only take the lead but be responsible for enforcement. That is a liberal position. The conservative position a free-for-all states rights on those issues.

If LIBERAL means implicitly or actively supporting global war, indefinite detention for ANY human being, drone attacks on any citizen in any country (with the inevitable slaughter of innocents), immunity for corporations that spy on citizens, secret warrants on U.S. citizens issued in secret, and acceptance of 2nd class citizenship for the GLBTQ community then I don't want to be labeled a liberal, either.

[FarLeftFist]

20. I'm not looking to smear anyone, the whole point of my post was

That I don't really give a shit FOR or AGAINST him. You're the only one here taking sides. I ADMITTED that I AGREE with him on some posts, yet I also ADMITTED that I DISAGREE with him. Not everything is black and white. I'm a free-thinking individual, like I said, I take him with a grain of salt. Am I not allowed my own opinion?! Greenwald has gotten it wrong on many occasions so forgive me if I take him as skeptical. But on the other hand I admire that he owns up to his mistakes. Just not my thing to go into worship mode.

[Luminous Animal]

28. And yet, you seem eager to associate him with the Cato institute despite the FACT

that his only association are 2 articles in 6 years one of which is addressing the racist drug war. In my opinion, he is a champion for doing so.

I've had disagreements with Greenwald, as well. Word for word on his blog and recently face to face at a book reading. But, I still maintain associating him with the Cato Institute is a deliberate smear. Now, if people would say... "he wrote with the Cato Institute on drug decriminalization (and more specifically the successful decriminalization in Portugal)" then a reader would have a more informed basis on which to judge him. As it stands, merely claiming that he WORKED WITH CATO (OMG) is dishonest.

[FarLeftFist]

29. Yeah, but the entire thread in regards to the OP is about whether he is a Liberal or

Libertarian. Hence, the CATO institute. All I'm saying is, lets not put it past him.

Edit: There are many grounds which Liberals and Libertarians DO see eye to eye, which is why it makes you wonder.

[Luminous Animal]

31. Nope. The OP asserts that he is a libertarian.

YOU use the his drug decriminalization association with the Cato institute as evidence that perhaps he is. If the reactionary right wing Heritage Foundation contacted me tomorrow and asked me to investigate and write a white paper on the benefits for drug criminalization using Portugal as a model, I'd do it in a second. In the western world, drug decriminalization in Portugal is the model and deserves any and all promotion that it can get. In the battle against the racist drug war there are few enemies in the foxhole.

On a personal note, me... a GBLTQ activist and a bi woman have worked on economic justice issues with women who are members of a congregation whose preacher rails against the GBLTQ community. For the most part, I ignored their preachers bigotry and focused on my relationship with them in order to advance our common goal. On the converse, as an atheist, I've worked with activist nuns on housing issues who, I am certain, abided with my atheist self.

[MicaelS]

15. IMO, the best solution is the Constitutional Amendment proposed by

Reclaim Democracy.org http://reclaimdemocracy.org/political_reform/proposed_constitutional_amendments.html

An Amendment to Preclude Corporations from Claiming Bill of Rights Protections

SECTION 1. The U.S. Constitution protects only the rights of living human beings.

SECTION 2. Corporations and other institutions granted the privilege to exist shall be subordinate to any and all laws enacted by citizens and their elected governments.

SECTION 3. Corporations and other for-profit institutions are prohibited from attempting to influence the outcome of elections, legislation or government policy through the use of aggregate resources or by rewarding or repaying employees or directors to exert such influence.

SECTION 4. Congress shall have power to implement this article by appropriate legislation.

If it is a corporation involved in for-profit affairs, then their speech can be completely regulated. Non-profits would be partially exempted by this. I would still have a maximum amount non-profits could donate to any single candidate or party.

[Luminous Animal]

18. The problem with that is that there is nothing stopping 200 billionaires from creating a not-for-

profit institution and funneling money through that.

[Saving Hawaii]

26. I was just gonna create 1 million corporations and funnel $2.5 billion in campaign contributions

[dsc]

16. the fact is even taking corporations out of it

the fact is a citizen's united that permits unlimited funding of elections is just as problematic. Newt's superpac is funded by one person as was Huntsman's. Romney's is a bit more broad but not much.

[quaker bill]

13. Money is not speech

Money is money, speech is speech.

