Okay, Seriously, So I Read Greenwald

I've had both vicious and reasonable emails and comments claiming my recent treatments of Glenn Greenwald have been unfair. They argue I have not engaged his substantive arguments and many ultimately dismiss me as a hapless Right wing ideologue - which I am not, by the way. So I opted to give him a chance and actually read his new post today.

I forced myself to read it twice, hours apart. Some key excerpts, my honest reaction below.

John Dean and Authoritarian Cultism - a Review

The full extent and irreversibility of the damage to our country wrought by the Bush administration will likely not be known until well after George Bush finally disappears from our political life. But understanding the dynamics and impulses of the movement which have enabled these abuses is a critically important task....

Bush supporters want more spying, much more aggressive actions against investigative journalists and even domestic political opposition, more death and violence brought to the Middle East, more wars, and still fewer restraints on the President's powers, to the extent there are any real limits left. To them, the Bush administration has not been nearly as extremist and aggressive as it ought to be in dealing with the Enemies.

... at its core, an authoritarian movement composed of those with a psychological and emotional need to follow a strong authority figure which provides them a sense of moral clarity and a feeling of individual power, the absence of which creates fear and insecurity in the individuals who crave it. By definition, its followers' devotion to authority and the movement's own power is supreme, thereby overriding the consciences of its individual members and removing any intellectual and moral limits on what will be justified in defense of their movement....

Ultimately, as Dean convincingly demonstrates, the characteristic which defines the Bush movement, the glue which binds it together and enables and fuels all of the abuses, is the vicious, limitless methods used to attack and demonize the "Enemy," which encompasses anyone -- foreign or domestic -- threatening to their movement.

Dean relies on substantial social science data to illustrate the personality type that seeks out authoritarian movements....

My honest, objective reaction:

Anyone with a Liberal Arts education knows that the tradition of the so-called social sciences is beyond inadequate and falls more into the realm of hearsay propagated most often by ideologues on this or that side of an argument to support what they would have you believe. Try as they might, social scientists haven't come close to making their various fields a concrete form of science, though they continually try to portray them as such so as to enjoy an academic, or genuine scientific credibility they've never achieved.

When people start casting their broader political opposition as having thought disorders, or emotional problems resulting in their particular political views, I'm reminded of an old Soviet Union that put political prisoners in Gulags and asylums to cure them of their disease. The re-education camps of a Southeast Asian despot also come to mind.

Though even I may sometimes joke about a Loony Left in America, if either side of our current political divide ever begins to seriously try to diagnose the other side as a whole, as Greenwald and John Dean seem to want to do, it would be unfortunate to think they were putting forth a legitimate form of political argument. They are actually engaging in one of the most dangerous tactics groups and individuals seeking power have been known to use. It is precisely the type of elimination-ist rhetoric Greenwald seems to see and scream about so often when addressing his political opposition.

I will not make some inappropriate and possibly even evil wholesale judgment of the Left, but what I found myself Googling after reading Greenwald particularly, was this:

Paranoid Personality Disorder

A pervasive distrust and suspiciousness of others such that their motives are interpreted as malevolent, beginning by early adulthood and present in a variety of contexts, as indicated by four (or more) of the following:

suspects, without sufficient basis, that others are exploiting, harming, or deceiving him or her; is preoccupied with unjustified doubts about the loyalty or trustworthiness of friends or associates; is reluctant to confide in others because of unwarranted fear that the information will be used maliciously against him or her; reads hidden demeaning or threatening meanings into benign remarks or events; persistently bears grudges, i.e., is unforgiving of insults, injuries, or slights; perceives attacks on his or her character or reputation that are not apparent to others and is quick to react angrily or to counterattack; has recurrent suspicions, without justification, regarding fidelity of spouse or sexual partner

Without suggesting that Greenwald is somehow clinically ill, having read much of his background and observed his current behavior interacting within the blogosphere, along with his criticisms of the current administration, there's obviously a serious strain of paranoia running through Greenwald's recent work. He misreads the posts of others, seeing vicious attacks and elimination-ist rhetoric when it isn't there.

