Booman Tribune ~ A Progressive Community

An Answer to Greenwald

by BooMan
Tue Dec 2nd, 2008 at 01:21:05 PM EST

I have tremendous respect for Glenn Greenwald. He's one of, if not the best bloggers in the business. But he has a reading comprehension problem. Today he has decided to mock me for alleged beltway journalism. I had the temerity to use a well-weathered insider analogy about adults and children, and who, in fact, is in charge. In my telling, Barack Obama has, through his centrist appointments, effectively sidelined (for the time being) meaningful opposition to his foreign policy goals.

I would have selected a different national security team. But I can see what Obama is doing. He has effectively sidelined critics of his foreign policy vision to the kiddie table over there in the corner. You can take a look to see who's at the kiddie table. There's Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity. There's Bill Kristol and Charles Krauthammer. There's Joe Lieberman and John McCain. There's even Dennis Kucinich and Cynthia McKinney. They will all continue to screech now and then, and the adults will look over condescendingly and tell them to pipe down or there's no dessert.
In saying this, I'm not suggesting that Barack Obama's foreign policy and national security team is going to be right about the policies they pursue, or that they shouldn't listen to anyone screaming from the sidelines. My greatest concern with the team is that it doesn't (so far) include any of the strong voices that bravely opposed George and Dick's excellent adventure in Iraq. My point, though, is that Obama has just carved out a huge swath of territory within which he can safely maneuver.

What am I saying? Am I applauding Obama's appointments? "I would have selected a different national security team." Am I saying that this centrist team is going to produce the correct results? "In saying this, I'm not suggesting that Barack Obama's foreign policy and national security team is going to be right about the policies they pursue..." Am I picking on the anti-war position? "There's Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity. There's Bill Kristol and Charles Krauthammer. There's Joe Lieberman and John McCain. There's even Dennis Kucinich and Cynthia McKinney."

But none of that matters to Greenwald. In his reading, I am a "limitlessly Obama-enamored blogger" who is gushing over "Obama's team of mostly establishment figures and war supporters." Needless to say, Greenwald has missed my point.

I agree with Greenwald's impatience for the adult/child analogy which, as he documents, gets thoroughly rehashed anytime there is a change in administration. That's why I somewhat mischievously used it. However, I turned the usual usage on its head to show that the result of Obama's centrist foreign policy appointments was to relegate the heretofore mainstream neo-conservative view (and, yes, the far left critique as well) to the sidelines of the national debate. I do, indeed, applaud this outcome, but not without caveats that I've been repeating all month. This should have been clear to Greenwald, but he chose to cherry-pick from what I wrote.

Concerns remain, and anti-war progressives are still looking for seats at the table where their superior judgment will not only be rewarded but put to good use going forward. But progressives can take comfort in the fact the field has been cleared politically to such a degree that they can move freely. If they remain marginalized, the neo-conservatives are newly marginalized, and to a far greater degree. Additionally, progressives are now empowered organizationally and have a far greater ability to mobilize public opinion than their opponents on the right. Palinists are truly out in the cold, and will remain there until there is some glaring failure or crack in the new governing coalition.
Obama has successfully disarmed an opposition (at least for the time being) that has dominated the public discourse in this country since (at least) September 11, 2001.

You can fairly describe this as a glass half-full analysis, but it is hardly gushing. It's actually a fairly neutral assessment. I express my distaste for the picks up front, I state my qualms, and I address the positives. Chief among the positives is that Obama has created a wide consensus for his foreign policy vision (which appears no different than what he campaigned on) and gives him the ability to maneuver without having the fist of FOX News, Rush Limbaugh, and a united Republican opposition in his mouth. There will be those on the far right that oppose Obama's every move and there will be those on the far left that want Obama out of Afghanistan and every other place in the world. Those people might even be right in their criticisms (and he should include some of both in his inner council) but they won't be driving the debate in this country. What I'm celebrating is the way Obama has marginalized the neo-conservatives and their media megaphones. Greenwald is fighting a strawman.

An Answer to Greenwald | 53 comments (53 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden)

From Glenn (4.00 / 5)

Booman - Thanks for the nice words. I respect you, too, and think your analysis is generally astute. But here, it isn't.

I don't think there's any question that you are enamored of Obama, and that, as a result, you search for ways to justify and defend what he has done -- as being shrewd, insightful, just, and generally steps ahead of everyone else.

That's fine - there are worse things than having one's affection for Barack Obama flood one's otherwise solid rational faculties and generate more trust than a political leader ought to have. My guess is that will wear off in time. I think it's a pretty benign flaw, as flaws go.

But what particularly irked me about that "kiddie table" post was your very Beltway-pundit equating of "the Far Right" and "the Far Left." How can it be that Dennis Kucinich (and I'm no fan of his) belongs at the derided, irrelevant, Unserious Kiddie Table in light of his solid history of war opposition, positions on Iran and the like, while a whole stable of war supporters -- people who supported probably the single worst and most devastating debacle in a generation -- belong at the Serious Table of Respectable Adults?

If supporting the Iraq War for years doesn't remove one from the Serious Adult Table, what does? Apparently, in your view, it's opposition to that war. That is the perverse Beltway conventional wisdom that has brought about so much destruction.

I don't disagree with you that Obama is seeking to marginalize the Far Left. What I can't fathom is why you think that's a cause for celebration. For one thing, it's hardly unique -- when is the last time The Far Left wasn't marginalized when it comes to the Adult Foriegn Policy Table? That the Far Left are a bunch of losers to laugh at is about as close to unanimous, decades-long Beltway wisdom as it gets.

Nothing removes you more quickly from the Beltway Adult Table than principled opposition to war. You seem to think that's both a good and a new development. I think it's neither.

by GlennGreenwald (GGreenwald@salon.com) on Tue Dec 2nd, 2008 at 03:05:50 PM EST

Re: From Glenn (none / 0)

Glenn-

For me, this is a reading comprehension problem on your part.

