Greenwald's Views ("Decide for yourself if the 'libertarian' label applies")

[better-dead-than-fed]

I don't really care what labels get applied to me. But - beyond the anti-war and pro-civil-liberties writing I do on a daily basis - here are views I've publicly advocated. Decide for yourself if the "libertarian" label applies:

opposing all cuts to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid (here and here);
repeatedly calling for the prosecution of Wall Street (here, here and here);
advocating for robust public financing to eliminate the domination by the rich in political campaigns, writing: "corporate influence over our political process is easily one of the top sicknesses afflicting our political culture" (here and here);
condemning income and wealth inequality as the by-product of corruption (here and here);
attacking oligarchs - led by the Koch Brothers - for self-pitying complaints about the government and criticizing policies that favor the rich at the expense of ordinary Americans (here);
arguing in favor of a public option for health care reform (repeatedly);
criticizing the appointment of too many Goldman Sachs and other Wall Street officials to positions of power (here, here and here);
repeatedly condemning the influence of corporate factions in public policy making (here and here);
praising and defending the Occupy Wall Street movement as early and vocally as anyone (here, here and here)
using my blog to raise substantial money for the campaigns of Russ Feingold and left-wing/anti-war Democrats Normon Solomon, Franke Wilmer and Cecil Bothwell, and defending Dennis Kucinich from Democratic Party attacks;
co-founding a new group along with Daniel Ellsberg, Laura Poitras, John Cusack, Xeni Jardin, JP Barlow and others to protect press freedom and independent journalism (see the New York Times report on this here);
co-founding and working extensively on a PAC to work with labor unions and liberal advocacy groups to recruit progressive primary challengers to conservative Democratic incumbents (see the New York Times report on this here);



more here: http://ggsidedocs.blogspot.com/2013/01/frequently-told-lies-ftls.html

[JCDenton0451]

He is a honest liberal then. We can work with that.

[Christian Liberty]

Number one shows that he isn't.

That doesn't make him useless, by any means, but I'd certainly prefer someone like Rand Paul in the White House over someone like him.

[Danan]

Doesn't apply. Doesn't matter though. Not everybody will be a libertarian and he is extremely good at what he does for a living - exposing government lies and invasion of privacy - and that happens to be completely in line wiht libertarianism and good for our cause.

When he is first and foremost known for supporting government medicine, that's the time to attack him on this position. As of now, I believe nobody really cares what his views on this issue are.

[klamath]

He is an honest progressive that I can strongly work with on a number of issues.

[FrankRep]

Glenn Greenwald Regularly Attends Marxist-Leninist Conferences
http://www.aim.org/aim-column/glenn-greenwald-regularly-attends-marxist-leninist-conferences/

[thoughtomator]

He's not libertarian, but he's not an enemy either - he is an important ally.

The first job of any libertarian is educating people around you as to what's going on that the media doesn't report about. Greenwald is filling that niche nicely on an issue whose importance cannot be overstated.

[supermario21]

We can't discredit what he's doing because he's a diehard progressive/socialist. The neocons are resorting to this tactic to try and turn the grassroots against him and Snowden in order to protect NSA spying. Work with who you can when you can.

[Warlord]

He should he be honest enough to admit the danger of leviathan and advocate for his socialist policies at the state level. If he doesn't then he just ensures more of the same which he claims to fight against since the totalitarian state is an inevitable consequence of big government

[JCDenton0451]

He should he be honest enough to admit the danger of leviathan and advocate for his socialist policies at the state level. If he doesn't then he just ensures more of the same which he claims to fight against since the totalitarian state is an inevitable consequence of big government

Would you consider Islamic republic of Iran a totalitarian state? I do. They are not socialist though, Iran is a theocracy. It's the kind of regime that some Evangelicals would like to establish here.

[jmdrake]

He is a honest liberal then. We can work with that.

I agree! Come on folks, everybody doesn't have to agree with us on every issue.

[jmdrake]

Glenn Greenwald Regularly Attends Marxist-Leninist Conferences
http://www.aim.org/aim-column/glenn-greenwald-regularly-attends-marxist-leninist-conferences/


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ygKHdv19Kk

[Christian Liberty]

Doesn't apply. Doesn't matter though. Not everybody will be a libertarian and he is extremely good at what he does for a living - exposing government lies and invasion of privacy - and that happens to be completely in line wiht libertarianism and good for our cause.

When he is first and foremost known for supporting government medicine, that's the time to attack him on this position. As of now, I believe nobody really cares what his views on this issue are.

We don't need to "Attack" him and Greenwald is great at doing what he does.

What he's doing now, he's an ally.

On the other hand, when it comes to actual politicians, I'd rather have people who are more well-rounded across the board than people who are good on other issues but anti-freedom on the economy.

Greenwald is doing good things right now, but that doesn't make him a libertarian. Martin Luther King Jr. did a ton of good for the world, and to my understanding, did act in line with the NAP, but he wasn't actually a libertarian.

We can't discredit what he's doing because he's a diehard progressive/socialist. The neocons are resorting to this tactic to try and turn the grassroots against him and Snowden in order to protect NSA spying. Work with who you can when you can.

Agreed. He's a socialist but that doesn't make him wrong on this, at all.


Would you consider Islamic republic of Iran a totalitarian state? I do. They are not socialist though, Iran is a theocracy. It's the kind of regime that some Evangelicals would like to establish here.

Tom Dilorenzo's column calling Santorum "Ayollatah" was hillarious, but in reality, even Rick Santorum doesn't go quite that far, and most Republicans don't go as far as Santorum.

I do find it ironic that those in US politics who support a government that is much closer to that of the Islamic theocracies than anyone else are also the first who want to invade the Islamic Republics, but they still don't support quite the same thing.

To put it another way, let's say there was a "Theocrat scale" from 1 to 10. Pretty much everyone on here would be a 4 or lower on that scale, most people would be a 1 or a 2. Imposing strictly Old Testament or "Sharia" law would get you a rating of 10.