Apparently he's come upon hard divisive times with some previous fellow bloggers over such disputes. Dissected, his posts are terrifically redundant, cycling through the very same arguments, time and again, yet never offering any real proof or precedent, simply insisting things are so, because he sees them to be. Numerous times he has accused the Bush administration in engaging in tactics America has never seen in fighting terror; however, every honest pundit knows full well that Roosevelt makes Bush look like a lightweight. Perhaps History isn't, among other things, on Greenwald's resume.

He's propped himself up to be something he isn't and it led to Working Assets, in effect, paying him to write a book. Yet, as a first time author, he had 4 or 5 researchers, including a lawyer, an editor, and some others. He has also thanked Jennifer Nix for contributing to his book and spent another 12 hours with his formal editor before typing a word. That book wasn't so much a book, as it was a political treatise put together by a group. As far as I can tell, Greenwald simply had time available to handle the PR and keep up a blog.

Since its publishing he has grown continually more unhinged, almost daily spouting this or that unfounded accusation against a vast, evil, omnipotent and cohesive Right Wing that objective observation proves doesn't exist.

Are Greenwald and or some number of his most fanatical followers who appear desperate to retake political power just a bit crazy?  Who knows. It certainly isn't for me to say. But for my critics, I did take the time to read Greenwald seriously. Unfortunately, the more seriously I take him, the more troubled and troubling he seems to be.

Update: Changed 20 to 12 as regards outline time with editor.

Comments

[Rick]

Dan,

He could be a merely opportunist, trying to follow the crazy-leftard paths to riches that Moulitsas has blazed. Kind of like being a sock-puppet (or just a puppet) himself.

Air America (Rio de Janiero bureau) beckons.

Cordially...

[Dan]

COuld be, but I hate seeing that nonsense put forth as serious political discourse. WHy is it that the worst demagogues are always the ones who throw that charge around? Shame.

[Mona]

"He has also thanked Jennifer Nix for contributing to his book and spent another 20 hours with his formal editor before typing a word. That book wasn't so much a book, as it was a political treatise put together by a group. As far as I can tell, Greenwald simply had time available to handle the PR and keep up a blog."

That is completely and utterly false, and I know this from personal knowledge, and will swear that it is false on the lives of my children. As he wrote that book over the course of months, he sent me chapters for my comments *as he was finishing them.* I made very few suggestions, but *I* did express worry that he needed some input from professional historians and such, since I was not sure about certain historical claims he had made in drafts. He was wise to obtain research assistance.

Glenn Greenwald wrote that book. He had research help, and the insights of knowledgable readers of the drafts as the book was being written BY HIM -- all of which is suprassingly common procedure for authors, who then give credit for it in the final product, as he did.

Further, to free up his time he asked several of his regular readers, myself included, to guest post at his blog while he was writing the book, myself included. (I post there as "Hypatia.")

He just signed a contract with a major publishing house for a second book. I suppose this house could be run by morons who are unaware that he actually "cannot" write a book, but I doubt it.

As for this: "Anyone with a Liberal Arts education knows that the tradition of the so-called social sciences is beyond inadequate and falls more into the realm of hearsay propagated most often by ideologues on this or that side of an argument to support what they would have you believe. Try as they might, social scientists haven't come close to making their various fields a concrete form of science, though they continually try to portray them as such so as to enjoy an academic, or genuine scientific credibility they've never achieved."

Greenwald might substantially agree with that. Had you read his review as carefully as you claim, you would note that he repeatedly declined to endorse the social science authorities on which Dean relies, and instead pefered to simply base his (Greenwalds's) shared conclusions on intelligent observation of the political landscape. He insisted in his comments to that post that he does not believe Bush supporters as such are "mentally ill." He believes many have a particular, universally found, personality type that responds to authoritarian leadership.

But I do appreciate the effort to attempt to grapple with the substance of what he writes.