Let's start with the main idea here. Obama has brought in his chief rival for the nomination as well as the Scowcroft/Lugar/Hagel/Gates (we might add Biden) Realist School that was either opposed or highly skeptical about the invasion of Iraq. And if you go back and read what Biden was saying in the lead-up to the war, he was skeptical. Set aside for a moment the goodness or badness of this move. It's a coalition. What I was looking at was the breadth of the coalition and what it means for Obama's range of action.

What it means is that Obama has a solid bipartisan consensus for getting out of Iraq and ramping up in Afghanistan. He's diplomacy initiative has support from the Republican-led Pentagon and from his own party.

But, as with any coalition, there are those that are left out. On the right, the McCain-Lieberman-Cheney fold is now outside peering in. On the left, those that want out of Afghanistan or that want a massive reduction of U.S. projection of power are outside peering in.

That's a fact. And that's the bulk of my point.

What discomforts you, apparently, is that I appear to be celebrating the marginalization of the far left in equal measure to the far right. A familiarity with my body of work should disabuse you of such a supposition. But it's true that I am not sympathetic to unrealistic demands from the far left that are not thought through. Kucinich and McKinney are merely shorthand for that (not for the anti-war position in general).

I have repeatedly advocated for Obama to make sure he has a George Ball figure in his foreign policy team (think Afghan skeptic). I have stated repeatedly that I am concerned about the lack of anti-war people being named to key positions. But there are plenty of unserious people that really do belong at the kiddie table. The people that have been running this country for the last eight years, for example. And I'm happy to see them there, at long last.

by BooMan on Tue Dec 2nd, 2008 at 03:21:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: From Glenn (3.25 / 4)

But there are plenty of unserious people that really do belong at the kiddie table. The people that have been running this country for the last eight years, for example. And I'm happy to see them there, at long last.

I don't disagree with that. Had you said that, I wouldn't have had an objection. But you didn't just say you were glad that the Far Right has been marginalized. You added that you were glad that the Far Left has been, too.

There's a big difference between the opposition to the war from the realists (who opposed it because they thought there was no net-benefit to be gained) and the "Far Left" (who opposed it on the principled basis that it's wrong for the U.S. to attack and invade another country that hasn't attacked us and wasn't about to).

One of the worst aspects of U.S. foreign policy is the exclusion of people with those views -- "that it's wrong for the U.S. to attack and invade another country that hasn't attacked us and wasn't about to."

You apparently want their continued exclusion, but they have done far less damage, and their views are far less "serious," than those whose empowerment you're celebrating - meaning the people who voted for this disaster, who threaten Iran and want to label them "terrorists" and who generally want a massive expansion of military spending.

One last thing: I think you're fooling yourself when you say that Obama has now excluded "the people that have been running this country for the last eight years." That group includes his Defense Secretary, his HHS Secretary (Senate Majority Leader in 2002), his Vice President (Foreign Relations Committee Chairman), his Secretary of State (one of the most powerful figures in the Democratic Party and the U.S. Senate), his Chief of Staff (probably the most powerful person in the House).

It's a myth -- a fantasy -- to think that Obama has excluded the people running the country for the last 8 years. The people he's empowering have been some of the most powerful during that time, and have signed off on many of the worst abuses. That's just a fact.

And therein lies the point: you are willing to:

create any sort of mythology to praise and defend Obama (he's sent "the people that have been running this country for the last eight years" to the Kiddie Table);
overlook the extreme flaws of those whom he selects ("Oh, they supported the Iraq war, and increased surveillance and telecom immunity and Patriot Act renewals and did nothing to check the rest of the abuses? Big deal: they're still The Serious Adults!;
and treat those who were right about those issues as the worthless losers all because Obama doesn't want anything to do with them.

Whatever else one might want to say about the eagerness to stigmatize the dreaded "Far Left" in foreign policy, it isn't new and it isn't change to do it.

by GlennGreenwald (GGreenwald@salon.com) on Tue Dec 2nd, 2008 at 03:43:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: From Glenn (none / 0)

Here's a point of distinction.

I simply don't agree that Biden, Daschle, Clinton, or any Democrat has been running this country over the last eight years. I don't agree that Powell or Rice or Armitage were running it either. For me, Dick Cheney, George W. Bush, David Addington, Scooter Libby, Don Rumsfeld, Doug Feith, and Paul Wolfowitz were stampeding this country for the last eight years. There is a lot of roadkill in their wake, including people that went along (some willingly, some not).

Did Jay Rockefeller make the decision to torture people or spy without warrants? No. I am as severe a critic of Rockefeller as you are, but I don't think for a moment that he was running the country. I am happy he will move to the Commerce Chair but I don't think Diane Feinstein will be much better. But Feinstein won't be dealing with Addington, and that's the really meaningful change.

Another point of distinction, is that you seem to equate Kucinich/McKinney/Far Left with principled opposition to the invasion of Iraq. I equate them with principled opposition to the invasion of Afghanistan, as distinct from opposition to Iraq. In fact, I wouldn't really place them there, because I think they'd be principled opponents to the invasion of Okinawa. In other words, there are people on the far left that I disagree with because their pacifism outstrips my own.

Need I remind you that Barack Obama was a principled opponent of invading Iraq both because it was stupid and because it was wrong. And he cannot reasonably be considered as marginalized. It would be an absurd reading of my text to think I was celebrating the lack of anti-Iraq War voices in his cabinet.

by BooMan on Tue Dec 2nd, 2008 at 03:59:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: From Glenn (none / 0)

"Need I remind you that Barack Obama was a principled opponent of invading Iraq both because it was stupid and because it was wrong."

