Me, Greg, Andrew and the two Glenn’s
Lance on Jul 25 2006 at 1:47 am | Filed under: Lance's Page, Uncategorized
(Listening notes: Magnetic Fields, Husker Du, Queen, Soft Cell, Indigo Girls, The Smith’s, REM, Pet Shop Boys, B-52’s, Scissor Sisters. A homage to Andrew Sullivan of sorts.)
I am here to step into the breach and defend Glenn Reynolds from two people I admire a lot. This week I visited Belgravia Dispatch and came upon this:
I don’t think of Reynolds as a political animal. He has independent integrity. But when push came to shove, Reynolds never challenged in any serious way the abuses of power in this administration nor the extremism of the Malkinesque blogosphere. When a libertarian finds any excuses to ignore or minimize government-sponsored illegality and torture, then he has truly ceased to be a libertarian in any profound sense. If my opinion weren’t so high of his abilities, my disappointment wouldn’t be so deep.
This was from a piece by Andrew Sullivan which quotes Glenn Greenwald:
Reynolds long ago used to emphasize the libertarian aspects of his belief system, by, for instance, writing for Reason Magazine. But this weekend, he attacked Reason’s Dave Weigel for criticizing publication of the home address of the NYT photographer so that Reynolds could justify and defend the actions of Michelle Malkin, David Horowitz and Rocco DiPippo with regard to the Travel Section murder plot. That is a clear reflection of what Reynolds is – he has long ago dispensed with his libertarianism beyond the most cursory and decorative uses, and he has no meaningful differences with the most extreme elements of the Republican Malkin/Coulter right wing.
Reynolds’ transformation is illustrative of a broader and much more significant dynamic. There are no more vibrant libertarian components left of the Bush movement. Libertarians (in the small “l” sense of that word) have either abandoned the Bush-led Republicans based on the recognition – catalyzed by the Schiavo travesty – that there are no movements more antithetical to a restrained government than an unchecked Republican Party in its current composition. Or, like Reynolds, they have relinquished their libertarian impulses and beliefs completely as the price for being embraced as a full-fledged, unfailingly loyal member of the Bush-led Republican Party.
Now I understand Sullivan and Greg’s disappointment in Reynolds not picking up the cudgel on the issue of the treatment of detainees and beating up the administration to their satisfaction. I myself wish he had spent more time teasing out the thorny legal and ethical threads of the issue, but I could say the same about the two of them on other issues that are in my mind more momentous. I’ll have more to say on that issue later, but whatever their feelings on this issue this little series of posts is at its heart dishonest. I am not saying they are being dishonest, but underneath it all is a dishonest premise that they may or may not recognize. I suspect (though of course every time you say something like that you are in danger of being very unfair) that the two of them do not really read Reynold’s much anymore or are so focused on the things that bother them that they have developed a very distorted view.
Let us start with Reynolds’ libertarian bona fide’s. Glenn has never been a doctrinaire libertarian, but on all the major issues the idea that he no longer holds to them is staggeringly wrong. That they could base the support this premise with a link to a post which sees no meaningful difference from Malkin/Coulter (or even how about not seeing a difference between the two of them) is breathtaking. I have seen no evidence that Glenn’s general outlook has changed at all. I would like to see a single issue where he has meaningfully changed. The most startling claim is in the last sentence of Greenwald’s quote above:
Or, like Reynolds, they have relinquished their libertarian impulses and beliefs completely as the price for being embraced as a full-fledged, unfailingly loyal member of the Bush-led Republican Party.
Leaving aside the war, it would be hard to find an issue on which he hasn’t challenged this administration (maybe gun control, but that hardly says anything against his libertarianism.) Even on the war he has questioned the administration if not nearly to the extent Greg and Andrew would like. Glenn is certainly not an unfailingly loyal member of the Republican Party. He has little loyalty at all if not outright hostility. However Glenn’s hostility is just too pleasant to be sincere in many critics mind. Well, many on the right feel the same about his pleasant demeanor toward the left. The real change has been from Andrew and Greg on the issue of the conduct of this war, rather than any change of Reynolds’. That is certainly understandable, and while Glen has hardly stood still, they have a right to be critical. Greenwald’s essay however is a gross distortion and to quote it approvingly is a shame.
Of course the first paragraph of the quote is just not true. Reading the very link referenced shows Greenwald is distorting what Reynolds point was. Disagree with his point, but it had nothing to do with thinking it is all right to do what Horowitz and Stop the ACLU are doing. Reynolds has a very specific set of beliefs on such matters. Say his policy isn’t good enough, or that he argued poorly or something but don’t in essence lie about his views as Greenwald did.
