Broad Brush Painting? Moi?
You know, Glenn Greenwald got a lot of press and a book contract at about the same time I started seeing far too much of this in his work:
As much as anything else, Bush defenders are characterized by an increasingly absolutist refusal to recognize any facts which conflict with their political desires, and conversely, by a borderline-religious embrace of any assertions which bolster those desires. It’s a world-view which conflates desire with reality, disregards all facts and evidence that conflict with the decreed beliefs, and faithfully embraces any assertions and fantasies, no matter how baseless and flagrantly false, provided that they bolster the mythology.
Sigh…sorry, not interested. I can’t even read the rest of the post…increasingly, I find this type of speechifying has replaced any thoughtfulness in Glenn’s work.
One of the easiest tricks to winning an audience is to play to prejudice: why, I don’t like Bush and I bet you don’t either, so that must mean any Bush supporter is a lying, self-deceiving, idiotic waste of oxygen!…I’m quite weary of this game. Like everyone else, I crave success and would like nothing more than to be a professional writer. I absolutely refuse to pander to get there, however, and if that’s not what Glenn’s doing – i.e., if he really BELIEVES that…well, that’s a terrifying thought.
I started this blog as a follower, and my early posts were at times embarrassingly full of pronouncements about ‘the Left’, ‘Democrats’, etc., when all I had done was shown how stupid one person was – and even a good size collection of those ‘one persons’ don’t add up to a monolithic entity called ‘Democrats’ or ‘the Left’. Presumably, Glenn is smart enough to realize that there is no monolithic Bush supporter, either, but you wouldn’t gather that from his recent work.
Beware grand, sweeping generalizations, whether you see them here (for I do slip into bad habits from time to time) or elsewhere. Beware the temptation to assume that one knucklehead tars all others of his political persuasion.
But most importantly, and I wish Glenn would heed this advice, beware people who question the motivations of their political opponents reflexively. Start from the premise that 99.9999% of Republicans and Democrats love this country and believe in their hearts that their ideas will make it a better place. If you can grant your opponent that little bit of empathy, you might find – who knows? Crazier things have happened – that a little progress and common ground can be found.
What do I know, though? I don’t have a book contract…
UPDATE 04/28/06 9:37 a.m.: Greenwald has responded to this and other criticisms; see here…
Amen, Mark. And he titles his book “How Would a Patriot Act?” Because anyone who disagrees with him is presumably traitorous.
I really appreciate what you’ve created here. Yes, you’ve got a conservative mindset, and so have I, but you don’t give in to those pathetic instincts to treat those who disagree with you as the enemy of all that’s right and good. You may not have a book contract, but you can’t buy self-dignity.
Many thanks, kind sir! It goes without saying that intelligent commenters such as yourself are as much or more of an attraction than my sometimes mundane observations…but if you post as much as I do, and if you at least try to avoid ginning up controversy for controversy’s sake, some days aren’t going to sizzle like others…but I really try to keep things interesting, and feedback from loyal readers helps me determine if I am…
In other words, my hat’s off to you!…
Comrades,
Wait a minute.. That title.. “How Would A Patriot Act?” … is he talking about the football team or a missle? Does he celebrate Patriots Day? Does he even know what that holiday is? Ah shoot…..
Yeah, I can be rather inflexible on some issues, but it comes from my experience, not from some personal belief based upon what others have said. The author is beginning to sound more like a speech writer than a reporter, and that’s too bad.
respects,
Gwedd
Um…he’s talking about the Democrats, right? I mean, in recent years, we’ve had the constant refrain of horrific conditions at Gitmo, Bush lied, no WMDs, Bush knew the levees would breach, Bush hates blacks, Bush was AWOL, etc.–half-truths, exaggerations, and downright lies. And that’s not just from fringe Democrats, that’s from the leaders of the party–constantly.
You could make a drinking game out of the nightly news. Every time Chuck Schumer, Harry Reid, or an MSM talking head repeats a discredited talking point, take a shot. You’d be drunk by the first commercial.
For the most part, I agree with Mark about not making sweeping generalizations about a group of people. I know some Democrats who are intellectually honest and will engage in debate without resorting to lies, damn lies, and statistics. Too bad the Democratic leadership is so wedded to its talking points that it doesn’t follow this practice.