[Dan]

There is less emphasis on writerly touches and more on creating a powerful argument. The hardest part of Ahmed's work was done while outlining the book through a dozen hours of prewriting conversation. After Greenwald finished writing, he and Nix holed up in Ahmed's apartment for the final line-by-line edit. It took two weeks of 20-hour days.

SF Chronicle linked previously.

[Karridine]

Dan, Good work!

I do have some experience with clinically-deranged humans, but not enough to diagnose long-distance. Your refusal to do so speaks well of you, Sir.

The bottom-line remains, however, that GG has some serious 'reality/honesty' issues and 'hunger-for-recognition-or-attention' issues, driving him to fraudulently present as REAL PERSONS various 'defenders' of his accomplishments.

The more seriously we take his lightweight, moderately deranged and somewhat dishonest actions ("I WROTE a NYTimes-bestseller..." as if the others contributed nothing of substance! / "Ellison" wrote... "Wilson" wrote... "Swanson" wrote...) the more pitiable and hungry the poor soul seems...

I find myself blushing at my previous laughter, making FUN of a cripple.

Karridine
BrainSurgeryWithSpoons.blogspot.com

[richard]

The smear job continues. Maybe it makes you feel good, maybe you honestly believe your own nonsense. But Dan is no fool. Somewhere deep inside he's got to know he's only fooling himself. I mean, don't you think some elemnts of the definition you posted above of Paranoid Personality Disorder pertain far more to Charles johnson and Michelle Malkin and your friend Misha than to Glenn Greenwald, whose position on most issues is strictly moderate? Anyway, it's ironic to hear Glenn described here as "unhinged" when Dan seems to have become mired in a veritable obsession, poring over any Greenwald material he can lay his hands on in his perennial search for dirt, any dirt, real or imagined. The stuff earlier on Glenn's sexuality passed all excusable boundaries and put Dan into the screeching harpie camp of the far-right haters. I'm open-minded and willing to attribute it to a temporary burst of rage, or one beer too many or something you ate. Say it's not the riehl you.

[Dan]

"The stuff earlier on Glenn's sexuality passed all excusable boundaries"

Sorry Richard, but you need a reality check. Greenwald wasn't outed. For heaven's sake, not only was his sexual preference common knowledge, he mentioned it in a Washington Post interview - an ABA piece, and to the SF Chronicle, among others, I would imagine. Suddenly a blog article "outs" him? How absurd. Now, go look at my top post, where I take "shudder" the military establishment to task for their handling of a criminal investigation. Then show me where Greenwald has addressed a dailykos that celebrated the deaths of American contractors, or any number of other outrages on the Left. Then we can talk. Until then, I can only assume you're so filled with Bush hatred, like Greenwald, you apprently can't separate the wheat from the chafe.

He claims to be a Libertarian, yet curries favor from Al Franken, donates money to Howard Dean and aligns himself with any other number of big government hacks. Open your eyes and see who is objective, taking issues case by case, and who the synchophants and ideologues really are.

[Mona]

"He claims to be a Libertarian, yet curries favor from Al Franken, donates money to Howard Dean and aligns himself with any other number of big government hacks "

He is a libertarian. And Howard Dean is less of a "big govt hack" than George Bush, whose spending has been out-of-sight. Howard Dean, while a governor, met with the libertarian Cato Institute, which gave him a "B" for his record, including his fiscal restraint. Dean advocates for gun ownership and states rights. By contrast, Cato has been withering in its criticism of George W. Bush.

Nick Gillespie, Jacob Sullum and other Reason magazine libertarians appear on the Bill O'Reilly show, even tho O'Reilly is a populist blowhard who could not be less libertarian. They do this to get their message out on a variety of issues, not because they are O'Reilly fans.

Many libertarians are looking to Democrats as preferable to what the GOP has wrought in the last 5 years. Ron Bailey at Reason voted for Jim Webb in the Virginia primary, one of his very few Democratic votes. Jim Henley and other libertarians are hoping for Dems to take over at least part of the federal govt, if for no other reason than to create gridlock.