If we required the candidates to wear the logos of their corporate sponsors, then money might be speech. If he was "Exxon Mobil" Mitt Romney, or Newt "Haliburton" Gingrich, then it might make sense. Alternately we could have the "Dow Chemical" party, or the "Monsanto" party, or the Senator from "GE". Speech is when you stand for something and put your name on it.

[Luminous Animal]

14. How do you restrict people from using money to purchase the means to amplify speech?

How would you stop incorporated organizations like the ACLU, the NAACP, Planned Parenthood, MoveOn, the Sierra Club, etc. from using money to amplify their positions or to endorse candidates?

[FarLeftFist]

21. How about instead of UNLIMITED we use LIMITED.

[Luminous Animal]

25. Yes. That is precisely what was ruled against by SCOTUS and

why people, like Greenwald advocate for public funding and/or a Constitutional solution.

[quaker bill]

35. From my experience

Organizations like "the ACLU, the NAACP, Planned Parenthood, MoveOn, the Sierra Club" have no problem putting their name on whatever they are saying. If the source of the $ is properly and fully disclosed, I have no problem with them airing their issues however they like. My concern is the "People for Economic Progress" type front groups, that have no real people (beyond paid staff), and are just a shelter for big business money. If BP and Exxon Mobil want to run a campaign to get leases on Florida beaches for oil drilling, that is fine, they should just do it as "BP" and "Exxon Mobil", (and watch their sales numbers plummet) not as some faux "People for Energy Independence"...

Speech is something "you" say, "for attribution". Back in the day, you stood up on a soapbox in the public square and said your bit, (occasionally folks would argue or throw rotten fruit). Alternately you wrote it for publication with your name on it. This is the speech the constitution intended to protect. Have enough pride in what you are saying to confess to being the author.

This is why "the ACLU, the NAACP, Planned Parenthood, MoveOn, the Sierra Club" generally stick to the truth, because they put their name on it.

[Saving Hawaii]

27. We already had the Senator from Boeing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_M._Jackson

[quaker bill]

36. I am sure that is true

But I bet they still called him the "Distinguished Senator from Washington". Perhaps calling him the "Distinguished Senator from Boeing" would have made things more clear.

[Luminous Animal]

2. He's never claimed to be a libertarian. He calls himself a civil libertarian which is not the

same as a libertarian.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

3. Glenn Greenwald threads are SO last week.

[BlueCaliDem]

6. So is the wailing and kvetching about Obama.

Actually, that's so 2008, but apparently there are still too many here that keep the hate alive.

Glenn Greenwald is a fake, and he refuses to unmask his true face, which is far right to President Obama. It's no secret slippery Glenn claimed the glass is half full when he supported Bush (I love my country, and Bush is the president of my country), and then Gary Johnson, and now Ron Paul, the most CONservative U.S. Rep since 1937 - yes, that would include Cheney, and the glass is always, always empty when it comes to President Obama. You don't have a problem with that?

[BlueCaliDem]

4. He's never come out to say he was a Liberal, either, I believe

because then he'd lost a LOT of readers for his blog.

Good point, LZ.

[Enrique]

8. he doesnt write about himself

he writes mostly about legal issues.

[whatchamacallit]

10. Has LoZoccolo ever explained why

he's a ___________?

[rhett o rick]

12. Do you have something to say or are you just trying to start a

fight here?

[Jakes Progress]

22. Well, duh.

Surely that isn't a serious question. Rumor and innuendo and canard spreading. All in a days work here.

[rhett o rick]

23. You are right. I should put him on ignore. nm

[LoZoccolo]

30. Could I ask that of people who post his columns?

[rhett o rick]

38. But of course. Do you have a link to substanciate the claim that

Mr. Greenwald is a Libertarian?

[Wind Dancer]

19. These Greenwald threads are getting ridiculous!

You could have asked in one of the hundreds already posted. Geez!

[hobbit709]

24. does anyone really care?

[Tarheel_Dem]

32. He's a phoney, and not even a very good one. He has been unmasked.

[Luminous Animal]

34. He's Bruce Wayne? Holy shit!

[Tarheel_Dem]

37. Not Bruce Wayne, just your average run of the mill asshat who makes his living dubiously.

[slay]

33. I'm sure it has something to do with

K&R if you like ... or something like that. Seems to be the only thing some people round here think important.