Greg can certainly distance himself from Greenwald’s post, because he actually only quotes Sullivan, but I find that problematic. Why? Because the heart of the attack on Reynolds is based on his linking to people with views which offend Greg and Andrew. He links to Malkin et al. Yet if that is true then why can’t I hold Greg responsible for what Greenwald says in the very post being quoted, much less responsible for the risible things Greenwald says on a regular basis? Greenwald deliberately distorts Reynolds’ views in the post he is attacking and makes general statements that are absurd on their face about him. I won’t hold him to the fire on that (though Andrew endorses the statements cited more directly) but in the end I feel Greg is being very unfair by using this particular argument.
Let me give an example of the guilt by linking argument. From the same post on Belgravia Dispatch:
Just one random, somewhat related (but well evocative) example from this morning (which I’ll admit, was the catalyst for this post, as we’re only human), Glenn links approvingly to Tammy Bruce (whom I’ve never heard of before, but whatever), who writes, of Tony Blair (you really have to click through the link to appreciate how outrageous and cheap it is, and see the photo of Blair): “Yes, Mr. Blair, look down–it is difficult to look people in the eye when your dignity and courage have moved to the gutter. But we shouldn’t be surprised, should we? This is a world, after all, that proves time and time again that they think nothing is worth fighting for.” Oh give me a effing break. Tony Blair has proved “time and time again” that he thinks there is “nothing…worth fighting for”? What is this based on? Did the commissars of risibly under-informed blather-mouths like Tammy Bruce judge some Blairite comment on the unfolding events in Lebanon as insufficiently supportive of Israel? This is absurd. What bloody planet are these people on? I mean, seriously. We’ve had no better friend than Tony Blair these past years. People have to get their head out of their asses, frankly, and get some perspective. Seriously.
Greg, give me an effing break. Glenn linked to her based on the point about the asymmetrical treatment of Israel. Glenn didn’t say anything about her slagging off unfairly on Blair. Given everything I have read from Reynolds on Blair he holds him in more esteem than Andrew or possibly Greg. This is exactly what I am perturbed about. We all know that Glenn feels otherwise, but with a need to pile on we hold him responsible for views we not only can’t know or are not sure he has, but views we can be pretty damn sure he doesn’t.
Glenn has a rare ability to be friendly with people who act in ways and say things he wouldn’t. We could all learn something from that, but if his linking to Bruce qualifies him for this kind of abuse I could certainly hold Greg responsible for linking to the crap that Greenwald spewed. I won’t, but I suggest Greg stick to the real issues he has with Glenn, not this kind of thing, which reeks of seeing what you want to justify what you feel. Being in the finance industry Greg should know how susceptible we all are to such an impulse and defend himself from its warm embrace.
As for Andrew, I have no defense for him on this. If Andrew actually has respect for Greenwald’s analysis of Reynolds, I don’t know what to say. The analysis is patently false. He still has a loyal reader, and most people I read are just plain wrong on things from time to time, but Glenn deserves better.
To sum it up, Andrew and Greg have every right to feel Glenn should concentrate on and feel about a few issues as they do, but that doesn’t excuse distorting everything else for which he stands or imputing that by not standing up to the so called Malkinesque right to their satisfaction that he has their perceived sins attached to him. It is especially bothersome given that we are talking about a link to Glenn Greenwald who certainly hasn’t spent time standing up to the fever swamps of the left. No, he feeds their basest fantasies, just with cleaned up rhetoric.
Sphere: Related Content2 Responses to “Me, Greg, Andrew and the two Glenn’s”
Trackback URI | Comments RSS
The View From the Bluff: Lance’s Economic and Finance Blog
[...] Is this an example of a few regrettable posts? Unfortunately it is not. This is what Greenwald does. It is what defines his work just like Coulter, though unlike Coulter he takes in a great many people who I admire and feel are regular reading stops and obviously have not thought through or looked carefully at how he is compiling his arguments. I discussed this specifically in the case of Glenn Reynolds. To read many of Greenwald’s posts one would think all of those who even tenuously support the Bush administration, much less strongly, are blood crazed fanatics determined to bring on WWIII, to strip of us even the most basic liberties. It even clouds any reading one does of his work on legal issues where after going in great and detailed depth and (supposedly) massive amounts of research to determine the validity of his views he claims that nobody can in good faith disagree with him. If that is true, then why is all the legal research necessary? It cannot be as obvious as he claims. [...]
[...] Is this an example of a few regrettable posts? Unfortunately it is not. This is what Greenwald does. It is what defines his work, just like Coulter, though unlike Coulter he takes in a great many people who I admire and feel are regular reading stops and obviously have not thought through or looked carefully at how he is compiling his arguments. I discussed this specifically in the case of Glenn Reynolds. To read many of Greenwald’s posts one would think all of those who even tenuously support the Bush administration, much less strongly, are blood crazed fanatics determined to bring on WWIII, to strip of us even the most basic liberties. It even clouds any reading one does of his work on legal issues where after going in great and detailed depth and (supposedly) massive amounts of research to determine the validity of his views he claims that nobody can in good faith disagree with him. If that is true, then why is all the legal research necessary? It cannot be as obvious as he claims. [...]