If one lives in an echo chamber, reading only pro-Bush/GOP sites, one will miss that there is a huge segment of people who do not fit neatly into the binary political division you are mistakenly relying on in drawing your conclusions about Greenwald. In the comments at his blog, he has repeatedly said that the excesses of the left do not at this time merit a great deal of attention, for the simple reason that the left has no power. The threats to liberty, the rule of law, and our system of checks and balances are all coming from one party- the GOP. That party controls everything at the federal level.

A political realignment is taking place, and has been especially since Bush's second term. Libertarians (of which I am one) are engaged in a meta-conversation as to whether it any longer makes sense to generally prefer the Republicans. Hewitt's protégé, Mary Katherine Ham, at Townhall.com even recently addressed this in a column, in which she absurdly argued that the GOP is nice to "libertarians" like Jeff Goldstein and Glenn Reynolds, so libertarians likely won't go anywhere.

She is wrong. A lot of us have left the populist, big government, anti-federalist, Bush/Frist GOP plantation. Neither party owns us, and we will go where liberty and limited govt are least poorly served.

[Cameron]

I thought it revealing and amusing when you exposed Greewald and his sock puppet. That said, enough already I enjoy reading your take on the days events and don't want to hear anything more about Greenwald.

[Dan]

we will go where liberty and limited govt are least poorly served.

Fine, but you're dreaming if you think that's ever going to be the D party, one side of which is currently represented by mega-gov't. Hillary and the ohter side by a group with no conception of National Defense.

[Pablo]

The stuff earlier on Glenn's sexuality passed all excusable boundaries and put Dan into the screeching harpie camp of the far-right haters.

Another nonsensical trope designed to build the Greenwald cult of victimhood. Please quote ANYTHING that "passed all excusable boundaries".

[Pablo]

"The threats to liberty, the rule of law, and our system of checks and balances are all coming from one party- the GOP. That party controls everything at the federal level."

And the party that keeps getting elected by the people according to the Constitutionally mandated process. The excesses of the left are a primary reason for this.

[Mona]

" And the party that keeps getting elected by the people according to the Constitutionally mandated process. The excesses of the left are a primary reason for this."

You are referencing a very narrow window of time, and the last two presidential elections were not landslides. Bill Clinton, after all, was re-elected, too.

Scare-mongering that "the Democrats are worse" is no longer working for many people, as polls are continually showing. Libertarians all over the Internet are blasting the GOP, and I personally believe the initial catalyst, the start of the re-alignment, was the post-04-election Schiavo insanity. Add in the sorts of things Greenwald documents in his book (which are generally, if in less depth, also often examined and lamented at Reason), and one comes to see why the GOP is losing the (small "L") libertarian bloc.

What ultimately matters, of course, is what happens in '06 and '08. My preference is that neither party should hold hegemony over both the Executive branch and both houses of Congress. I and many libertarians will be working to effect that result, but at this point no one can say with certainty how those elections will go. One can merely observe that many Americans, and certainly many libertarians, are enunciating a preference for Democrats to regain some power.

[Pablo]

"You are referencing a very narrow window of time, and the last two presidential elections were not landslides."

The last 2 elections have increased Republican control of both houses. And had John Kerry offered anything other than his not being George Bush, he'd be the President today. He didn't and that is an enormous failing of the Democratic party. So you're right, though not in the way you think. Scare mongering doesn't work, and that's all the party of Howard Dean brought to the table. The only polls that count happen on the first Tuesday following the first Monday in November and they're not conducted by the media. The Dems should have taken Bush out, and they blew it.

The American people have been voting for the lesser of two evils for decades. The current state of affairs is no different. Two viable parties would indeed be a boon. Unfortunately, the Dems can't seem to put a coherent message together.

[Mona]

" And had John Kerry offered anything other than his not being George Bush, he'd be the President today. He didn't and that is an enormous failing of the Democratic party. "

I completely agree with that. I did not and could not vote for John Kerry. Were I Karl Rove, I would have hand-picked John Kerry to be the Democrats candidate in '04.

But I would vote for Howard Dean, and I doubt the Democrats will make the Kerry mistake again.

