This new political battle does not break down along left v. right lines. This is an information war waged by corporate media to silence any competition or dissent.
Dear Substack: The ONLY reason I visit your website is to read authors like Greenwald who are able to publish real journalism here. If any of the authors I subscribe to are censored or pressured to change ANY of their content, I will immediately cancel my subscriptions and follow those authors to whatever platform they choose.
Likewise. I really do hope the decision-makers at Substack read your comment. I have already dumped facebook and twitter for participating in the censorship crusade and I would dump Substack in a heartbeat if they join in to censor Greenwald and Taibbi.
Indeed, this is why I refuse to subscribe to Medium or give them one thin dime. They censor and shadow ban. Not one penny will they ever see from me. I'm starting to find more interesting content on Substack anyway.
No, Glenn, you're wrong. It is the very definition of Left vs. Right. It's a war that the Left has declared against the Right. They use "right-wing" as if it's a smear. They can kiss my ass, it's a badge of honor. At least, I have honor and I'm not a Left-wing piece of shit like them.
ALL of the canceling, the censoring, and the silencing is coming from THE LEFT. I know that you're not a fearful journalist, so call them out and don't try to give us this both sides are bad bullshit.
The free speech movement in the 20th century was driven by left-wing politics. Many of the key First Amendment decisions on which I relied as a free speech lawyer were written by the court's left-wing members. ACLU lawyers who represented the NRA, the KKK and Christian students did so in the name of leftism. The free speech movement started at Berkeley. Many of the campaigns of the 1980s and 1990s to censor were done in the name of social conservatism by groups like the Moral Majority and other pro-Reagan organization. Many on the left vehemently oppose online censorship, while people on the right have supported some (see here (https://theintercept.com/2017/12/30/facebook-says-it-is-deleting-accounts-at-the-direction-of-the-u-s-and-israeli-governments/) and here: https://theintercept.com/2018/12/17/israel-texas-anti-bds-law/.
I agree that the bulk of the most recent censorship campaigns have been directed at the right, but by no means all (the writers Broderick identified as needing moderation are almost exclusively ones who identify as liberals). Don't make the mistake of reducing support for the cause of free speech by insisting that it is only a right-wing crusade.
I know that it was pushed by the liberal forces on the Left. We all benefited greatly from that. But the Left is no longer liberal.
Oh, I most definitely do "mistake" it as solely a right wing crusade. Please name all of the left-wing commentators/politicians who are standing up against cancel culture or even one who spoke up in defense of Alex Jones.
He was the first to be deplatformed and the success of that first one without one peep in his defense got the snowball rolling. It's ABSOLUTELY one sided.
This has been a huge problem in finding way to work with conservatives. Too many refuse to accept the left is not a monolith.
Even within Marxism, which is just one of many traditions in socialism, there's a huge range of ideas and schools of thought with lots of major disagreements.
Liberalism? It's an entirely different ideology with different goals.
This is a universal problem. I tend to lean more right logistically although I'm open to anything that sounds like a positive and productive solution or a program that benefits humanity and expands human liberty. All for the conversation. But strongly partisan and ideological people see the other side as a monolith, very consistently.
It's a problem I've found intractable. If you're on the left, a majority on the right make huge assumptions about your views on a host of issues because you believe certain typically liberal or leftist things on a small set of topics. If you're on the right, the same thing from the other angle. So many conversations about one thing turn into "that makes you just like Trump" or "I guess you like kids being in cages" . . . and other stuff often of no relevance to the original discussion.
Because people are prone to view individuals through a lens of group membership. Alas. In the modern era, it is not productive. But it tends to be what we do.
This is an astute observation. It is why the two-party political system we have is no longer working. Once people become part of one "tribe", they will become tribal. We need to somehow get rid of the GOP and Democrat parties, or at a minimum, have some alternate options with some real influence. I am in favor of a new party that represents working class citizens with traditional American values. I have not been successful though, in convincing many other people....
Free speech is central to political liberalism, you are correct. It's just that liberals seem to have decided they'll throw the political away to protect their economic liberalism.
My personal definition of "liberal" is live and let live. California used to be the very heart of this philosophy until thoughts and feelings were elevated above all other considerations. Alas, I am now a former Californian, deeply troubled by the contortions our professional political class has subjected to the concept and reality of liberalism.
I took the Red Pill, and no longer consider myself anything other than a conservative.