Really? Whenever I've seen Obama criticise the war, it has always been on purely pragmatic grounds ('the wrong war at the wrong time', etc.) as opposed to an opposition to wars of aggression as a matter of principle.

by heathlander on Tue Dec 2nd, 2008 at 05:15:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: From Glenn (none / 0)

And I know that in this crowd today, there is no shortage of patriots, or of patriotism.
What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perles and Paul Wolfowitz and other arm-chair, weekend warriors in this Administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.
What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Roves to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone thru the worst month since the Great Depression.
That's what Im opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics.
Now let me be clear: I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity. He's a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.
But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.
I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences.
I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the middle east, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of Al Queda.
I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars.
So for those of us who seek a more just and secure world for our children, let us send a clear message to the president today.
You want a fight, President Bush? Let's finish the fight with Bin Laden and Al Queda, thru effective, coordinated intelligence, and a shutting down of the financial networks that support terrorism, and a homeland security program that involves more than color-coded warnings.
You want a fight, President Bush? Let's fight to make sure that the UN inspectors can do their work, and that we vigorously enforce a non-proliferation treaty, and that former enemies and current allies like Russia safeguard and ultimately eliminate their stores of nuclear material, and that nations like Pakistan and India never use the terrible weapons in already in their possession, and that the arms merchants in our own country stop feeding the countless wars that rage across the globe.
You want a fight, President Bush? Let's fight to make sure our so-called allies in the Middle East, the Saudis and the Egyptians, stop oppressing their own people, and suppressing dissent, and tolerating corruption and inequality, and mismanaging their economies so that their youth grow up without education, without prospects, without hope, the ready recruits of terrorist cells.
You want a fight, President Bush? Let's fight to wean ourselves off Middle East oil, through an energy policy that doesn't simply serve the interests of Exxon and Mobil.
Those are the battles that we need to fight. Those are the battles that we willingly join. The battles against ignorance and intolerance. Corruption and greed. Poverty and despair.
The consequences of war are dire, the sacrifices immeasurable. We may have occasion in our lifetime to once again rise up in defense of our freedom, and pay the wages of war. But we ought not we will not travel down that hellish path blindly. Nor should we allow those who would march off and pay the ultimate sacrifice, who would prove the full measure of devotion with their blood, to make such an awful sacrifice in vain.

link

by BooMan on Tue Dec 2nd, 2008 at 05:29:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: From Glenn (none / 1)

You continue to abuse the term "far left". Why not just say "left"? After all, it is not just the left that thinks we should be out of Iraq: that has long been the position of the center.

So why isn't it sufficient to label the position that we should get out of Afghanistan as well "left" instead of "far left"?

What purpose is served for progressives by calling positions to the left of theirs "extreme"? It is counterproductive. If there are many reasonable positions to the left of yours, that brings you closer to the center, which is where we want to be in the current political climate.

Screaming "far left" all the time only serves to make progressives self-marginalize themselves.

By repeatedly substituting the term "far left" for "left", you are merely aping outlets like Fox News, which call dKos "far left".

Change we can't believe in. No we can't!

by Alexander on Tue Dec 2nd, 2008 at 03:47:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: From Glenn (none / 0)

you're whining at this point, Alexander.

As you hold political opinions that are outside of the mainstream, and as you wish they were not outside of the mainstream, you wish to redefine the paramaters of the political spectrum. You know by now that I believe wordplay never accomplished a political goal. It's wanking to approach things that way.

by BooMan on Tue Dec 2nd, 2008 at 04:31:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: From Glenn (none / 0)

If you mean the inside-the-Beltway mainstream, you are right.

Change we can't believe in. No we can't!

by Alexander on Tue Dec 2nd, 2008 at 05:42:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: From Glenn (none / 1)

But we all use wordplay in politics. You, of all people, know that. You are a master of using wordplay Booman. That's why I like your writing. And that's why you "played around" with a loaded phrase, "kiddie table" and held up Dennis Kucinich as the symbol of the "far left". You knew exactly what you were doing. You knew you would get a rise out of those, including many of your readers, who consider themselves liberal. I seem to remember having a number of exchanges with you on this very subject.

But, precisely because you are such an expert wordsmith, of course you're picking up the 'far left' Dennis Kucinich stick to beat up liberals. As Glenn notes it's always been an easy weapon to use--mocking the 'far left' anti-war politicians as fools that believe in UFOs. You are marginalizing those to the Left of you in an effort to help Obama. I understand that you think this is the best political course course to steer. And maybe you're right. Maybe Obama should engage in symbolic acts of beating the left with a stick to make it easier for him to do what he wants to do. Maybe he is smart politically to pick up the Dennis Kucinich stick and beat the tar out of us lefties, as you seem to think. It's not very brave. You seem to get your cheap thrills from doing it. I can only imagine how the Joe Liiebermans love it. So don't play coy and pretend that others just can't comprehend or are playing word games.

You may be right that Obama's centrist approach will work. But don't be surprised to see the real damage it does to liberals in the meantime while Obama's magic transformative powers are working. In fact, it's your readers that will be expected to take the quiet beating from Obama the next few years. There's only so far your wordsmithing skills can go in teaching us to sit quietly and take our beating for our own good.

by SFHawkguy on Tue Dec 2nd, 2008 at 06:12:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Big fan Glenn, but... (none / 1)

Referring to Booman as "one relentlessly Obama-enamored blogger" was a pretty dickish move. What could be more beltway than dismissing a blogger by not addressing him by name?

by IntertubeGuy on Wed Dec 3rd, 2008 at 11:50:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Greenwald wrote something about you? (1.33 / 3)

Better link to it immediately and get some hits. Nobody except Josh Marshall beats you in being able to express and apply fewer standards and ethics to their Obama adoration and fervor Boohoohooman.

by frenchfries (frenchfries1965@yahoo.com) on Tue Dec 2nd, 2008 at 02:49:44 PM EST

Re: Greenwald wrote something about you? (none / 0)

I'd ask for example, but I know that would be pointless.

by BooMan on Tue Dec 2nd, 2008 at 03:05:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: An Answer to Greenwald (none / 1)

Hey I agree with you, but you are one of the most pro-Obama voices in the blogosphere right now. I suppose Kos himself but he's always been a blowhard.

by MNPundit on Tue Dec 2nd, 2008 at 01:26:39 PM EST

Re: An Answer to Greenwald (none / 0)

I'm not sure whether you're calling me a blowhard, but I accept that characterization of being pro-Obama. That's different from refusing to criticize him. I criticized him over FISA, and I have stated that I did not like his selection of Rahm Emanuel as chief-of-staff, and I have predicted that he will regret picking Clinton for State. I also wrote a column saying that he should not retain Robert Gates and I have continued to raise concerns about Gates retention.