In any event, the widespread dissatisfaction with what the modern GOP has wrought is palpable. Not just in polls, but what I hear people saying in my very red county in the Midwest. One person I work with employs the word "embarrassed" when he references his vote for Bush in '04. My anecdotals align with the polls.

Bill Buckley just said in a CBS interview that Bush has no coherent conservative platform, and that he is tarred with and consumed by what Buckley deems to be the failure of the Iraq adventure. This is a sentiment one can find reflected pervasively, if one reads beyond pro-Bush blogs and listens to other than Fox.

But the proof will be in '06 and '08. The rest is speculation.

[Pablo]

"But I would vote for Howard Dean, and I doubt the Democrats will make the Kerry mistake again."

Hey, I voted for Nader in '00, refusing to vote for either Bush or Gore. But he, like Dean, is unelectable in a general election. Who else do they have? Hillary? Maybe. Time will out.

"In any event, the widespread dissatisfaction with what the modern GOP has wrought is palpable."

Funny, but I see much the opposite from my perch in the bluest of the blue states. Aside from the staunch partisans, I don't see much deeper dissatisfation on the ground than your typical second term malaise. And I certainly don't see the outrage and fear of an imperial executive that certain people are so invested in fostering. It just isn't getting much traction outside the choir room.

[rhodeymark]

I laugh out loud at the notion that "Bush cultists" embrace evil government surveillance out of paranoia. It isn't love of Daddy Authoritarianism - or whatever projection GiGi is up to lately - to wish that the evil in front of your nose be acknowledged. Mona, I am sick of hearing Malkin and Johnson slandered for the 90% reporting and 10% editorializing they do. The Left is so twisted that even drawing attention to stateside Hezbollah rallys is somehow proof that the Right are racist liars. That to me shows where the real "reality" divide is. Check that - I AM paranoid. I'm paranoid in the sense that I have a gut feeling that the West will get rolled again (see Carter/Iran) if some blow-dried twit, practicing perfect "statecraft" gets a chance to make policy while fluffing himself for The Guardian's admiration.

[Pixy Misa]

Mona is still at it?

Give it up Mona, the circle is already complete.

Greenwald's arguments don't hold water. They've been addressed on their merits, and collapsed like so many punctured souffles.

Your response is the good old argument-from-authority. "You can't dismiss Greenwald like that! He, like, wrote a book and everything!"

So he wrote a book. He already told us that. Frequently. Just means that the book is probably full of nonsense as well.

If one lives in an echo chamber, reading only pro-Bush/GOP sites, one will miss that there is a huge segment of people who do not fit neatly into the binary political division you are mistakenly relying on in drawing your conclusions about Greenwald.

We don't care about your phantom binary political divisions. Completely irrelevant. Greenwald is clearly an idiot from the substance of his writing.

[Pixy Misa]

Dang. Next-to-last paragraph is a Mona-quote.

[Mona]

"Your response is the good old argument-from-authority. "You can't dismiss Greenwald like that! He, like, wrote a book and everything!"

Piffle. The context in which I addressed his book is to insist that he did, indeed, write it -- a fact Dan sought to deny. Because I have personal knowledge that Greenwald wrote his book, I declared that to be the truth.

Pablo says:"Aside from the staunch partisans, I don't see much deeper dissatisfation on the ground than your typical second term malaise. And I certainly don't see the outrage and fear of an imperial executive that certain people are so invested in fostering. It just isn't getting much traction outside the choir room."

Well, whether there is pervasive dissatisfaction with the GOP won't be settled in the comments section here or elsewhere. That is up to the electorate in '06 and '08. My perception of how those elections are likely to go is clearly different than yours, but neither of us has a crystal ball.

I do agree that among the masses, there is not an uprising about such issues as the warrantless NSA surveillance. Politically well-informed and active people -- not the average Joe and Jane voter -- are most concerned with that sort of issue. Iraq and foreign policy is the primary issue dragging Bush down with the electorate, as well as more "sexy" issues such as the easily-understood Schiavo matter, and out-of-control spending.