Libertarians, who would probably have a rating of one or two on this scale (Let's say its a logarithmic scale of some sort because otherwise I need a bunch more numbers) are the ones who don't want to attack the Irans and the Saudi Arabias, the 9's and 10's on the scale.

People like Mike Huckabee and Rick Santorum, people who would be maybe 6 or 7 on this scale (So, not quite Islamic theocrats, but closer than libertarians) are the first ones to justify attacking the 9's and 10's.

So, they aren't quite as bad but its still a really weird phenomenon.

I agree! Come on folks, everybody doesn't have to agree with us on every issue.

Nobody's saying that they do. He's just not a libertarian.

Heck, I point out that Rand Paul isn't a libertarian, and he's definitely closer than Greenwald.

That doesn't change that Greenwald is good at what he does.

Does Greenwald support people like Ron Paul?

[limequat]

I'd much rather live in Greenwald's utopia than what we have now. While I disagree philosophical on some points, it's important to note that most of our problems come from corruption. Imagine a liberal's paradise with zero corruption. Not bad, eh?

The problem is that WE know power corrupts and are thus opposed to power in the first place.

Greenwald is a hero and an intellectual power house.

As stated in another thread, look at the names of these alleged socialists ...

George Orwell
Noam Chomsky
Lewis Black

[limequat]

Does Greenwald support people like Ron Paul?

He wrote a favorable column in slate after the debacle with Scheiffer.

[surf]

who the f@ck cares?

guys a bloody hero right now.

[Fredom101]

He likes to use the violence of the state his own way. He's anti-war but still agrees that there needs to be violence in the system, just like R's and D's do.

It's okay though, let's give him huge credit for blowing open the Snowden (who is a libertarian) thing, when the msm cowers and backs everything the gov't says.

[better-dead-than-fed]

Imagine a liberal's paradise with zero corruption. Not bad, eh?

Very bad.

[Anti Federalist]

who the f@ck cares?

guys a bloody hero right now.

This.

/thread.

He is the only reporter willing to bring forward the information given to him by another hero, and Ron Paul man, Snowden.

[torchbearer]

He likes to use the violence of the state his own way. He's anti-war but still agrees that there needs to be violence in the system, just like R's and D's do.

It's okay though, let's give him huge credit for blowing open the Snowden (who is a libertarian) thing, when the msm cowers and backs everything the gov't says.

if the man is honest. talking with him about these things in an honest and intellectual manner may actually do some good.
he is smart, and he is not a partisan. he is reachable.

[tod evans]

if the man is honest. talking with him about these things in an honest and intellectual manner may actually do some good.
he is smart, and he is not a partisan. he is reachable.

And the guys got more balls than all of the MSM pundits combined!

How's that feel you bunch of losers?

Some soft spoken **** has not only more balls but more integrity!

Suck this post up NSA!

[Brian4Liberty]

arguing in favor of a public option for health care reform (repeatedly);

As I said many times during the Obamacare debate, a "public option" in the form of basic County Hospitals that provide cheap service would not be the worst thing in the world. Competition is good. Combine that with removing regulatory restrictions on opening small, independent health care operations (open a clinic in every Walmart), and maybe we would have something good. Obamacare is probably the worst possible option.

Doctors who are going to cash-only service is one of the few good things to come from this Obamacare monstrosity.

[July]

Does Greenwald support people like Ron Paul?

Well, he has stated that he's open to supporting others on common issues in areas of agreement (such as on foreign policy and civil liberties), while still disagreeing on other things/issues. So make of that what you will. He did write about Ron during the campaign, and also defended Rand's filibuster. But of course partisan politics being what it is, he's taken a lot of heat and criticism for doing so, and especially now after Snowden, he has a lot of detractors on both the right and the left who are now trying to discredit him and smear him for being too sympathetic with "far right libertarians" and "far left socialists" and "communists". Take it with a grain of salt. Many of these people don't seem to have any idea what libertarians really believe, and are just trying to use it as a scary sounding label to smear with, and shut down debate.

[purplechoe]

I always liked Greenwald, he stands by his principles and is sincere in his beliefs. Even though I disagree with him on the economic issues, we have a lot in common in other areas like foreign policy, the Bill of Rights, etc. He has spoken out against Obama and has gone as far as to say that he's Bush on steroids. This is the type of person we can work with and I think he has spoken kindly of Ron Paul in the past as well...

[limequat]

Very bad.

No war? No thousands of troops over seas? No MIC? No NSA, warrentless wiretaps, no FISA, no Patriot Act?

Right now we have the worst of both worlds. An liberal utopia would be 50% better.

[better-dead-than-fed]

Greenwald is doing good things right now

One thing Greenwald is doing is concealing 96.65% of the documents he received from Snowden. It is not clear why, or whether that is a good thing. (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fnUvX98Fitn8z5bftjNn3SQtjKjgsjBh361RDv2I-HE/pub)

[Carlybee]

One thing Greenwald is doing is concealing 96.65% of the documents he received from Snowden. It is not clear why, or whether that is a good thing. (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fnUvX98Fitn8z5bftjNn3SQtjKjgsjBh361RDv2I-HE/pub)

He probably doesn't want to be indicted as an accessory after the fact.

[better-dead-than-fed]

No war? No thousands of troops over seas? No MIC? No NSA, warrentless wiretaps, no FISA, no Patriot Act?

Right now we have the worst of both worlds. An liberal utopia would be 50% better.

I don't mean to suggest that Greenwald advocates all or any of this, but in response to your point about "a liberal's paradise with zero corruption" (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?419406-Greenwald-s-Views-(-quot-Decide-for-yourself-if-the-libertarian-label-applies-quot-)/page2&p=5095641#post5095641):

State-violence to enforce socialism? Most of your earnings taken by force to support those more needy? An infirmary-state, most people living in hospital-beds on life-support; most of everyone else's earnings being taxed to fund the life-support?

[better-dead-than-fed]

He probably doesn't want to be indicted as an accessory after the fact.