What may confuse some people is that I tend to look at the positive side of outcomes I don't particularly like.

by BooMan on Tue Dec 2nd, 2008 at 01:37:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: An Answer to Greenwald (none / 1)

What also may confuse people is that there's a whole swath of Left Blogistan that is incapable of disagreeing with some of the things a politician does without going whole-heartedly into attack mode against that politician. Having a nuanced view seems to be a tough thing to do. Actually, Greenwald ranks as one of the bloggers who I think seems to accomplish the balancing act of criticism without finding the cloud behind every silver lining pretty well. As do you, Booman. As do a handful of others.

I think the knee-jerk reaction is probably from the "putting the children at the kiddie table" analogy that you used. That ruffled my feathers too on an initial read because, well, it's Villager-speak. And frankly since the folks you were speaking about are all hawks except for Kucinich and McKinney, it had the effect of sounding like a Villager elevating Broder-esque "bipartisanship" over substantive discussion (i.e. "bipartisanship" where both sides agree that bombing the fuck out of the enemy is the right course of action, but quibble over whether they should use the Air Force or the Navy to do it). Since I knew you couldn't possibly have meant it that way, I read it again. And again. And finally figured that I thought that I knew where you were coming from with it (something confirmed by the above post), but I have to say, it still kind of rankles me to read it even knowing the intent behind it.

by nonynony on Tue Dec 2nd, 2008 at 01:50:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: An Answer to Greenwald (none / 0)

There are, to be quite frank about it, a lot of voices in Left Blogistan that have no freaking idea what they're talking about when it comes to foreign policy, and they are hurting progressives badly by making us look 'unserious' and like 'children'.

by BooMan on Tue Dec 2nd, 2008 at 01:58:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Gotta say... (none / 1)

Your ability to take lemons and make lemonade, and that's often a good thing. It's a skill i wish i had more of myself: i don't know how you take crushing defeat and spin something positive out of it.

On the other hand, speaking as a regular reader you sometimes go past making lemonade into what comes across as full-bore cheerleading. In fact, when i read the greenwald article earlier oday, even before i passed my mouse over the linked text, my first reaction was "i'll bet he means booman".

John Mccain Called his wife WHAT??

by brendan on Tue Dec 2nd, 2008 at 03:36:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: An Answer to Greenwald (none / 0)

As someone who always prefers the negative, we differ.

And no I don't think you're a blowhard.

by MNPundit on Wed Dec 3rd, 2008 at 02:37:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: An Answer to Greenwald (none / 0)

frankly, l think greenwald still hasn't gotten over the FISA vote, nor the attorneygate antics at DoJ, and those continue to color his perspective on all things obama.

as for your glass half full v his half empty analogy, l think there's room for both.

the first 100 days are going to be very telling, and l'm delaying taking a position one way or the other until he's has the reins of power and the opportunity to effect whatever / changes/ he really has in mind.

the thought expressed by another commenter not long ago summarizes my current approach very succinctly: l was cautiously optimistic, now l'm just cautious. plus, l really need a break after the past campaign and election.

we shall soon see.

the revolution will not be televised...

by dada on Tue Dec 2nd, 2008 at 01:57:57 PM EST

Re: An Answer to Greenwald (none / 0)

What was Obama's role in Attorney Gate?

by BooMan on Tue Dec 2nd, 2008 at 02:03:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: An Answer to Greenwald (none / 0)

l didn't mean to infer that obama had a role. l was referring to greenwalds comments on holder, which, imo, are the real meat of the post. to wit:

"[The Rich pardon] suggests that Holder, whatever his other qualifications, could not say no to power. . . . Holder was involved, passively or not, in just the sort of inside-the-Beltway influence peddling that Barack Obama was elected to end. He is not one of Obama's loathed lobbyists; he was merely their instrument."
An inability, or an unwillingness, to "say no to power" is not exactly a desired trait in an Attorney General, to put that mildly...

l think he makes valid points, but nonetheless, he's still supporting his [holder's]nomination to AG. l didn't mean to conflate them as obscurely as that reads in retrospect.

the revolution will not be televised...

by dada on Tue Dec 2nd, 2008 at 02:18:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

FDR vs Obama (none / 0)

Here's an illuminating take on how things are shaping up:

Beyond the Bailout State: Roosevelt's Brain Trust vs Obama's Brainiacs

today, something is amiss. Even if everyone is now using the Great Depression and the New Deal as benchmarks for what we're living through, Act I of the new script has already veered away from the original.
A suffocating political and intellectual provincialism has captured the new administration in embryo. Instead of embracing a sense of adventurousness, a readiness to break with the past so enthusiastically promoted during the campaign, Obama seems overcome with inhibitions and fears.

Change we can't believe in. No we can't!

by Alexander on Tue Dec 2nd, 2008 at 02:24:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: An Answer to Greenwald (none / 1)

Honestly, I am actually enjoying my favorite 2 bloggers engaging each other.