Corruption is also easily grasped by the voting public. They intuitively know what Scalia observed in one of his blistering dissents, namely: "Lord Acton did not say 'power tends to purify.'" GOP control of all branches of the federal govt is bad for the nation, and my informed speculation is that the voters will so decide. You disagree, and we can only wait and see.

[Gary Maxwell]

Well anyone who thinks that Howard Dean is more electable than John Kerry is not someone that I am going to plan to have a rational discussion with on the outcome of 06 or 08. If Rove had a favortie it had to be Howlin Howie. Kerry was a suitable substitute for punching bag but he had a tendency to be slightly less wild in his proclamations. Not much mind you given the echo chamber that is Massachusetts politics. But no screaming.

[Mona]

"If Rove had a favortie it had to be Howlin Howie."

I see. And do you find it intelligent to discuss the electability of the "AWOL ChimpyMcBushitler?"

Childish, partisan rhetoric, even when the media might decide it is a sexy trope, is no substitute for reasoned political debate.

[Pablo]

OK, let's play "Who said it?"

"I don't care what you label me as long as you call me president."

"I hate Republicans and everything they stand for."

"John Ashcroft is not a patriot, John Ashcroft is a descendant of Joseph McCarthy."

"Tom DeLay ought to go back to Houston where he can serve his jail sentence. "

"I think with a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court, you can't play, you know, hide the salami, or whatever it's called."

"This president is not interested in being a good president. He's interested in some complicated psychological situation that he has with his father."

"Yeeeeeaaaaaargh!"

Was it:

A. Howard Dean

B. Thomas Ellers

C. Rick Ellensberg

[frontinus]

Mona, were those emails from Greenwald accompanied by those of the Townhouse list? Just wondering.

[Alexander Wolfe]

He's really not dignosing all of you...just the worst of you. The ones that call for hanging of Supreme Court justices and NY Times editors and writers, and those who are okay with that language. If you don't approve of that sort of talk, I don't really know why you'd be offended.

[Gary Maxwell]

Mona last time I checked there was a small matter of a Constitutional admendment prohibiting a third term, so I dont see much point in discussing the electibility of George Bush.

Childish partisan rhetoric is what Greenwald uses on his blog every day. But you think its grand. I wonder why the lectures only go in one direction?

You are going to be so disappointed in November the prozac wont be enough. Remember you heard it here first.

[Doug]

Mona, Howie Dean is a libertarian? So is he for privitizing social security? No For lower taxes? No For corporate welfare (tax breaks to IMB)? Yes For a big government solution for health care? Heck yes For private school vouchers? Not on your life.

From what I can tell, he isn't even a good "legalize the sweet leaf libertarian". He is for the drug war. And his gun policy seems to be that it is swell for lily white states like Vermont to have tons o guns, but lets not trust those minorities in New York with them.

And how can a turd like Greenwald complain about how the right demonizes the left, doesn't he demonize the right with every one of his posts?

[Phoenix]

Okay. I only read the short intro and the quoted material from Greenwald, and I read no further.... just scrolled straight to here so I could keep my gut-reaction in place. This guy loses any argument he has because of lumping. Or generalizing. No debate can be taken seriously when it's an all-or-nothing thing. He presumes to know that anyone who wants a straight, tough leader is a lemming willing to give up everything including his ability to think.

Right. How can anyone take this guy seriously?

Oh, yeah.... I DO want someone who can lead. I'll follow, but it will be because I choose to knowing I'm going in the right direction.

[richard mcenroe]

"But I would vote for Howard Dean, and I doubt the Democrats will make the Kerry mistake again." Please let the current Democratic Party take that advice. Pleasepleaseplease.

Then maybe we can build something from the wreckage.

AS for Dean's approval from the Libertarian party, the man governed a bedroom community state with a small to nonexistent disadvantaged population and correspondingly lower social costs.

He still did his best to stifle what little indigenous industry the state possessed, ask any NH dairyman.

[germen]

Web search leader Google Inc is planning to boost its presence in China by tying up with a Chinese on...