Glenn Greenwald Is Not A Liberal. He Says Bush Was Not Conservative

[TomCADem]

I understand that many folks admire Glenn Greenwald, but why do so many describe him as a liberal or from the left. If you read his book, "How Would A Patriot Act?" he is more of a libertarian. Not one of those crazy Ron Paul type libertarians, but a more of a civil libertarian. So, feel free to discuss his views, but I have yet to see Glenn describe himself as a liberal. Instead, when he criticizes President Obama, the media tends to describe him as a liberal. He is not.

Specifically, Glenn Greenwald has described himself as neither liberal nor conservative but as one who had taken positions that can be ascribed to both liberals and conservatives. He was post-partisan before Obama as noted in the preface to his book, "How Would a Patriot Act?":

http://www.workingforchange.com/webgraphics/HowWouldAPatriot_preface.pdf

Indeed, Glenn makes an argument made by many Republicans that the Bush presidency was doomed because it strayed from classic conservativism. Thus, the key is for Republicans to be more conservative. As explained by Glenn Greenwald:

http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/01/bush-followers-are-not-conservatives.html

It has long been clear that there is nothing remotely "conservative" about this Administration, at least in the sense that conservative ideology has stood for a restrained Federal Government which was to be distrusted. There has been a long line of decidedly un-conservative actions by this Administration -- from exploding discretionary domestic spending to record deficits to an emergency convening of the Federal Government to intervene in one woman’s end-of-life decisions to attempts to federalize, even constitutionalize, marriage laws – all of which could not be any more alien to what has been meant by "conservatism" for the past 40 years.

* * *
It is a mistake to think of the Bush Administration as "conservative." There is nothing remotely conservative about it. It resembles far more strongly a cult of personality which glorifies the authority of the leader and which desires no limits on his power. But regardless of what one thinks of what has long been referred to as "conservatism," there is a fundamental tension between that ideology and the beliefs of Bush followers.

[MrScorpio]

1. Bush was actually a fascist

But, that's neither here or there in regards to your point.

[TomCADem]

8. Well, I Actually Agree With You, But The Anti-Immigrant Tea Party Crop May Be Worse

Show me your papers? Deregulate oil?

Sharon Angle and the oath keepers?
Rand Paul and his disapproval of the Civil Rights Act?

Sadly, both Angle and Paul have a strong chance of winning, because the corporate media is generally ignoring their views.

As to your point, I think that many self-described conservatives are fascists. What is the difference?

[MrScorpio]

20. Point taken.

[Moochy]

2. Bush's budgets were not 'conservative' in any sense

Attempt at smearing Greenwald: FAILED

[TomCADem]

5. Those Are Glenn Greenwald's Own Words! Does He Ever Say He Is A Liberal?

This is my point. On Sunday news, we get conservadems supposedly representing the "left." Likewise, Glenn Greenwald is portrayed as a liberal, though he himself says that he is not. He has some conservative views and some liberal views.

Why is it that you are selectively listening to him? Do you have any link to Greenwald having an epiphany and saying that he is a liberal?

[Moochy]

10. No, I see your point about the Tee Vee Shows labelling him a liberal

no offense meant, but your reaction to the other thread that is getting so many rec's just looks desperate.

I don't care what the pundit shows label Greenwald... nor if he claims to be a Liberal. He cares more about accountability and justice than anyone in the white house, this much is clear: Moving Forward Looking Ahead, ignoring war crimes, jingoistic Empire must drone on in Afghanistan.

He writes a great muckraking column, and I generally appreciate his writing.

Occasionally it ventures into legalese but that's important these days to try and wade through, lest we become overly reliant on experts.

cheers

[TomCADem]

14. Sorry, Its Cool. But This My Pet Peeve. Same Goes For Jonanthan Turley...

Who actually does describe himself as a libertarian, yet he is mis-represented as a liberal whenever he attacks the Obama administration. Turley and Greenwald actually have pretty similar views from a civil liberties point of view.

Conversely, I have stopped watching Sunday news, because the "left" is almost always represented by the most conservative Democrats on Earth.

[Luminous Animal]

37. Turley describes himslef as having some libertarian views, some liberal, and some conservative.

http://jonathanturley.org/about/

Yes, he is misrepresented in the media, as are most civil libertarians who don't ally themselves to a political party, but he does not describe himself as a libertarian.

[scarletwoman]

3. As if "liberal" means a fucking thing, anyway.

Bush* was a radical, not a conservative.

And anyone who equates being a civil libertarian with "libertarianism" is too politically ignorant to bother with. Which is putting it kindly.

sw

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

4. Liberals..

"The Fascists will shoot you.
The conservatives will applaud the Fascists.
The moderates will watch the executions on TV.
The Liberals will cry over your grave and feel guilty for turning you in to the Fascists."

SDS saying.