Blue Tidal Wave

by Mac G on Tue Dec 2nd, 2008 at 01:59:59 PM EST

Re: An Answer to Greenwald (none / 0)

I agree! I wish I had more time for it today.

by SFHawkguy on Tue Dec 2nd, 2008 at 06:17:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: An Answer to Greenwald (none / 0)

Both sides have valid points, but the argument comes down to either you believe Obama's actions are indicative that he's going to follow through by engaging and effectively using the Washington system to enact change from within (BooMan) or that they are indicative that he's being corrupted by the abyss he's staring into and had no intention of enacting change in the first place (Double G).

It's a moot point until January 20 anyway. Bush is still unfortunately calling the damn shots.

More at Zandar vs. The Stupid.

by Zandar1 on Tue Dec 2nd, 2008 at 02:08:42 PM EST

Re: An Answer to Greenwald (none / 0)

That's basically right, except that I wasn't venturing to predict what Obama will do, only what his choices give him the opportunity to do.

by BooMan on Tue Dec 2nd, 2008 at 02:11:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: An Answer to Greenwald (none / 1)

i agree with him on this;

In his reading, I am a "limitlessly Obama-enamored blogger"

i have been feeling the same way....but i dont think it really matters...im more interested in analyzing it from the perspective of my very old last spring question of whats the big objection to clinton....seems like things are not going to be that different after all....which is fine....i never thought they would be.

Edible panties taste like crap.

by anna in philly (jrsygir1@aol.com) on Tue Dec 2nd, 2008 at 02:09:22 PM EST

Re: An Answer to Greenwald (none / 1)

I turned the usual usage on its head to show that the result of Obama's centrist foreign policy appointments was to relegate the heretofore mainstream neo-conservative view (and, yes, the far left critique as well) to the sidelines of the national debate.

You seem to be saying that relegating the "far left critique" to the sidelines of the national debate is some kind of accomplishment. When was the last time the "far left critique" was at the center of the national debate? 1968?

Furthermore, I think it's a mistake to call Dennis Kucinich and Cynthia McKinney "far left". They're not center left, but they're not far left, either. Noam Chomsky is far left. To be far left, you practically have to be a socialist, that is, think capitalism cannot be reformed and must be scrapped altogether sooner or later, or at least that America is a systematic force of evil in the world, just like any other major power, as Chomsky does. I don't think either Kucinich or McKinney believe either of those things.

Finally, I don't see what is accomplished by placing Kucinich and McKinney at the "kiddie table" along with Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity. Frankly, I find that very offensive. The idealism of the former two cannot be equated with the idiocy and hatred of the latter two. That your post seems equally pleased with the marginalization of the far right and what you call the "far left" makes Greenwald's reading of it perfectly understandable.

So long as you make condescending remarks about what you view as the "far left", some will continue to view you as an Obamabot.

Change we can't believe in. No we can't!

by Alexander on Tue Dec 2nd, 2008 at 02:11:17 PM EST

Re: An Answer to Greenwald (none / 0)

I can barely see you over there on the far left, Alexander.

Find me any recently elected officials in the country that are to the left of Cynthia McKinney and I'll begin to agree with your criticism about placing her in that category. And, no, I am not a member of the tribe that thinks capitalism needs to be destroyed. I am not, and have never claimed to be a communist or statist-socialist.

I support socialism in health care and education. I support recalibrating our foreign policy by delegating responsibility for 'policing' the world more broadly, which should allow us over time to greatly reduce our defense budget and our reputation for meddling, and eventually diminish the threat from blowback.

On the political scale, I'm probably to the left of Russ Feingold, roughly in the Bernie Sanders mode. If that makes me an Obamabot, so be it.

by BooMan on Tue Dec 2nd, 2008 at 02:18:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: An Answer to Greenwald (none / 0)

You are operating with the Village's perspective of what left and right mean. Why would a progressive blogger do that? Why think that political debate should be limited in this country by the range of candidates that can be elected in our corrupt political system? That goes against everything the blogosphere stands for.

I am not a member of the tribe that thinks capitalism needs to be destroyed.

I never said you were. I'm not, either. Like nonynony above, I find your incessant need to belittle points of view to the left of yours, evidently brought on by an insecurity about your own progressive positions, irritating.

Change we can't believe in. No we can't!

by Alexander on Tue Dec 2nd, 2008 at 02:35:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: An Answer to Greenwald (none / 0)

I don't begrudge you your irritation, but believe it or not, there are people to the left of me whose ideas I don't agree with or particularly respect.

Some of them I don't really want to see elected to office. This shouldn't be surprising, as it is easy to contemplate on the right.

I guess you can say that this is an endorsement of curtailing acceptable debate. But there's a difference between allowing a Klansman to give a speech and electing him as your representative. Debate and political power are not the same thing.

I'd be happy to see five dozen Senators that basically agree with Bernie Sanders, but I don't want five dozen that agree with McKinney. Likewise, I don't mind Republicans like Chafee and Jeffords and Snowe, but I'd like to see less of Inhofe and Coburn and Bunning. It's not that I want Inhofe et. al. to shut up, I just don't want them voting on legislation.

by BooMan on Tue Dec 2nd, 2008 at 03:02:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: An Answer to Greenwald (none / 0)

Fine. On foreign policy, you're a centrist.

McKinney is against the American empire, and that places her on the left. But she is at the center of the left. That is because, as far as I know, she does not believe that the American empire is just as bad as most other empires. It is believing that the American empire is no better than the others that places you on the far left.

Change we can't believe in. No we can't!

by Alexander on Tue Dec 2nd, 2008 at 03:29:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: An Answer to Greenwald (none / 0)

I understand your insistence on looking at the political left/right scale from a global perspective, but it's pointless to ascribe that meaning to what was clearly meant to be a U.S. scale. Any reasonable person would look at my foreign policy views as firmly in the progressive camp of United States politics.

I am for rolling back the empire, but I'm for doing it gradually and cautiously. And I don't want to leave a power vacuum, I want to share responsibility.

by BooMan on Tue Dec 2nd, 2008 at 03:39:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: An Answer to Greenwald (none / 1)

I myself am in a wait-and-see position with Obama, so I'm just watching the discussion.

