Everywhere I turn today, I see Glenn Greenwald and his intellectual integrity taking a beating. First I saw Josh Marshall, in his very politic manner, discuss how ZDT was not, as it turns out, all that pro-torture. Then Marshall published a fascinating reply from one of his readers. Among other things, the anonymous writer lamented that “there’s no other way to put it: Glenn Greenwald flat out lied when he said this was a pro-torture movie. That initial reading caused a lot of Liberals (my Father included) to refuse to see the movie.” So there’s that.
Later I read about Greenwald’s mischaracterization of an older Erik Loomis piece that called attention to the white male privilege of third party contrarianism. Here is the Greenwald section that raised Loomis’s hackles:
Amazingly, some Democratic partisans, in order to belittle these injustices [drones], like to claim that only those who enjoy the luxury of racial and socioeconomic privilege would care so much about these issues. That claim is supremely ironic. It reverses reality. That type of privilege is not what leads one to care about and work against these injustices. To the contrary, it’s exactly that privilege that causes one to dismiss concerns over these injustices and mock and scorn those who work against them. The people who insist that these abuses are insignificant and get too much attention are not the ones affected by them, because they’re not Muslim, and thus do not care.
The “Democratic partisan” referred to above is evidently Loomis. It’s Loomis’s piece, anyway, to which Greenwald hyperlinks. But there’s a problem with Greenwald’s argument: Loomis never “dismissed concerns over these injustices.” Nor did he ever “mock and scorn those who work against them.” Rather, he argued that while drones are indeed worthy of severe criticism, left-leaning folks who argue for third party alternatives are acting naive – and are probably counted among the privileged few:
In a sense I respect it when people care so much about one issue that they can’t vote for any candidate who disagrees. On the other hand, Friedersdorf doesn’t seem to care one iota about the horrible economic and social policies a Romney administration would enact. He doesn’t seem to care at all about labor, abortion rights, gay rights, environmental policy, etc., etc. It’s all about drones, civil liberties, and such. And Obama has indeed sucked on those issues.
But given that Friedersdorf probably doesn’t have to worry much about his next paycheck or be concerned about having an unwanted fetus in his body, it’s a luxury for him to be a one-issue voter on this particular issue.
That’s a distinctly different argument than one that simply “belittles” drone attacks and “causes one to dismiss concerns over these injustices and mock and scorn those who work against them.” To suggest otherwise is to be obtuse or, worse, intellectually dishonest.
All of this raises an interesting question: what is Glenn Greenwald’s ultimate goal? He makes deeply important arguments that are often overlooked in today’s he said/she said media culture. He’s also one of the few people giving voice to the excesses of both parties. And yet, Greenwald appears to be so in love with a certain idea of himself as a “lone ranger” – as a martyr to partisan tribalism – that he frequently mischaracterizes others’ arguments, dismisses them as partisan, and continues on his merry way. Ironically, this is exactly the thing that he often (fairly) accuses others of doing to him: he is avoiding addressing the important substance of others’ arguments, even when those arguments hold merit. You can’t have it both ways.
Indeed, the sad irony here is that Greenwald doesn’t need to mischaracterize other people’s arguments – or, say, the positions certain films take on torture – in order to take the positions he takes. He doesn’t need to presume every lefty (or even most lefties) who disagrees with him is a hacktastic partisan subservient to everything Obama says and does. Conversely, Greenwald can still make the case that our political culture is too blindly subservient to the military industrial complex. He can still demonstrate, forcefully and eloquently, that our collective obsession with bipartisanship leaves little room for criticism of the abhorrent policies upon which the two parties agree. There is no need to cut corners.
The end result is that Greenwald himself becomes the story, not the issues he advances. People begin to tune him out. And, after awhile, you’re left to wonder whether this is about drones and torture and civil liberties at all. Maybe, instead, it is all about Greenwald himself. Personally, I give Glenn Greenwald the benefit of the doubt; I think, based on the majority of his writings and the one time I got to see him speak publicly, that he is and remains deeply interested in the well-being of those whose cause he trumpets.
It’s just that that is not always clear. And that’s no good for anyone, least of all Glenn Greenwald.
