Decision ‘08

The Broad View: Greenwald Responds

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.

It is critical and unavoidable to talk about, and defend or criticize, the behavior and attributes of these groups as groups. These political groupings win or lose, persuade or alienate, create or destroy, all as a result of the tactics and attributes which come to predominate and define what the group is. If we avoided talking about groups as groups — which necessarily includes all sorts of generalizations — it would mean that we would avoid talking about some of the most significant influences on political events. It’s impossible and completely undesirable to avoid the use of generalizations when talking about political matters.

As necessary as they are, generalizations are fraught with risks and dangers. In any group of any size, the generalized statements which accurately describe the group’s behavior will be inapplicable to various individuals who compose the group. That’s just the nature of generalizations, and while that means one should exert caution when using generalizations, it does not mean that they ought to be avoided. They shouldn’t be and can’t be.

When I talk about Bush defenders and Bush followers and the Bush movement, I am referring to the tactics and behaviors exhibited by those who lead that movement and to those who most prominently, influentially and loyally defend it. As is true with all generalizations, none of it is absolute. Some Bush defenders deviate now and then from those strategies. Some of the individuals who lead or defend the movement may be uncomfortable with some of the defining rhetorical tactics and even repudiate them. But none of that undermines the validity and accuracy of the generalizations, which, by definition, describe what a group does generally, not every moment, in every instance, without exception.

Individuals themselves are complex and can act with conflicting motives. The most vicious and amoral tyrant can engage in a periodic act of kindness and generosity. Highly dishonest people can have moments of unusual candor, while the most magnanimous and selfless person can engage in isolated acts of cruelty and deceit. But most individuals, like most groups, end up with attributes which predominate, and it is entirely legitimate — and necessary — to talk about those attributes even if there are deviations and exceptions.

Many of the criticisms made against Bush followers are not unique to them. Individuals on the Left, in the center and everywhere else can also be vulnerable to group think, the selective disregarding of facts which conflict with their beliefs, and the temptations to abuse power. That ought to go without saying. But the combination of factors and circumstances which have defined the Bush presidency — an extreme event (the 9/11 attacks), extreme imbalance in our government (accounted for by pro-Bush domination of all three branches of government), and extremists at the highest levels of the executive branch — have made the Bush movement uniquely radical and extreme.

The idea that one can’t talk about those things because some people who support George Bush may be nice, good, honest people — or because some Bush supporters are complex people with mixed motives that aren’t susceptible to generalized descriptions — is just absurd. The Bush movement is identifiable by overriding attributes, tactics and behaviors which have had an extraordinary impact in fundamentally changing our country. Of course that movement is going to be talked about as a movement, and it ought to be.

Well, much of that is true; we must generalize at times, but where I disagree with Glenn is that I think the generalization will best be employed exceedingly sparingly. In general (pun intended), the specific will enlighten more than the general. The broad view may be necessary to set the ground work for the specificity, but a comprehensive view of any political movement will tell us more when it details the variations as well as the agreements.

Having said that, there’s a reason I keep coming back to Glenn’s work despite our almost total disagreement on the meaning of the Bush presidency: he’s genuinely willing to engage in crosstalk like this very post, and you don’t find that often in the blogosphere. Far too many of us fail to engage the opposition, and I appreciate Glenn’s willingness to do just that. Glenn’s a high-profile blogger right now, and that has a lot of upside; the downside is that it makes him an easy target. I’m grateful for his willingness to answer his critics, even if I don’t always walk away convinced…

8 Responses to “The Broad View: Greenwald Responds”

1 Decision ‘08 » Blog Archive » Broad Brush Painting? Moi? Says:
April 28th, 2006 at 8:38 am
[…] You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your ownsite. […]
2 mikebdot Says:
April 28th, 2006 at 8:47 am
Mark,

You continue to impress me. I want to buy you and Glenn a pitcher so the two of you could get together and put together a run for president so the partisanship can be lost forever, or at least until you decide who should get to run for president…

In all seriousness though, you’ve gained one daily reader with the posts from the past week. Thanks again.

Mike B.
3 Mark Says:
April 28th, 2006 at 9:16 am
Many thanks, sir, we’re glad to have you aboard - I hope I don’t lose you, though, as I’m about to take a short break - see my soon to be posted latest…
4 The Commissar Says:
April 28th, 2006 at 12:05 pm
Glenn’s argument is unfalsifiable (to overuse my favorite word). Any evidence you might adduce he has already dismissed with 1) A few Reps might NOT be this bad. and 2) A few Dems might also be this bad.

“More of you are worse than most of us.”

Kinda hard to debate such a proposition.
5 mikebdot Says:
April 28th, 2006 at 1:43 pm
Re: “More of you are worse than most of us”.

As it turns out, that is the argument that is made to kill or keep federal programs “Such and such program benefits more people than it hurts” or “such and such program hurts more people than it benefits”. There is in fact very little evidence out there to determine the use of many of the government’s programs, including social security. Studies to get definitive answers would require a very large experiment. We could run the country hard core right wing for 40 years or so, then, run the country hard core left wing for 40 years and then repeat a few times to see how well the economy does how happy the people are or any other number of measures, and it still wouldn’t tell us which is better. It might turn out a little left is better than hard core right or a little right is better than hardcore left. There are always conclusions that are drawn based on a limitted sample and this is one of them. You’re right though, it’s an argument that cannot be beaten definitively. The counter “argument” is “nuh uh, more of YOU are worse than most of US” and then it feels quite like 3rd grade. It’s sort of like why negative campaigns actually work sometimes. The old “make the son of a bitch deny it” line of thought.
6 Gwedd Says:
April 28th, 2006 at 2:53 pm
Comrades,

mikebdot: The driving force behind most legislation is that the appearance of action is more important than the results of the action. The politicians can always claim that it was the underlings, those tasked with implementing the program’s specifics, that caused the program to fail.

Respects,

Gwedd
7 The Ugly American Says:
April 29th, 2006 at 9:34 am
Glenn, Mark, Mikebdot, The Commissar, and gwedd, great comments by all of you!

If I add anything else it will just take away from the points you all made. I would ask one question:

Why can’t you hear something like this on This week with George Snufalufagus?
8 mikebdot Says:
May 1st, 2006 at 3:11 pm
I think the dailyhowler would be a great start to trying to answer that question, TUA, even if he is liberal. I think one of his favorite phrases is “vacuous press corps”. Perhaps they ought to get Scott McClellan on his show for a few weeks. Perhaps they could attempt to talk each other into circles. Like a dog chasing it’s tail.