[scarletwoman]

6. Sums it up quite elegantly.

:hi:

[readmoreoften]

11. And that's why I'm a socialist.

:hi:

[TheKentuckian]

7. Thank you!

Of course there is no such thing as a conservative Republican administration all they ever do is spend money on making the rich wealthy, increase imperialism, and try to stick their noses in individuals private affairs.

[TomCADem]

9. I Disagree. Most Republicans Self-Describe Themselves As "Conservatives"

I am not about to give "conservatives" a free pass when they belatedly say that Bush was not a conservative. Heck, I know one diehard "conservative" who once thought that Dubya would surpass Reagan in greatness. However, she now insists that Bush was not a real conservative.

Yet, how are the views of current conservatives any difference from those of the current Republican party. If anything, they are getting worse.

[TheKentuckian]

46. I'm certainly not giving them a pass. rater I dispute their existence

People that call themselves conservatives are regressives and usually radically so.

They don't aim to conserve anything but rather regress the nation to the gilded age or worse.

[Canuckistanian]

12. Bush was a dogmatic idiot

Sheer idiocy was his guiding principle. I doubt whether he had a personal conviction one way or the other.

He just did what others convinced him to do on any particular occasion.

For a historical precedent, look up "Reagan, Ronald"

[Stevenmarc]

13. He wasn't a conservative, he was a shill for the Corporatists and Fundamentalists

[TomCADem]

17. Okay then, Who Would You Describe As A True "Conservative"?

I am reluctant to let "conservatives" off the hook simply because their politicians don't live up to their rhetoric. Are there any elected leaders who are "true conservatives."

[Stevenmarc]

29. True Conservatives, they're all dead, I haven't seen one since William F. Buckley, Jr.

What passes for Conservatives now are a bunch of dogs that are wagged by the tail, they're Fox-a-cons that ride the wave of pre-packaged bullshit fed to their constituents, there isn't one original thinker among them.

[lordsummerisle]

15. WGAF

if he's not a liberal...he's a civil libertarian and he speaks truth to power on a regular basis.

[jgraz]

45. Nailed it.

[depakid]

16. He's absolutely right- there wasn't anything conservative about that administration

Unfortunately, people have come to equate the term with something that it isn't.

[Wandawilkerson]

18. Ask yourself: Who hates Greenwald? Answer: Conservatives and Corporatist Centrists

Who loves Greenwald? Liberals do.

Doesn't that tell you something? I am a liberal, and I find myself agreeing with Greenwald nearly 100% of the time.

[BzaDem]

19. Corporations hate Greenwald? Who SUPPORTS the decision that allows corporations to spend

unlimited amounts of money to advocate for the election or defeat of candidates?

Yeah, corporations must really hate him.

:rofl:

[TomCADem]

22. I Think Glenn Makes Some Good Points, But I Disagree With Some Of His Views...

...Which is why I caution folks not to buy into this strange notion that he is some doctrinaire liberal. He is not. He is probably more of a civil libertarian, though not a crazy Rand Paul type.

[Wandawilkerson]

31. I think an overwhelming majority of people here in DU are civil libertarians, and liberals too

I am a liberal and a civil libertarian. I am a Miranda Rights lover, I am against assassination of Americans abroad, I am for virtually anything proposed by the American Civil Liberties Union, etc.

[Luminous Animal]

40. Libertarian and civil libertarian are two entirely different things.

Similarly, Hitler's national socialism ideology was clearly different than the ideology of socialist organizations in Germany.


I'm curious though, what is a doctrinaire liberal?

[Wandawilkerson]

23. Greenwald trashed Goldman Sachs repeatedly

And I know you have seen those links.

By the way, Greenwald did not say that the decision would be good for campaign finances.

Go ahead. Continue to cite Greenwald's past comments. Were corporations happy about the bailout which Greenwald strongly opposed?

Is BP happy with Greenwald's coverage of the oil spill?

Does Boeing love Greenwald for siding with a torture victim against Boeing in that lawsuit?

Greenwald haters are one-trick ponies who won't go beyond Citizens United.

[Luminous Animal]

38. Actually, Greenwald advocates for public funding of campaigns in order to...

entirely remove corporate bribery. Truthiness, yet again, rears its ugly head.

[TomCADem]

41. Once Again - Glenn Greenwald v. Dennis Kucinich - Greenwald In His Own Words

Public funding definitely does not "entirely remove corporate bribery." Instead, it merely tries to level the playing field a bit. To me, this sounds pollyanish. Exactly how much public funding do we need to compete with multi-national conglomorates?

http://www.democracynow.org/2010/2/9/rep_dennis_kucinich_v_glenn_greenwald

AMY GOODMAN: On another issue, I wanted to ask you about the Supreme Court decision. You ran for president. You were part of the Democratic primary. In fact, wasn’t it true that ABC News stopped following you when they said you hadn’t raised enough money? I wanted to ask you about the Supreme Court decision opening the floodgates for corporate money in politics.