Possibly, though he has not said so. He might have good reasons, but then again he might be motivated by certain political values not shared by everyone.

An accessory to what?

[amy31416]

One thing I don't understand about even "sincere" liberals is why they generally don't support Ron Paul's "soft" transition from dependence on the state to self-reliance--what's wrong with the dignity and self-respect that comes from not needing handouts? What's wrong with minority communities being healthier? Why the love of oppression and faith in elected officials who are motivated by greed, ego and sociopathic tendencies? He didn't like when the state stole his partner's laptop, how is it different from forcing me to pay for a laptop for his poor person of choice?

He's a very intelligent person who's got to know all these things, yet he advocates for them. I don't know what to think about people like that--with Kucinich, it's easier to dismiss those things as naivete.

[mad cow]

Greenwald is doing great things right now with this Snowden story.Praise him for it.

People who say we can't work with or praise somebody because they disagree with us XX% of the time piss me off.

[July]

One thing I don't understand about even "sincere" liberals is why they generally don't support Ron Paul's "soft" transition from dependence on the state to self-reliance--what's wrong with the dignity and self-respect that comes from not needing handouts? What's wrong with minority communities being healthier? Why the love of oppression and faith in elected officials who are motivated by greed, ego and sociopathic tendencies? He didn't like when the state stole his partner's laptop, how is it different from forcing me to pay for a laptop for his poor person of choice?

He's a very intelligent person who's got to know all these things, yet he advocates for them. I don't know what to think about people like that--with Kucinich, it's easier to dismiss those things as naivete.

I think because many hold to a different view of class conflict theory. I think that explains why libertarians and liberals might align on war and civil liberties, and yet widely diverge on economics, etc. For libertarians the conflict is more seen as being between the market and the state (the economic means versus the political means). Whereas liberals still view the state as providing a power check to some degree or another.

[better-dead-than-fed]

Greenwald is doing great things right now with this Snowden story.Praise him for it.

People who say we can't work with or praise somebody because they disagree with us XX% of the time piss me off.

I can't see whether his decision to conceal 99.65% of Snowden's documents is praiseworthy or not. That's the whole thing about non-transparency.

[mad cow]

I can't see whether his decision to conceal 99.65% of Snowden's document is praiseworthy or not. That's the thing about non-transparency.

He has said he doesn't want to risk anybody's life,so perhaps he is being careful.

I have said I hope he releases this stuff,about one bombshell a week for the next 2 or three years would be nice,in a steady drip to keep it on the front pages.

[Peace Piper]

Progressives and the Ron Paul fallacies
Glenn Greenwald 12/31/2011
http://www.salon.com/2011/12/31/progressives_and_the_ron_paul_fallacies/

The benefits of his candidacy are widely ignored, as are the Democrats' own evils

(updated below)

As I’ve written about before, America’s election season degrades mainstream political discourse even beyond its usual lowly state. The worst attributes of our political culture — obsession with trivialities, the dominance of horserace “reporting,” and mindless partisan loyalties — become more pronounced than ever. Meanwhile, the actually consequential acts of the U.S. Government and the permanent power factions that control it — covert endless wars, consolidation of unchecked power, the rapid growth of the Surveillance State and the secrecy regime, massive inequalities in the legal system, continuous transfers of wealth from the disappearing middle class to large corporate conglomerates — drone on with even less attention paid than usual.

Because most of those policies are fully bipartisan in nature, the election season — in which only issues that bestow partisan advantage receive attention — places them even further outside the realm of mainstream debate and scrutiny. For that reason, America’s elections ironically serve to obsfuscate political reality even more than it usually is.

This would all be bad enough if “election season” were confined to a few months the way it is in most civilized countries. But in America, the fixation on presidential elections takes hold at least eighteen months before the actual election occurs, which means that more than 1/3 of a President’s term is conducted in the midst of (and is obscured by) the petty circus distractions of The Campaign. Thus, an unauthorized, potentially devastating covert war — both hot and cold — against Iran can be waged with virtually no debate, just as government control over the Internet can be inexorably advanced, because TV political shows are busy chattering away about Michele Bachmann’s latest gaffe and minute changes in Rick Perry’s polling numbers.

Then there’s the full-scale sacrifice of intellectual honesty and political independence at the altar of tongue-wagging partisan loyalty. The very same people who in 2004 wildly cheered John Kerry — husband of the billionaire heiress-widow Teresa Heinz Kerry — spent all of 2008 mocking John McCain’s wealthy life courtesy of his millionaire heiress wife and will spend 2012 depicting Mitt Romney’s wealth as proof of his insularity; conversely, the same people who relentlessly mocked Kerry in 2004 as a kept girly-man and gigolo for living off his wife’s wealth spent 2008 venerating McCain as the Paragon of Manly Honor.

That combat experience is an important presidential trait was insisted upon in 2004 by the very same people who vehemently denied it in 2008, and vice-versa. Long-time associations with controversial figures and inflammatory statements from decades ago either matter or they don’t depending on whom it hurts, etc. etc. During election season, even the pretense of consistency is proudly dispensed with; listening to these empty electioneering screeching matches for any period of time can generate the desire to jump off the nearest bridge to escape it.

Then there’s the inability and/or refusal to recognize that a political discussion might exist independent of the Red v. Blue Cage Match. Thus, any critique of the President’s exercise of vast power (an adversarial check on which our political system depends) immediately prompts bafflement (I don’t understand the point: would Rick Perry be any better?) or grievance (you’re helping Mitt Romney by talking about this!!). The premise takes hold for a full 18 months — increasing each day in intensity until Election Day — that every discussion of the President’s actions must be driven solely by one’s preference for election outcomes (if you support the President’s re-election, then why criticize him?).

Worse still is the embrace of George W. Bush’s with-us-or-against-us mentality as the prism through which all political discussions are filtered. It’s literally impossible to discuss any of the candidates’ positions without having the simple-minded — who see all political issues exclusively as a Manichean struggle between the Big Bad Democrats and Good Kind Republicans or vice-versa — misapprehend “I agree with Candidate X’s position on Y” as “I support Candidate X for President” or “I disagree with Candidate X’s position on Y” as “I oppose Candidate X for President.” Even worse are the lying partisan enforcers who, like the Inquisitor Generals searching for any inkling of heresy, purposely distort any discrete praise for the Enemy as a general endorsement.