HOWEVER, do you have to be far-left to want the American military to be out of Afghanistan? Why are we there? To oversee the poppy crop? To make sure that pipeline gets built to the Indian Ocean? Those, at least, benefit American industries. The following are consumable lies. Eat up:

We're in Afghanistan to, let me see, catch Osama, right? No, he's over in our ally Pakistan's yard. So we're in Afghanistan to, uh, bring democracy? To defeat the Taliban? To protect women's rights?

By the way, regarding Chomsky, 1+3 is not the same as 2+2 or 8-4 or 2x2 or 32 divided by 8. I run into too many Chomskyites who have trouble telling the difference between administrations because the results are similar. I heard one Chomskyite say there was no difference between FDR and Mussolini because FDR was Secretary of the Navy during Woodrow Wilson's gunboat diplomacy in Latin America. There's a difference. The important thing is how we get to whatever result we get.

by Bob In Pacifica on Tue Dec 2nd, 2008 at 02:52:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: An Answer to Greenwald (none / 0)

That's one of my main problems with Chomsky. As far as I can tell, he really seemed to view the Soviet Union and the US as morally equivalent. Now that's a real far left position. I think that we fall into a kind of stupidity if we forget what far left really means.

It is possible to see that the dynamic of the Cold War was produced at least as much by the US as by the Soviet Union (this used to be called revisionism) without losing sight of the fact that the American system is qualitatively morally superior to the Soviet one.

Change we can't believe in. No we can't!

by Alexander on Tue Dec 2nd, 2008 at 03:01:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: An Answer to Greenwald (none / 1)

"That's one of my main problems with Chomsky. As far as I can tell, he really seemed to view the Soviet Union and the US as morally equivalent."

What is this based on? I mean, he has explicitly and repeatedly rejected notions of "moral equivalence", but perhaps he's said something to the contrary that I've missed.

"It is possible to see that the dynamic of the Cold War was produced at least as much by the US as by the Soviet Union (this used to be called revisionism) without losing sight of the fact that the American system is qualitatively morally superior to the Soviet one."

If by "American system" you're talking about things like freedom of speech, civil liberties, comparative political pluralism, and so on, then Chomsky would emphatically agree with you (he has often referred to the US as possibly the "freest country in the world", thanks to generations of popular struggle). But when the U.S. illegally invades another state, that isn't morally, legally or in any other way different to when the Soviet Union did the same. Chomsky pointed that out, and was accused of "moral equivalence" in response by the likes of Jeanne Kirkpatrick. Not a particularly persuasive argument, in my view.

by heathlander on Tue Dec 2nd, 2008 at 05:07:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: An Answer to Greenwald (none / 0)

Re the first point: it may be that "he has explicitly and repeatedly rejected notions of 'moral equivalence'": I haven't followed him closely for years. But when I heard him speak for the first time in 1980 (before which I had never read his political writings), he certainly didn't go out of if his way to emphasize that "moral equivalence" must be rejected.

Re the second point: of course you and Chomsky are right. Unfortunately however, this position is what Booman calls "out of the mainstream". Almost everyone in Washington, and most Americans I daresay, believe in American exceptionalism, according to which the US can do virtually no wrong.

I think that were I do have a real difference with Chomsky is that, as far as I am aware, he does not believe that it can be said that the US legitimately protected the rest of the West from a "Soviet threat", whereas I believe that one can say this. I am more with Chalmers Johnson, in believing that the US war machine only became illegitimate with the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Change we can't believe in. No we can't!

by Alexander on Tue Dec 2nd, 2008 at 06:01:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: An Answer to Greenwald (none / 0)

"I think that were I do have a real difference with Chomsky is that, as far as I am aware, he does not believe that it can be said that the US legitimately protected the rest of the West from a "Soviet threat", whereas I believe that one can say this."

OK, that is definitely a big difference between you and Chomsky. In his analysis the 'Cold War' was less about a struggle between the two superpowers and more about each superpower using the supposed 'threat' posed by the other to justify its own imperialism. He focused on the U.S. mainly because he was an American citizen and not Russian one.

But in any case, that's a difference of analysis. It has nothing to do with "moral equivalence".

by heathlander on Tue Dec 2nd, 2008 at 10:02:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: An Answer to Greenwald (none / 0)

All your points are well taken. I shouldn't have used the term "moral equivalence", which is unnecessarily provocative. Also, what I said about the Soviet Union was too one-sided. The Soviet Union did play a positive role, by keeping the US in check. Western elites' concern with social justice mysteriously faded away after the Soviet Union collapsed.

In his analysis the 'Cold War' was ... more about each superpower using the supposed 'threat' posed by the other to justify its own imperialism.

Kind of how our two war parties keep the American people down, isn't it? I've seen Chomsky describe American politics along those lines.

The one thing I hate more than liberal bloggers trying to demonstrate their mainstream credentials by mocking "the left" is being outflanked on the left on a liberal blog!

Change we can't believe in. No we can't!

by Alexander on Tue Dec 2nd, 2008 at 10:21:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: An Answer to Greenwald (none / 0)

Chomsky and Chomskyites do seem to use moral equivalency every time I notice them. For example, if you don't like Jimmy Carter's foreign policy decisions that still doesn't make them the same as Reagan's. This kind of logic blurs distinctions. Even Michael Parenti wrote about it. A logic that blurs distinctions is worthless.

I'll give you an example. This is based on my memory and terms may not be precise, but they reflect his opinion: A friend of mine corresponded with Chomsky about JFK's assassination (Chomsky had written a book attacking JFK decades after his assassination). Chomsky said that it made no difference whether or not JFK was killed by a conspiracy within the government because he was a member of the ruling elite and that Johnson basically picked up the ball and did exactly what Kennedy would have done.