It's balanced in a way. Many/most harder left pretend the tiny few NSDAP imitators, scattered anti-semites, and also tiny white supremacist groups are representative of the "right." At least they perpetually show those in their extremely prejudiced propaganda.
Defending the rights of an Alex Jones to express his opinions, however toxic they may be, is NOT the equivalent of "defending Alex Jones". That is precisely the kind of false equivalency being used to attack ALL non-corporate media, as Mr. Greenwald has clearly stated above.
There are laws against free speech that result in harm. So, the current popular argument that people like Jones need to be muzzled because they're encouraging said harm to be done are specious.
Either all of us are free to speak our minds, or none of us are. That such a simple principle of human rights should even need to be discussed is terrifying.
I hope you will indulge a personal anecdote. Back in the day, Bill O'Reilly would sometimes interview people with absolutely outrageous views. He'd end the interview saying something like: "Thanks for being on the Factor and I respect your opinion."
That drove me nuts, and I finally sent him a note telling him that respect for an opinion is a high complement, and the words "I respect your opinion" should not be flung around indiscrimently the way Tinker Bell flings pixie dust. Those words should be reserved for opinions that are worth respecting.
When dealing with an opinion that does NOT deserve respect, if he must comment on it and and feels compelled to be polite, he should instead say: "I respect your right to your opinion."
Within 3 days, he's stopped using the word "respect" altogether.
To be fair - when I think of defending someone's fundamental human right to free speech, I am talking about someone who will ask people to not vote for the party at all which has been advocating for censorship. Neither of them have done that. They still want people like AOC who advocates for censorship and making lists of Trump supporters to be in power. To me free speech and being anti-critical race theory are two important things.
Ps. I am a Jimmy Dore fan even though I disagree with him on most of policies. I think he's misguided.
I tend to agree with Glenn. This isn't left vs right (as much as it might look like that). This is progressive vs. non-progressive. Or "far-left vs. everybody-an-inch-to-the-right-of far, far left". Liberalism and even leftism used to include valuing of free speech and individual liberty--the government was supposed to stay out of your womb and your bedroom and your private conversations and so on. There are some old school liberals who still believe that, and some who do stand up to what's going on. And there will be more as eventually all sort of liberals and even pretty-far-lefties will be dragged into struggle sessions and be deplatformed for inadequate purity.
And right and left are labels. Sometimes distracting. What we need right now is more Glenn Greenwalds. Don't really care what label they apply to themselves.
The left has been captured and brainwashed by corporate media. I grew up in the 1960s and Noam Chomsky was in the news all the time. I remember the values I grew up with but most people don’t. Corporate left knows that actual left-wing people have nowhere to go because of the entrenched two party system. My family thinks they are liberal but they are advocating for censorship and they think I’m the one who’s brainwashed when I talk about Glenn Greenwald or Chris Hedges. So at this point people like me have to team up with some of the smarter right wing people who are also against censorship. The New York Times has brainwashed everybody, as much as Fox News has.
It's all corporate media. And so easily manipulated. And always beholden to its advertisers. Fox might be willing to criticize Obama but when it comes to Big Pharma who pays most of their bills? Heck, no.
It would and probably is happening to other networks--NewsMax, OANN and the rest of the right-wing or alternative news, if they get an audience, can be taken over the exact same way.
The brainwashing is mostly thinking that what any of these corporate news organizations covers is actually news, irrespective of the partisan bent of one or the other.
Agreed. When I go on a supposedly Socialist site like Common Dreams, and 95% of posters are pushing Biden and the Democrats, that ain't left-wing. I understand some Right populists, Repubs are eyeing the new pro union bill. They've got to get voters from somewhere, and the Rust Belt voters who left the Dems for Trump have unions in their blood. Anyway, it is a sign of some positive oldtimey lefty movement!
We don't need to do Jay's homework for him. Plenty of leftists and liberals denounce censorship in entirely even-handed ways. Jay bought some stupid media talking point and is asking us to debunk. But I think the burden of evidence is on Jay to prove it.
That’s a bullshit way of asserting the unproven. It’s a message board, a non consequential conversation and limp dick here is like who? Who? Plenty that’s who. I don’t need to do your homework in this conversation.
If only the leftists in positions of power stood up for free speech, as opposed to comedians whose livelihoods depend on it. This is Glenn’s point is it not? Or are the anti free speech anti civil rights statists at these most powerful media companies not leftist?