So potent is this poison that no inoculation against it exists. No matter how expressly you repudiate the distortions in advance, they will freely flow. Hence: I’m about to discuss the candidacies of Barack Obama and Ron Paul, and no matter how many times I say that I am not “endorsing” or expressing support for anyone’s candidacy, the simple-minded Manicheans and the lying partisan enforcers will claim the opposite. But since it’s always inadvisable to refrain from expressing ideas in deference to the confusion and deceit of the lowest elements, I’m going to proceed to make a couple of important points about both candidacies even knowing in advance how wildly they will be distorted.

* * * * *

The Ron Paul candidacy, for so many reasons, spawns pervasive political confusion — both unintended and deliberate. Yesterday, The Nation‘s long-time liberal publisher, Katrina vanden Heuvel, wrote this on Twitter:

n/a

That’s fairly remarkable: here’s the Publisher of The Nation praising Ron Paul not on ancillary political topics but central ones (“ending preemptive wars & challenging bipartisan elite consensus” on foreign policy), and going even further and expressing general happiness that he’s in the presidential race. Despite this observation, Katrina vanden Heuvel — needless to say — does not support and will never vote for Ron Paul (indeed, in subsequent tweets, she condemned his newsletters as “despicable”). But the point that she’s making is important, if not too subtle for the with-us-or-against-us ethos that dominates the protracted presidential campaign: even though I don’t support him for President, Ron Paul is the only major candidate from either party advocating crucial views on vital issues that need to be heard, and so his candidacy generates important benefits.

Whatever else one wants to say, it is indisputably true that Ron Paul is the only political figure with any sort of a national platform — certainly the only major presidential candidate in either party — who advocates policy views on issues that liberals and progressives have long flamboyantly claimed are both compelling and crucial. The converse is equally true: the candidate supported by liberals and progressives and for whom most will vote — Barack Obama — advocates views on these issues (indeed, has taken action on these issues) that liberals and progressives have long claimed to find repellent, even evil.

As Matt Stoller argued in a genuinely brilliant essay on the history of progressivism and the Democratic Party which I cannot recommend highly enough: “the anger [Paul] inspires comes not from his positions, but from the tensions that modern American liberals bear within their own worldview.” Ron Paul’s candidacy is a mirror held up in front of the face of America’s Democratic Party and its progressive wing, and the image that is reflected is an ugly one; more to the point, it’s one they do not want to see because it so violently conflicts with their desired self-perception.

The thing I loathe most about election season is reflected in the central fallacy that drives progressive discussion the minute “Ron Paul” is mentioned. As soon as his candidacy is discussed, progressives will reflexively point to a slew of positions he holds that are anathema to liberalism and odious in their own right and then say: how can you support someone who holds this awful, destructive position? The premise here — the game that’s being played — is that if you can identify some heinous views that a certain candidate holds, then it means they are beyond the pale, that no Decent Person should even consider praising any part of their candidacy.

The fallacy in this reasoning is glaring. The candidate supported by progressives — President Obama — himself holds heinous views on a slew of critical issues and himself has done heinous things with the power he has been vested. He has slaughtered civilians — Muslim children by the dozens — not once or twice, but continuously in numerous nations with drones, cluster bombs and other forms of attack. He has sought to overturn a global ban on cluster bombs. He has institutionalized the power of Presidents — in secret and with no checks — to target American citizens for assassination-by-CIA, far from any battlefield. He has waged an unprecedented war against whistleblowers, the protection of which was once a liberal shibboleth. He rendered permanently irrelevant the War Powers Resolution, a crown jewel in the list of post-Vietnam liberal accomplishments, and thus enshrined the power of Presidents to wage war even in the face of a Congressional vote against it. His obsession with secrecy is so extreme that it has become darkly laughable in its manifestations, and he even worked to amend the Freedom of Information Act (another crown jewel of liberal legislative successes) when compliance became inconvenient.

He has entrenched for a generation the once-reviled, once-radical Bush/Cheney Terrorism powers of indefinite detention, military commissions, and the state secret privilege as a weapon to immunize political leaders from the rule of law. He has shielded Bush era criminals from every last form of accountability. He has vigorously prosecuted the cruel and supremely racist War on Drugs, including those parts he vowed during the campaign to relinquish — a war which devastates minority communities and encages and converts into felons huge numbers of minority youth for no good reason. He has empowered thieving bankers through the Wall Street bailout, Fed secrecy, efforts to shield mortgage defrauders from prosecution, and the appointment of an endless roster of former Goldman, Sachs executives and lobbyists. He’s brought the nation to a full-on Cold War and a covert hot war with Iran, on the brink of far greater hostilities. He has made the U.S. as subservient as ever to the destructive agenda of the right-wing Israeli government. His support for some of the Arab world’s most repressive regimes is as strong as ever.

Most of all, America’s National Security State, its Surveillance State, and its posture of endless war is more robust than ever before. The nation suffers from what National Journal‘s Michael Hirsh just christened “Obama’s Romance with the CIA.” He has created what The Washington Post just dubbed “a vast drone/killing operation,” all behind an impenetrable wall of secrecy and without a shred of oversight. Obama’s steadfast devotion to what Dana Priest and William Arkin called “Top Secret America” has severe domestic repercussions as well, building up vast debt and deficits in the name of militarism that create the pretext for the “austerity” measures which the Washington class (including Obama) is plotting to impose on America’s middle and lower classes.