That is so wrong on so many different levels. First off, on the simple matter of prosecuting a murder, who killed JFK matters. Second, the presumption that Presidents are interchangeable is so Nader2000-ish. Third, the underlying presumption that NSAM 263 and NSAM 273 were the same, Chomsky's point, isn't true. All you have to do is read them. The first, a month before Kennedy's death, calls for withdrawing all troops out of Vietnam. The second, coming out four days after JFK's death, is written to allow for a Gulf of Tonkin event to continue the war.

Whatever Chomsky thinks, though, I don't believe you have to be far left to want the U.S. out of Afghanistan.

(By the way, is it far left if you want the workers to control the means of production?)

by Bob In Pacifica on Tue Dec 2nd, 2008 at 07:17:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: An Answer to Greenwald (none / 1)

"Chomsky and Chomskyites do seem to use moral equivalency every time I notice them. For example, if you don't like Jimmy Carter's foreign policy decisions that still doesn't make them the same as Reagan's. This kind of logic blurs distinctions. Even Michael Parenti wrote about it. A logic that blurs distinctions is worthless."

I can't comment on "Chomskyites", obviously, but from what I've read of Chomsky you're mischaracterising him here. Chomsky absolutely makes distinctions between Reagan and Carter, Carter and Kennedy, and so forth. He has written about each of their records in detail, focusing specifically on what each of them have done.

His analysis does state, however, the government policy is to a large extent determined by institutions of power that remain relatively stable over time. In other words, while there are of course difference between the policies pursued by, say, Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan, they are confined to a very narrow spectrum, as determined by those powerful institutions. And, in my view at any rate, he supports this analysis very convincingly. That's not the same as saying that there are no differences between the parties or between different presidencies, but rather that both parties and all Presidents are produced by and operate within a system that sharply limits those differences. So what differences exist will be slight - but as he has often stressed, when you're talking about a massive concentration of power even slight differences can translate into large outcomes.

Even if your representation of his views was correct, btw, I don't see how that would qualify as
"moral equivalence".

"Chomsky said that it made no difference whether or not JFK was killed by a conspiracy within the government because he was a member of the ruling elite and that Johnson basically picked up the ball and did exactly what Kennedy would have done."

Chomsky strongly rejects the thesis that Kennedy was secretly preparing to withdraw from Vietnam before his assassination. This isn't due to some glib dismissal of all Presidents as being the same - he has gone through the factual record in detail and concluded that Kennedy was planning no such thing. Now you can disagree with him about that if you want, but that's a factual dispute. It has nothing to do with the broader criticism you're making. I suspect that's what he meant in saying that it "made no difference". Morally, it's clearly important, but compared to the crimes that both Kennedy and Johnson were prosecuting at the time the question of whether Kennedy was killed by a random loon or by the government pales into insignificance.

"(By the way, is it far left if you want the workers to control the means of production?)"

Yeah, I think so.

by heathlander on Tue Dec 2nd, 2008 at 10:19:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: An Answer to Greenwald (none / 0)

I, too, love Glenn. But I guess I was taken a little off guard by Greenwald's take on it because I just didn't read your comments the same way he did. Maybe, because I've read your take on things for a while now that it just didn't seem like some kind of egregious RAH-RAH OBAMA moment worthy of mockery.

And while I'm not entirely enamored of all his picks either, I think your argument that they may well effectively neutralize a lot of potential moves by his opposition seems as very real and logical possibility. We will just have to wait and see.

"Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity"

by MikeInOhio (miken45054@yahoo.com) on Tue Dec 2nd, 2008 at 02:12:17 PM EST

Re: An Answer to Greenwald (none / 0)

Politics is the art of the possible. Maybe Obama will be the Duke Ellington of American politics. Step one of the art is lining up the orchestra. They're all strong players, but they are not going to be blowing whatever the hell they like. I don't mean this facetiously. I agree with you Mike, Bob in Pacifica, Booman. Politics is the art of the possible, and it's possible to expand the possibilities as you pursue the art. But they haven't even started to play yet, so we don't know. If you look at the big picture, I think what Obama's done so far, namely, that he won the election and how he won it, is extremely impressive. Let's keep an open mind. Given the state of the country and the world, if he's going to get us out of the hole previous administrations have put us in, he faces an unbelievably difficult task.

by priscianus jr on Wed Dec 3rd, 2008 at 01:56:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: An Answer to Greenwald (none / 0)

the written word, especially on blogs, is hard to decipher sometimes. fortunately i feel like i get the audiobook version of your posts since we've shared a few beers and i can hear you debating your points.

Latino Político | "We are condemned to kill time, thus we die bit by bit." - Octavio Paz

by Man Eegee (man.eegee at gmail.com) on Tue Dec 2nd, 2008 at 02:14:16 PM EST

Re: An Answer to Greenwald (none / 0)

Even I understood what you wrote, BooMan.

Fear will keep the local systems in line. -Grand Moff Tarkin -SLB-

by boran2 (blogistan@yahoo.com) on Tue Dec 2nd, 2008 at 02:25:04 PM EST

Booman I understood you completely (none / 0)

While Greenwald is intelligent and interesting, he is always on a MISSION,
to make everyone think exactly like he thinks. He likes to pick fights with bloggers. Go over to Al Giordanos place and check the archives, he picked one with Al and Al ate him for lunch and dinner. As good as Greenwald is, he can be over the top with his pontifications, and this time as with Al G. he is at it AGAIN. Glenn needs to get out more, and mix it up ....those Brazilian macho fantasies, can be frustrating when they don't come to fruition!

by gaiilonfong on Tue Dec 2nd, 2008 at 09:23:12 PM EST

I left out one thing (none / 0)

Greenwalds Obama derangement syndrome is as bad as wingnuttias Clinton derangement syndrome.....

by gaiilonfong on Tue Dec 2nd, 2008 at 09:29:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: An Answer to Greenwald (none / 0)

"He's one of, if not the best bloggers in the business.:

I like Greenwald too, but something's not right with that sentence.

by priscianus jr on Wed Dec 3rd, 2008 at 01:15:22 AM EST

Re: An Answer to Greenwald (none / 1)

Boo, why do feel the need to defend or explain yourself?

by Andrew Longman on Wed Dec 3rd, 2008 at 10:45:39 AM EST

Re: An Answer to Greenwald (none / 0)

I don't know. Do you like to see your ideas distorted and mocked in the pages of Salon? I don't.

by BooMan on Wed Dec 3rd, 2008 at 12:11:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: An Answer to Greenwald (none / 0)

No. But the internet requires thick skin and I high tolerance for buttheads and misunderstanding.