Personally, I find this label argument that everyone one of these comment sections turn into a, tiresome. It is the same people making the same arguments and nothing is ever settled.
All that matters is what they people with guns believe and that is why they are trying so hard to take them away from us plebes that continue to think for ourselves.
What leftists are in positions of power? If you are even just a little bit moderately progressive then they won't even hide all the dirty tricks, cheats, smears and fraud they use to deny you power.
Yes, all of two. They are not in power and are never going to be. Dore is making noises about giving up. Chomsky will be dead soon enough, and nobody listened to him, either. The distinctive character of the new left is it's very clear adoption of and sympathy for communist thought and methods.
LOL. Name those among "the new left" are advocating for nationalization of industries and collectivization of agriculture? I'll agree with you that this group seems authoritarian, but this can be either left or right (which is Glenn's point).
To be fair - when I think of defending someone's fundamental human right to free speech, I am talking about someone who will ask people to not vote for the party at all which has been advocating for censorship. Neither of them have done that. They still want people like AOC who advocates for censorship and making lists of Trump supporters to be in power. To me free speech and being anti-critical race theory are two important things.
Ps. I am a Jimmy Dore fan even though I disagree with him on most of policies. I think he's misguided.
Every self respecting leftist like Glenn objected for that idiot losing his job. I, as hardcore leftist, hated it, since i knew it was wrong and they will come after real left soon enough. real left has no power, but at least we keep fighting. What about right wingers? Corporate power, Citizens VS United are all right wing ideas, so take responsibility I suppose. To be honest i absolutely enjoy the misery that is befallen to right wing people (don't agree with that but enjoy it). Right wingers have been the staunchest supporters of war and capitalism and now they are paying the price for their mess ups. The shit show is not left's doing, we tried to warn all of you, but you wouldn't listen.
So Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, and John F., Kennedy were all right wing!! Amazing!!They started the wars involving the U.S. in the 20th century.
And Donald Trump is left wing!! Even more amazing!! He is the first President in decades not to start a war. And he worked hard to withdraw our troops from other countries. And he promoted peace in the Middle East, successfully.
What is really astonishing is that some very high ranking military people admitted (virtue signaled) that they resisted and in some cased outright disobeyed some of Trumps efforts to deescalate or drawdown troops in some areas. The military/industrial complex is not an idea it is an actual structured, operational hidden organization dedicated to feeding the sons and daughters of America into the maw of never ending wars to make MONEY and keep their power. Dismantling this monster would take a revolution that well fed and satisfied Americans nave no real stomach for. Its' very existence all around the globe is the reason that torroism keeps expanding and popping up like mushrooms after a rainstorm. They need one another.
it is a cancer that is metastazing and gradually eating up this country from the inside. I wonder at what point will the budget be enough to "defend" the US? At 1 trillion? (it is close to that), 1.5? Why not 2? Beside the obvious self-serving pork, there is important social aspect - military service is becoming the last possibility of upward social mobility for working class kids (economically depressed minorities are overrepresented in the lower ranks), and also a convenient way to remove many thousands of young, potentially rebellious youth from the streets of America and ship them to far flung bases to be trained and disciplined.
Trump, Democrats, and Republicans always had bipartisan consensus when it came to expanding the military industrial complex with record breaking funding year after year.
Yes, actually, they actually were right-wing, if by that you mean committed to the preservation of capitalism against any and every other economic system. At no time in history has either legacy US political party truly been a "party of the the people". I know. I got curious and started reading up on the subject. I recommend that for people who still think they get the full story on the internet.
Democrats are "leftist" only as often and to the minimal degree necessary to maintain their hold on power. Under Clinton, they essentially abdicated even that level of commitment. The myth that they have, in the past, been "taken over by the left" is just that—a myth. That we are in a place where that takeover might actually be within our reach is inspiring.
I can't comment on those wars since I am not sure on details on the ground, but American Imperialism is a right wing idea, irrespective who is pushing it. Trump "played" like he was trying to do it, but nothing happened so nothing to brag about, All America leadership is guilty of it and right wingers have been the biggest cheerleaders of war with neo libs (who are light rig wingers). So eat your cake friends, you made it :)
So-called right wing imperialism started in World War II. It is bi-partisan. People on the far right and far left oppose it. All establishment politicians support it . Follow the money. It is neoliberalism in a nutshell. It is one of the things that most disturbs about the current censorship that seeks to silence all opposition, doesn't matter if it is left or right. Right now in history, the left is supporting this censorship in a big way. Trump was one of the anomalies in this era. That is one reason both sides conspired to destroy him. But, as far as war is concerned, Reagan, Clinton, Bush and Obama, all were the same.