REP. DENNIS KUCINICH: We’re working on a constitutional amendment right now, Amy, that would address this—the core issues in not only the Citizens United case, but the Buckley v. Valeo case. Our government right now is like an auction, where policy is—goes to the highest bidder. And this pay-to-play environment is destructive of any hope that people could have to have their practical aspirations addressed by the government. You know, the idea that Wall Street is now moving its smart money over to the Republicans is quite instructive. The idea that health insurance interests could raise money during the very—for members of Congress, during the very time that legislation is before the Congress that would change the way that they do business, these are things that reflect on the danger to our democracy.

And I think this Citizens United case, which gave the corporations the ability to interfere in elections in a major way, through their money, puts us at risk of openly having a corporate-dominated government. Now it’s kind of a secret, I suppose, in some places. But it’s now—you know, once Citizens United was decided by the Supreme Court in the way it was, now it’s basically open season on anyone who challenges these corporate interests and a free pass for anyone who supports them. A real danger to our democratic tradition calls out for constitutional remedies, and there are many that are now being considered, and I’m certainly working on some.

AMY GOODMAN: Your response, Glenn Greenwald?

GLENN GREENWALD: Well, you know, it was interesting because I was—I agree with Congressman Kucinich completely with regard to the constitutional arguments he was making about the presidential assassination program. If you look at the Fifth Amendment, it really does say no person shall be deprived of life without due process. It says that in clear terms. To me, the First Amendment is just as clear, and it says Congress shall make no law abridging free speech. And as Justice Hugo Black said, I read that to mean Congress shall make no law abridging free speech.

So, I certainly agree that corporate dominance of our Congress—you know, Senator Durbin recently said the banks own the place, an extraordinary statement for the second-highest-ranking Democrat in the Senate to make. I think the corporate dominance of our political process is one of the two or three greatest threats we face. 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.

[Luminous Animal]

43. Yes. In his own words. " I think that there are ways around it."

Clearly, Greenwald advocates for a limit on corporate "speech" but he is looking for a Constitutional solution.

[TomCADem]

21. How Do You Feel About The Citizens United Case? Do You Agree With Glenn Greenwald?

Glenn is exactly what he says he. He has some liberal views. Some conservative views. A case in point is the Citizens United case involving campaign contributions by corporations.

[Wandawilkerson]

26. What is the proportion of his conservative vs. liberal views?

By saying "some liberal views and some conservatives views," you imply he is a centrist, which he clearly isn't.

I disagree with him in that I would have ruled against Citizens United.
but he trashed BP, he trashed Goldman Sachs repeatedly, he trashed the Bailout, etc. etc. etc. He trashed Salazar, which corporations hailed and environmentalists protested against when he was appointed. He trashed Bush relentedless. But again, Greenwald haters are one-trick ponies: Citizens United!

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/06/03/salazar

[HughMoran]

24. Reasonable point

Unrecced by people who adore anybody who smashes Obamas face in. DU is filled with people who hate Democrats generally and Obama most of all.

[Wandawilkerson]

28. Do you disagree that Greenwald opposed virtually everyone of Bush's policies?

Or are you going to pretend Greenwald was a Bush lover?

[HughMoran]

32. Greenwald is dead to me

How's that for an answer?

[Wandawilkerson]

33. And I thought Greenwald was the hater, lol n/t

[HughMoran]

34. I don't hate him

I just don't respect his opinions any more.

[depakid]

35. Some posters care only about whether Greenwald opposes any of Obama's policies

Much like Bush's acolytes on the other side of the aisle.

[w4rma]

25. Bush was not a conservative. Bush is a Neo-conservative.

Just like Rahm is not a liberal. He is a Neo-liberal.

[HughMoran]

27. Gumby was Green

:shrug:

[Jennicut]

30. Greenwald is a classic libertarian liberal.

Yes, they do exist.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-libertarianism

[JackRiddler]

36. If labels are so important to you, label away.

An argument about which label applies is not an argument for or against Greenwald.

[TomCADem]

39. Yet, The Media Labels Him A Liberal. Why? To Push The Narrative...

That Obama's support is eroding even though Greenwald himself says that he is not a liberal. Have you noticed that liberals only get play on the corporate media when they attack the President. But, if you support a climate change bill or health care reform, you get no play whatsoever.

Its all about the corporate narrative and trying to promote the Republican party in the 2010 elections.

[Luminous Animal]

42. They label him liberal because most of the time he advocates for...

anti indefinite detention, anti torture, pro habeas corpus, 1st & 4th amendment rights, anti war, and checks and balances between the three branches of government. All modern liberal values.

[EFerrari]

44. You seem to be confusing Greenwald with a media strategy

that you have correctly identified.

It doesn't have anything to do with him. They'd plug anyone in the same role.

The real conversations we have among ourselves will always be used that way. That doesn't mean we shouldn't have them. That means we have to do something about the corporate media.