The simple fact is that progressives are supporting a candidate for President who has done all of that — things liberalism has long held to be pernicious. I know it’s annoying and miserable to hear. Progressives like to think of themselves as the faction that stands for peace, opposes wars, believes in due process and civil liberties, distrusts the military-industrial complex, supports candidates who are devoted to individual rights, transparency and economic equality. All of these facts — like the history laid out by Stoller in that essay — negate that desired self-perception. These facts demonstrate that the leader progressives have empowered and will empower again has worked in direct opposition to those values and engaged in conduct that is nothing short of horrific. So there is an eagerness to avoid hearing about them, to pretend they don’t exist. And there’s a corresponding hostility toward those who point them out, who insist that they not be ignored.

The parallel reality — the undeniable fact — is that all of these listed heinous views and actions from Barack Obama have been vehemently opposed and condemned by Ron Paul: and among the major GOP candidates, only by Ron Paul. For that reason, Paul’s candidacy forces progressives to face the hideous positions and actions of their candidate, of the person they want to empower for another four years. If Paul were not in the race or were not receiving attention, none of these issues would receive any attention because all the other major GOP candidates either agree with Obama on these matters or hold even worse views.

Progressives would feel much better about themselves, their Party and their candidate if they only had to oppose, say, Rick Perry or Michele Bachmann. That’s because the standard GOP candidate agrees with Obama on many of these issues and is even worse on these others, so progressives can feel good about themselves for supporting Obama: his right-wing opponent is a warmonger, a servant to Wall Street, a neocon, a devotee of harsh and racist criminal justice policies, etc. etc. Paul scrambles the comfortable ideological and partisan categories and forces progressives to confront and account for the policies they are working to protect. His nomination would mean that it is the Republican candidate — not the Democrat — who would be the anti-war, pro-due-process, pro-transparency, anti-Fed, anti-Wall-Street-bailout, anti-Drug-War advocate (which is why some neocons are expressly arguing they’d vote for Obama over Paul). Is it really hard to see why Democrats hate his candidacy and anyone who touts its benefits?

It’s perfectly rational and reasonable for progressives to decide that the evils of their candidate are outweighed by the evils of the GOP candidate, whether Ron Paul or anyone else. An honest line of reasoning in this regard would go as follows:

Yes, I’m willing to continue to have Muslim children slaughtered by covert drones and cluster bombs, and America’s minorities imprisoned by the hundreds of thousands for no good reason, and the CIA able to run rampant with no checks or transparency, and privacy eroded further by the unchecked Surveillance State, and American citizens targeted by the President for assassination with no due process, and whistleblowers threatened with life imprisonment for “espionage,” and the Fed able to dole out trillions to bankers in secret, and a substantially higher risk of war with Iran (fought by the U.S. or by Israel with U.S. support) in exchange for less severe cuts to Social Security, Medicare and other entitlement programs, the preservation of the Education and Energy Departments, more stringent environmental regulations, broader health care coverage, defense of reproductive rights for women, stronger enforcement of civil rights for America’s minorities, a President with no associations with racist views in a newsletter, and a more progressive Supreme Court.

Without my adopting it, that is at least an honest, candid, and rational way to defend one’s choice. It is the classic lesser-of-two-evils rationale, the key being that it explicitly recognizes that both sides are “evil”: meaning it is not a Good v. Evil contest but a More Evil v. Less Evil contest. But that is not the discussion that takes place because few progressives want to acknowledge that the candidate they are supporting — again — is someone who will continue to do these evil things with their blessing. Instead, we hear only a dishonest one-sided argument that emphasizes Paul’s evils while ignoring Obama’s (progressives frequently ask: how can any progressive consider an anti-choice candidate but don’t ask themselves: how can any progressive support a child-killing, secrecy-obsessed, whistleblower-persecuting Drug Warrior?).

Paul’s candidacy forces those truths about the Democratic Party to be confronted. More important — way more important — is that, as vanden Heuvel pointed out, he forces into the mainstream political discourse vital ideas that are otherwise completely excluded given that they are at odds with the bipartisan consensus.

There are very few political priorities, if there are any, more imperative than having an actual debate on issues of America’s imperialism; the suffocating secrecy of its government; the destruction of civil liberties which uniquely targets Muslims, including American Muslims; the corrupt role of the Fed; corporate control of government institutions by the nation’s oligarchs; its destructive blind support for Israel, and its failed and sadistic Drug War. More than anything, it’s crucial that choice be given to the electorate by subverting the two parties’ full-scale embrace of these hideous programs.

I wish there were someone who did not have Ron Paul’s substantial baggage to achieve this. Before Paul announced his candidacy, I expressed hope in an Out Magazine profile that Gary Johnson would run for President and be the standard-bearer for these views, in the process scrambling bipartisan stasis on these questions. I did that not because I was endorsing his candidacy (as some low-level Democratic Party operative dishonestly tried to claim), but because, as a popular two-term Governor of New Mexico free of Paul’s disturbing history and associations, he seemed to me well-suited to force these debates to be had. But alas, Paul decided to run again, and Johnson — for reasons still very unclear — was forcibly excluded from media debates and rendered a non-person. Since then, Paul’s handling of the very legitimate questions surrounding those rancid newsletters has been disappointing in the extreme, and that has only served to obscure these vital debates and severely dilute the discourse-enhancing benefits of his candidacy.

* * * * *

Still, for better or worse, Paul — alone among the national figures in both parties — is able and willing to advocate views that Americans urgently need to hear. That he is doing so within the Republican Party makes it all the more significant. This is why Paul has been the chosen ally of key liberal House members such as Alan Grayson (on Fed transparency and corruption), Barney Frank (to arrest the excesses of the Drug War) and Dennis Kucinich (on a wide array of foreign policy and civil liberties issues). Just judge for yourself: consider some of what Ron Paul is advocating on vital issues — not secondary issues, but ones progressives have long insisted are paramount — and ask how else these debates will be had and who else will advocate these views:

Endless War and Terrorism

This entire four-minute Cenk Uygur discussion from last week about Paul’s candidacy is worthwhile, but if nothing else, watch the amazing ad about American wars and Terrorism from Ron Paul’s campaign which Cenk features at the 2:50 mark:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=odlEuyDxAOk
Ron Paul Doubles Down On War Stance

Due Process

Here’s Paul condemning the due-process-free assassination of American citizens:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Md3-LaJfUL4
Ron Paul: It's "Sad" We "Assassinated" Terrorist Al-Awlaki

More videos included in article available at link
http://www.salon.com/2011/12/31/progressives_and_the_ron_paul_fallacies/

* * * * *
Can anyone deny that (a) those views desperately need to be heard and (b) they are not advocated or even supported by the Democratic Party and President Obama? There are, as I indicated, all sorts of legitimate reasons for progressives to oppose Ron Paul’s candidacy on the whole. But if your only posture in the 2012 election is to demand lockstep marching behind Barack Obama and unqualified scorn for every other single candidate, then you are contributing to the continuation of these policies that liberalism has long claimed to detest, and bolstering the exclusion of these questions from mainstream debate.

