Welcome to the new version of European Tribune. It's just a new layout, so everything should work as before - please report bugs here.
One could of course answer with the classic Greenwlad contention that the WH is very quick to bring down the wrath of heaven on leftish dissidents in the party while right wing dissidents get met halve way until they are happy.
by generic on Fri May 27th, 2011 at 03:48:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The example always used is its own refutation. kuchinich was confronted with the fact that if it had been his vote that killed health reform, his own voters would have abandoned him. On the other hand the WH has little credible threat to use against conservative senators. Nelson's funders and voters don't care what a black liberal in the WH says. And in spite of that the WH ran over nelson when it had the votes.

A lot of American "progressives" have a weird idea that things are supposed to be fair instead of being determined by power.

Of course, Greenwald is a right wing hack in disguise so his argument is probably not even sincere.

http://rootedcosmopolitan.wordpress.com/2011/04/20/glenn-greenwald-neither-a-liberal-nor-a-progressi ve/

by rootless2 on Fri May 27th, 2011 at 05:02:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Has he ever pretended to be a liberal? And I'd want to see some examples of outright dishonesty before consigning him to hack status.
As to the argument: The WH could endorse challengers instead of incumbents. Having the president of the US speaking in support of a candidate would at the very least raise visibility. Instead democratic bigwicks turned out in force to campaign for Lieberman who ran against their own party.
by generic on Fri May 27th, 2011 at 06:41:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Roosevelt - at the height of his popularity - tried it and failed.

The Obama administration is interested in high probability outcomes, not high stakes gambling against the odds. What amazes me about US progressives is that, unable to win political control of a single US city, represented in the Senate by one not particularly radical "socialist" from an all white rural mini-state, and unable to bring people out into the streets, they are nevertheless aggrieved that a US administration that they didn't support does not repeatedly risk all to follow their political ideas. Actually the political impotence and the grandiose demands are clearly related.

As for Greenwald, he's a libertarian and his writing is full of dishonest rhetorical tricks. For example, today he's bitching about how the arrest of Karadzic  shows the killing of Bin Ladin to be unnecessary as if there had not been a significant military operation in Bosnia and Serbia that deprived Karazic of his ability to run a military force.

by rootless2 on Fri May 27th, 2011 at 07:11:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Frankly I can't follow your logic here. What difference does it make that at one point there was a war?
by generic on Fri May 27th, 2011 at 08:05:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]
greenwald's implicit claim is that ordinary civil police procedures and courts and so on are effective so that the rationale of the bin ladin mission is suspect. However, the arrest of karadic follows and depends on an exceptionally violent intervention by NATO.

In general, Greenwald's ideas on courts and laws are typical libertarian process worship and violence whitewash.

by rootless2 on Sat May 28th, 2011 at 08:51:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I'll grant you the process worship, but disagree with the rest. The NATO campaign would be relevant if he were arguing for nonviolence in international relations or about the morality of starting a war. But he isn't so it's not.
by generic on Sat May 28th, 2011 at 11:08:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]


Top Diaries

Occasional Series