In play here frankly IMO is a tendency by others to view politics as sport. Obama is bringing COMPETENCE to government for the first time in a very, very long time.

To acknowledge competence is unfortunately seen as cheerleading. The right answer isn't always popular with partisans. And it will not be as satisfying or provide the instant gratification that sparing for points in the 24 hour newscycle does for the internet pundits. Too bad. Fcuk 'em. You have nothing to apologize for.

by Andrew Longman on Wed Dec 3rd, 2008 at 06:14:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: An Answer to Greenwald (none / 0)

One last thing, at this point is it possible to find people who are really good, who can hit the ground running, who weren't at least passively involved in some of this mess?

by MNPundit on Wed Dec 3rd, 2008 at 02:39:14 PM EST

An Answer to Greenwald | 53 comments (53 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden)

Go to: [ Booman Tribune Homepage : Top of page : Top of comments ]

. Home
. About
. Contact
. Advertise
. FAQ
. Search

Username:
Password:

. Make a new account
. Reset password

Gift Cards * New Arrivals

NOTE: Overstock bests Amazon's prices and is "blue."

THE BOOKS WITH "BUZZ":
______________

Learn the real story behind the CIA's War on Terror:

The Dark Side: The Inside Story of How the War on Terror Turned Into a War on American Ideals
by Jane Mayer

Read Barack Obama's vision for America:

The Audacity of Hope: Thoughts on Reclaiming the American Dream
by Barack Obama

DaveW recommends:

I Am a Strange Loop
by Douglas Hofstadter

Need some laughs?

I Am America (and So Can You!)
by Stephen Colbert

rae recommends:

Dark Ages America: The Final Phase of Empire
by Morris Berman.

On BooMan’s shelf:

Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln
by Doris Kearns Goodwin

This looks interesting:

Adventure Divas
by Holly Morris

Here’s a good one from
Elizabeth Gilbert:

Eat Pray Love
by Elizabeth Gilbert

"Crash" * Best Motion Picture, Academy Awards * Only $11.79 at Overstock * 2006 SAG Winner, Best Ensemble

Check out
Powell's new section:
NEW FAVORITES
Selected new arrivals at 30% off

Recommended by Indianadem and ejmw:
The Conscience of a Liberal
by Paul Wellstone

From northcountry’s bookshelf:

The New Golden Age:
The Coming Revolution Against
Political Corruption and Economic Chaos by Ravi Batra

A novel about contractors in Iraq from the woman that runs The Spy That Billed Me:

Outsourced: A Novel
from RJ Hillhouse.

Download Sleeper Cell on iTunes

(Better than "24") Download Weeds on iTunes

(Hilarious 1/2-hour adult comedy starring Mary-Louise Parker) Download Late Nite with Conan O'Brien on iTunes

Download South Park on iTunes

James Hunter - People Gonna Talk:

Great Deals
----- * ^ * -----

Find mystery novels by Nancy Pickard ("Kansas")

Challenging Empire: How People, Governments, and the UN Defy US Power by Phyllis Bennis (interviewed on DN!)

Featured by Keith Olbermann, New (Powell's Sale): Rogue State: A Guide to the World's Only Superpower by William Blum (whose other books merit serious consideration)

"Explosive" State of War: The Secret History of the CIA and the Bush Administration
by James Risen

The book the CIA doesn't want you to read: Jawbreaker: The Attack on Bin Laden and Al Qaeda: A Personal Account by the CIA's Key Field Commander
Larry Johnson's review

BT's all-time best seller:

PERMACULTURE:
A Designers' Manual
$79.95 * Sale: $59.95

Unequal Sisters: A Multicultural Reader in U.S. Women's History (Third Edition)

The Undercover Economist: Exposing Why the Rich Are Rich, the Poor Are Poor And Why You Can Never Buy a Decent Used Car!

The Worst Hard Time: The Untold Story of Those Who Survived the Great American Dust Bowl
by Timothy Egan

Green Press Initiative
----- * ^ * -----

Journalistas: 100 Years of the Best Writing and Reporting by Women Journalists by Eleanor Mills * NYT review

Bury Me Standing: the Gypsies & Their Journey

1491: New Revelations of the Americas before Columbus

Brokeback Mountain
by Annie Proulx
----- * ^ * -----
Check out Powell's
"At The Movies"

Imperial Ambitions: Conversations on the Post-9/11 World by Noam Chomsky (Power & Terror: Post 9-11 Talks)

The Price of Privilege:

How Parental Pressure and
Material Advantage Are Creating a Generation of
Disconnected and Unhappy Kids
by Madeline Levine

Save 35-70% on
name brand clothing,
footwear, and outdoor gear
at SierraTradingPost.com
:

We listened to PEN American Center's "State of Emergency" and found 1940s books by Curzio Malaparte only at Alibris. (Selection (MP3) excerpted from "The Skin.")

Banned Books * Are you a fan of Film Noir, Art House, Documentaries or Hong Kong Action? * Searching for a long-lost children's book or a first printing of Miles Davis' Kind of Blue on vinyl? Find it at Alibris!

:
:

Booman Tribune Homepage
admin@boomantribune.com
powered by Scoop

More blogs about Blogs at Technorati.

Technorati Profile