If you’re someone who is content with the Obama presidency and the numerous actions listed above; if you’re someone who believes that things like Endless War, the Surveillance State, the Drug War, the sprawling secrecy regime, and the vast power of the Fed are merely minor, side issues that don’t merit much concern (sure, like a stopped clock, Paul is right about a couple things); if you’re someone who believes that the primary need for American politics is just to have some more Democrats in power, then lock-step marching behind Barack Obama for the next full year makes sense.

But if you don’t believe those things, then you’re going to be searching for ways to change mainstream political discourse and to disrupt the bipartisan consensus which shields these policies from all debate, let alone challenge. As imperfect a vehicle as it is, Ron Paul’s candidacy — his success within a Republican primary even as he unapologetically challenges these orthodoxies — is one of the few games in town for achieving any of that (now that Johnson has left the GOP and will [likely] run as the Libertarian Party candidate, perhaps he can accomplish that as well). As Conor Friedersdorf put it in his excellent, and appropriately agonizing, analysis of the Paul candidacy and his newsletters:

What I want Paul detractors to confront is that he alone, among viable candidates, favors reforming certain atrocious policies, including policies that explicitly target ethnic and religious minorities. And that, appalling as it is, every candidate in 2012 who has polled above 10 percent is complicit in some heinous policy or action or association. Paul’s association with racist newsletters is a serious moral failing, and even so, it doesn’t save us from making a fraught moral judgment about whether or not to support his candidacy, even if we’re judging by the single metric of protecting racial or ethnic minority groups, because when it comes to America’s most racist or racially fraught policies, Paul is arguably on the right side of all of them.

His opponents are often on the wrong side, at least if you’re someone who thinks that it’s wrong to lock people up without due process or kill them in drone strikes or destabilize their countries by forcing a war on drug cartels even as American consumers ensure the strength of those cartels.

It’s perfectly legitimate to criticize Paul harshly and point out the horrible aspects of his belief system and past actions. But that’s worthwhile only if it’s accompanied by a similarly candid assessment of all the candidates, including the sitting President.



UPDATE: Also, President Obama today signed the NDAA and its indefinite detention provisions into law (a law which Paul vehemently opposed); the ACLU statement — explaining that “President Obama’s action today is a blight on his legacy because he will forever be known as the president who signed indefinite detention without charge or trial into law” and “Any hope that the Obama administration would roll back the constitutional excesses of George Bush in the war on terror was extinguished today” – is here.


**************************

He's able to reason. Which is more than anyone in the beltway can do. Is he perfect? Who is?

[Peace Piper]

Bob Schieffer, Ron Paul and journalistic “objectivity”

Glenn Greenwald Thursday, Nov 24, 2011

The biggest media myth isn't "The Liberal Media"; it's the "objective journalist"

(updated below)
CBS News‘s Bob Schieffer is the classic American establishment TV journalist: unfailingly deferential to the politically powerful personalities who parade before him, and religiously devoted to what he considers his own “objectivity,” which ostensibly requires that he never let his personal opinions affect or be revealed by his journalism. Watch how thoroughly and even proudly he dispenses with both of those traits when interviewing Ron Paul last Sunday on Face the Nation regarding Paul’s foreign policy views. In this 7-minute clip, Schieffer repeatedly mocks, scoffs at, and displays his obvious contempt for, two claims of Paul’s which virtually no prominent politician of either party would dare express: (1) American interference and aggression in the Muslim world fuels anti-American sentiment and was thus part of the motivation for the 9/11 attack; and (2) American hostility and aggression toward Iran (in the form of sanctions and covert attacks) are more likely to exacerbate problems and lead to war than lead to peaceful resolution, which only dialogue with the Iranians can bring about:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EXvHPkRHBvk

You actually believe 9/11 was America’s fault? Your plan to deal with the Iranian nuclear program is to be nicer to Iran? This interview is worth highlighting because it is a vivid case underscoring several points about the real meaning of the much-vaunted “journalistic objectivity”:

(1) The overarching rule of “journalistic objectivity” is that a journalist must never resolve any part of a dispute between the Democratic and the Republican Parties, even when one side is blatantly lying. They must instead confine themselves only to mindlessly describing what each side claims and leave it at that. Their refusal to label Mitt Romney’s first campaign ad as dishonest — even though it wildly misquoted Obama — is a perfect example; so, too, was their refusal to call torture “torture” on the ground that Bush officials called it something else. This is also what The Washington Post‘s Congress reporter Paul Kane meant in his widely disparaged attack this week on those who condemn the media’s “cult of balance”; when Kane defended the political media’s trite, reflexive both-parties-are-at-fault coverage of the Super Committee’s failure by saying “news coverage should always strive to present both sides of the story,” what he means is: whenever Democratic and GOP leaders say different things, it’s the job of opinion writers — but not us objective reporters — to say what the truth is; our job is simply to faithfully write down what each side says and go home.