[...] Yesterday, I posted about my disappointment that Glenn Greenwald’s work has increasingly taken on a polemical stance, one that recognizes no variations or gradations in the world of the ‘Bush cult’. Glenn posts a response today, and mentions my post specifically. First, an extended excerpt from his response: It is impossible to avoid generalizations when discussing political groups and the rhetoric and tactics those groups use. Everyone who talks about political conflicts by necessity resorts to generalizations at some point. We organize ourselves, sometimes loosely and other times formally, by groups — Democrats/Republicans, conservatives/liberals, Right/Left, Bush supporters/opponents, war supporters/opponents, etc. Those group adopt tactics collectively, take on general behavioral attributes, are motivated by common objectives or needs, and come to be governed by distinct and dominant group forces. [...]
Dennis: I think the Patriot Act was the initial “if you disagree with anything in this Act you are a traitor” declaration and that is what the book is making fun of. It seems to me that the title is meant to mock this while being serious at the same time. The Republicans ought to pass an act called the “Not Gay Act” so that if you vote against it you can be called gay. The use of rhetoric in politics is just ridiculous. It is double speak to the highest degree.
Mark: Anytime someone sticks to their guns for a number of years and is proven wrong by evidence that slowly appears over time you can easily say “They were being stubborn and keep disregarding the evidence etc. etc.” but it’s very difficult for people in general (not just those on the right) to admit when they are incorrect and make the correction, especially when they hold onto their belief that they were right or had good intentions, etc.. If the big right wing bloggers would admit their mistakes graciously, the comments from Glenn would not have been made. The left is just as guilty of this, but it is not as apparent as they are not in power and have no policy control at all. In other words, it is currently impossible for the left to make a bad policy decision as they don’t decide on what policies are passed.
relish: Pretending that partisanship does not exists is absurd. The Repulican leadership is just as guilty of sticking to talking points. When confronted (which is a very infrequent occurrence wit the media hacks out there) they stammer and look like blathering fools, just as the Dems do. Half-truths is what political discourse has been degraded to. Why can’t you condemn both parties for this practice?
And that really is the point, (from my point of view) liberal blogs are far more critical of Democracts than conservative bloggers are of Republicans and I think that is why I see some truth to Glenn’s comments. I agree he sounds like a speech writer and the generalizations aren’t as broad as he thinks they are, but Dailykos, Atrios, liberaloasis, TPM, Glenn, all of the lefty blogs I read are quite critical of Democrats and I don’t see that when I’m reading righty blogs like powerline, political teen (aka expose the left), Malkin, etc. It always ends up looking more like a pathological need to support the party at all costs. Of course, that might be because I read 90% lefty blogs vs. 10% righty blogs, but still, I think my observation is [generally] true.
Glenn’s piece backed his observations. It’s embarrassing. You made the right decision to not read it.
In short, Drudge posted disinformation regarding “lefty” book sales. Hordes of winger bloggers ran with it on pure faith. When correct information exposed Drudge’s disinfomation, many posters were proud to shrug off mere facts. (They’ve learned well from their leader.)
People who mock inconvenient facts while clustering into a mutual admiration society are kinda creepy, if you think about it.
Some replies above mock the title of Glenn’s book, further backing Glenn’s point. Many of you — those without your fingers in your ears shouting “la-la la” — will be shocked to learn that he makes a classically conservative argument.
Shorter Greenwald:
It is impossible to avoid generalizations when discussing political groups and the rhetoric and tactics those groups use.
Therefore, say anything!
Like everyone else, I crave success and would like nothing more than to be a professional writer. I absolutely refuse to pander to get there…
Good writers who are paid usually have some modicom of reading comprehension, thus, you will likely never get paid as a scribe.
Greenwald does in fact make a classic conservative argument, as has been pointed out above, against the unitary executive.
From a Constitutional standpoint, Greenwald argues for the due diligence of the Congress and courts to check the power of the president, and just as forcefully, make the argument that the citizenry have some responsibility for their leadership.
bathsheba, I did go back and read it after all – that’s all a bit inside pool, isn’t it? I mean, are people really that concerned about Instapundit versus Markos on books sales (and yes, that’s an implicit criticism of Drudge that I just made explicit)?…grodge, good writers also know not to italicize everything – kind of takes the point away the point of emphasizing, you know – and you’ve got no excuse, because I have a live comments preview…