-----------------snip------------------

So Schieffer openly drooled over the glory of George Bush’s war strutting, admits he was in favor of the attack on Iraq, offered rationalizations for it shortly before it began, and, when it comes to his journalism regarding American wars, proudly announces that he “gives [the government] the benefit of the doubt.” One can call a journalist who behaves this way many things; “objective” is most assuredly not one of them.
MORE>>

http://www.salon.com/2011/11/24/bob_schieffer_ron_paul_and_journalistic_objectivit y/

[jmdrake]

One thing Greenwald is doing is concealing 96.65% of the documents he received from Snowden. It is not clear why, or whether that is a good thing. (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fnUvX98Fitn8z5bftjNn3SQtjKjgsjBh361RDv2I-HE/pub)

That's probably because Snowden asked him to.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2348357/Edward-Snowden-given-people-encoded-copies-files-case-happens-him.html

[Christian Liberty]

One thing I don't understand about even "sincere" liberals is why they generally don't support Ron Paul's "soft" transition from dependence on the state to self-reliance--what's wrong with the dignity and self-respect that comes from not needing handouts? What's wrong with minority communities being healthier? Why the love of oppression and faith in elected officials who are motivated by greed, ego and sociopathic tendencies? He didn't like when the state stole his partner's laptop, how is it different from forcing me to pay for a laptop for his poor person of choice?

He's a very intelligent person who's got to know all these things, yet he advocates for them. I don't know what to think about people like that--with Kucinich, it's easier to dismiss those things as naivete.

The bottom line is that they still love the state, and a big one at that.

I suppose the best you can get with that is what you've got with Greenwald. Which is to say, a smart man, a good man, but not anyone I'd want in any position of power (Granted, that's not to say he wouldn't be better than what we have, but that's besides the point.)


I'd much rather live in Greenwald's utopia than what we have now. While I disagree philosophical on some points, it's important to note that most of our problems come from corruption. Imagine a liberal's paradise with zero corruption. Not bad, eh?

The problem is that WE know power corrupts and are thus opposed to power in the first place.

Greenwald is a hero and an intellectual power house.

As stated in another thread, look at the names of these alleged socialists ...

George Orwell
Noam Chomsky
Lewis Black

Chomsky is honestly an idiot. Good on foreign policy, but still an idiot.

Orwell was definitely smart, considering how well he predicted the future, but you can only get so far in socialism.

[Christian Liberty]

Greenwald's ideal utopia would be great. A real world country ruled by people like Greenwald, not so much.

That said, he isn't in power so it doesn't matter. His big thing is civil liberties, and he does that well...

[messana]

Greenwald is great and I wish more liberals were like them. And I do think men like him should have a place at the pedestal - even just to break the mold of the "3x5 Card of Public Opinion".

[economics102]

Greenwald is a better ally to the libertarian cause than are 99% of our "conservative" brethren.

I've always said, what we need first and foremost is an alliance of the honest people against the dishonest people. Then we can have an honest debate. And then I can debate with Glenn about why he should let me be free instead of forcing me to pay for his retirement or healthcare :)

Bottom line, Greenwald has had my utmost respect for years and now he's a bona fide hero.

[Antischism]

Honesty and integrity will go a long way. Ron Paul attracts people because of this, even people who only agree with him half the time. Those who opposed Ron Paul most harshly did so because they knew he was a man of principle, and would do as he said. Almost all other public figures or politicians are malleable and unreliable.

[heavenlyboy34]

I agree! Come on folks, everybody doesn't have to agree with us on every issue.
This^^ Sincere left-liberals are more valuable and reliable than conservatives. I find it odd that so many people have such kneejerk reactions to "left wing" types. Clare Daly is thoroughly un-libertarian in a number of ways and I disagree with her on lots of things, but she's a brilliant anti-US imperialism speaker in Irish Parliament, so I proudly support her. :cool:

Honestly, it's easier to sell genuine liberty to "left"-ish people than conservatives. RPFs and the broader liberty movement would be wise to make strategic alliances of all sorts.

[Occam's Banana]

Glenn Greenwald Regularly Attends Marxist-Leninist Conferences
http://www.aim.org/aim-column/glenn-greenwald-regularly-attends-marxist-leninist-conferences/



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ygKHdv19Kk

I must spread some rep before giving it to jmdrake again.

From the OP we've got:
3 thumbs down items
6 thumbs up items
3 "it's a wash" items

Not bad. Not bad at all. Greenwald is not a libertarian. But he is definitely a fellow-traveller.


opposing all cuts to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid (here and here);
Thumbs down


repeatedly calling for the prosecution of Wall Street (here, here and here);
Thumbs up


advocating for robust public financing to eliminate the domination by the rich in political campaigns, writing: "corporate influence over our political process is easily one of the top sicknesses afflicting our political culture" (here and here);
A wash. Opposing corporate-crony corruption in elections - thumbs up. Robbing taxpayers to pay for political campaigns - thumbs down.


condemning income and wealth inequality as the by-product of corruption (here and here);
Thumbs up (so long as we remain in the context of the bolded bit)


attacking oligarchs - led by the Koch Brothers - for self-pitying complaints about the government and criticizing policies that favor the rich at the expense of ordinary Americans (here);
Thumbs up


arguing in favor of a public option for health care reform (repeatedly);
Thumbs down


criticizing the appointment of too many Goldman Sachs and other Wall Street officials to positions of power (here, here and here);
Thumbs up (very, very, very much up)


repeatedly condemning the influence of corporate factions in public policy making (here and here);
Thumbs up


praising and defending the Occupy Wall Street movement as early and vocally as anyone (here, here and here)
A wash. OWS had many good points - thumbs up. OWS had many bad points - thumbs down.


using my blog to raise substantial money for the campaigns of Russ Feingold and left-wing/anti-war Democrats Normon Solomon, Franke Wilmer and Cecil Bothwell, and defending Dennis Kucinich from Democratic Party attacks;
A wash. Promoting anti-war candidates & exposing Democratic establishment hypocrisy - thumbs up. Promoting economic liberalism - thumbs down.


co-founding a new group along with Daniel Ellsberg, Laura Poitras, John Cusack, Xeni Jardin, JP Barlow and others to protect press freedom and independent journalism (see the New York Times report on this here);
Thumbs up


co-founding and working extensively on a PAC to work with labor unions and liberal advocacy groups to recruit progressive primary challengers to conservative Democratic incumbents (see the New York Times report on this here);
Thumbs down

[Christian Liberty]

@heavenlyboy34- I'm with you on making strategic alliances. That said, I think its easier to get the average conservative to see common sense than the average liberal.

With conservatives, you have to expose their hypocricy. Liberals don't even claim to stand for the things we stand for, in general. Conservatives claim to, but they don't.

Of course, I'm talking about normal people here. Politicians you can't win them over so you've got to work to manipulate what you've got in the paradigm we've got.

[HOLLYWOOD]

ABSOLUTELY... we need an alliance first and foremost with honest people across all groups. People are starting to realize the megalomaniac government is at war with the people, the US Constitution, and run a rigged system at all levels.

The abandonment of the rule of law has brought, which is, the justice system treats you, not based on what you've done, as blind justice requires, based almost entirely on who you are. That is the definition of the abandonment of the rule of law. The US government has done this to the citizens, using them to bailout Fascist government and their corporatists/elitists... The people are held accountable for everything, while those dishonest in power. always walk.

Greenwald is a better ally to the libertarian cause than are 99% of our "conservative" brethren.

I've always said, what we need first and foremost is an alliance of the honest people against the dishonest people. Then we can have an honest debate. And then I can debate with Glenn about why he should let me be free instead of forcing me to pay for his retirement or healthcare :)

Bottom line, Greenwald has had my utmost respect for years and now he's a bona fide hero.

[heavenlyboy34]

@heavenlyboy34- I'm with you on making strategic alliances. That said, I think its easier to get the average conservative to see common sense than the average liberal.

With conservatives, you have to expose their hypocricy. Liberals don't even claim to stand for the things we stand for, in general. Conservatives claim to, but they don't.

Of course, I'm talking about normal people here. Politicians you can't win them over so you've got to work to manipulate what you've got in the paradigm we've got.
You must have missed everything conservatives have been quoted as saying. The outspoken "liberals" do make claims WRT "liberty" similar to what libertarians and classical liberals always have. They just use Newspeak to mask what they really mean. (unless by "normal people" you mean typical specimens of Boobus Americanus, then I withdraw my comment from the record)

[Christian Liberty]

I guess you're technically right, everyone uses the word "liberty." However, liberals so obviously twist it that even they know they aren't talking about the same thing we are. They don't usually claim to be in favor of reducing the size of the government. That doesn't make them useless, but you do pretty much have to change their entire worldview.

Conservatives, on the other hand, or at least Tea Partiers, do support small government, but are inconsistent about it. So its more about showing them how our views fit the underlying philosophy that they already support.

Honestly, people who want to take 30+% of my income aren't really my allies. They can be useful in limited situations, as Glenn Greenwald is since he focuses on surveilance, but they aren't really allies. Freedom for gays and drug users is great but I do kind of want to be free as well...

Ultimately, there are degrees of libertarians, but there aren't different types. Politics are ultimately quite one dimensional. Liberty vs tyranny.

Do I prefer people like Greenwald over people like (Lindsey) Graham? Of course. But the Grahams and the McCains aren't really conservatives by any definition either. More just the worst of both worlds. I'll take the Rand Pauls and the Mike Lees over the Greenwalds and the Kucinich's for actual political power.

Greenwald is pretty much helping libertarianism as much as he can considering his own views. Good on him. What he's doing is pro-liberty, regardless of his personal views, so I still support him. Much like I would support a pro-life organization that specialized in anti-abortion politics even if they supported (But did not generally talk about) war too. People only need to agree with us on the issues that they're actually dealing with.

But philosophically, Greenwald is WAY further than us than a conservative like Rand Paul or... to be at a more personal level, someone like my dad.

[Ender]

economics102: Greenwald is a better ally to the libertarian cause than are 99% of our "conservative" brethren.

I've always said, what we need first and foremost is an alliance of the honest people against the dishonest people. Then we can have an honest debate. And then I can debate with Glenn about why he should let me be free instead of forcing me to pay for his retirement or healthcare

Bottom line, Greenwald has had my utmost respect for years and now he's a bona fide hero.

Agreed.

[ProvincialPeasant]

Funny how HE is an ally (I think he is too), but Ted Cruz is a neocon.

[mad cow]

Funny how HE is an ally (I think he is too), but Ted Cruz is a neocon.

It all depends on whose ox is being gored to some here.I have seen people in this very forum,on this very thread claim that Rand Paul was the enemy and he should be defeated because he doesn't toe the Libertarian line close enough.

Sometimes we are our own worst enemies.

And I think Greenwald is an enormous ally too.

[Peace Piper]

Honestly, people who want to take 30+% of my income aren't really my allies. They can be useful in limited situations, as Glenn Greenwald is since he focuses on surveilance, but they aren't really allies. Freedom for gays and drug users is great but I do kind of want to be free as well...

But philosophically, Greenwald is WAY further than us than a conservative like Rand Paul or... to be at a more personal level, someone like my dad.

Glenn Greenwald isn't running for any political office, either in the US or Brazil.

He's trying to show people what it's like to do their jobs as reporters and journalists. And it's working.

If the Republicans and the Democrats hadn't raped this nations treasury, decided to play empire and bomb and invade lands 8000 miles away, stolen our liberties and sold out our manufacturing base to the lowest bidder there would be plenty of money for lots of things. Like maybe energy independence for example.

Glenn Greenwald doesn't want you to not "be free". Washington DC does, and they've been working on that for years and years. Has Ben Swann been subjected to a litmus test yet?

[talkingpointes]

Just like kucinich I don't agree with him but I can TRUST HIM. He is honest and that is all that matters.

[Warlord]

Funny how HE is an ally (I think he is too), but Ted Cruz is a neocon.

Rafael 'Ted' Cruz is a shameless, opportunistic, mega-rich Harvard lawyer elitist. If it was 2004 he'd be kissing Bush's butt so hard you wouldn't see his lips.