I would be interested in knowing about a history book that states that Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt were "right wing"! Please identify such a book for me. By the way, "The Zimmerman Telegram" by Barbara Tuchman does not make Wilson in any way "right wing".
President Trump was the exact opposite of what you say. He withdrew from areas of the world where we had no business to be. He started no wars, unlike his predecessors. He negotiated peace among many countries, something that President Obama did not do anywhere (Obama did restart the slave trade in North Africa, probably his most significant "accomplishment").
Trump certainly liked to tell his fans that he was working hard at it, and apparently they believed him. I supported any moves away from interventionism, even when he was criticized for them, but didn't see many of them. There were a few underwhelming troop withdrawals... But civilian deaths skyrocketed in the middle east after Trump took office, he loved selling arms to the Saudis to bomb Yemen, and clearly he didn't care that much about peace (Or was just unsurprisingly ignorant) associating with the likes of John Bolton and Erik Prince.
So Bahrain, the UAE, Sudan, Kosovo, and Morocco did not sign peace agreements and recognize Israel? That was all fake news?
And Pre3sident Trump did not stand up to rhe Chinese Communist Government over their treatment of their people? He spoke about this constantly, spoke out for the people of Hong Kong, spoke against the rampant slavery used to harvest cotton, and in his last full day in office he issued the declaration of the treatment of Muslims in Xinjiang as genocide. Of course, he was the first U.S. President to take office fully educated about Communist China.
Of course. The Dulles brothers were totally responsible for World War 1. One of the Dulles brothers was married to President Edith Wilson and got her to start World War 1! Thanks for pointing out this obvious fact!
And the Dulles brothers and Eisenhower were clearly responsible for Pearl Harbor. I didn't know that Eisenhower was a General in the Air Force and an Admiral in the Navy. Interesting for this to finally come out after 80 years! You urgently need to correct Wikipedia which falsely claims "he served under various generals and was promoted to the rank of brigadier general in 1941".
You've been a victim of the main stream media. Yes, conservatives lean towards supporting businesses. That's different than large media conglomerates that have monopoly power (google, facebook, amazon, twitter, etc) who are now partners with Democrats in the all out assault on free speech. As far as wars are concerned, the last official war was WW2, but that aside, I think we could easily argue that Obama, Bush, Clinton and Bush #11 got us all into "wars". The number of drone strikes unleashed by Obama, 540 by the way, far surpassed anything Trump ever did or any other President did.
Not sure what "real left means", but the "real left" in this country are doing the following:
- attacking free speech
- banning books they don't agree with
- promoting an identity politics agenda where everything is based on race
Name one group of people in the last 200 years that did those things with good intentions and positive outcomes?
"Real Conservatives" - which is most conservative I know, believe in personal liberties, smaller government (name one thing the government does efficiently - and you're not allowed to say "grow the government" - cause I'd agree, that's the only thing politicians do effectively), small and medium sized business success - the engine that powers our economy - or, at least it used to until the Democrats shut them all down over the last year, a merit based social construct where everyone has an opportunity to succeed if they work hard - not an equal outcome based utopia, and a belief that government is not here to protect us, it's here to protect our liberties.
The current shit show is the left's doing. The fact that you can't see that just shows how blind you are.
I'm glad you admit you don't know what "real left" means since from there you go on to cite real phenomena but use the wrong label. Your comment deserves a competent and thorough rebuttal, which you'll find at the link below:
"Not sure what "real left means", but the "real left" in this country are doing the following:" (followed by a list the left did not and would not do and has never condoned)
lol your entire post is pathetic. No socialist government (which is what left is) had any power in USA for the past 60 years, All of them either had right wing polices or hard core right wing policies. The issues with right wingers is that they will never accept their screw up, well it is all good by me, because at this point they have no choice but do. Globalization, Low corporate taxes, war mongering, private insurance, Citizens VS United all right wing ideas so try and protect them. Enjoy your shit show cause it is hereto stay :)
A typical liberal maneuver. Move the bar. In your fantasy land, left means socialism. Let's just look at the Democratic party platform:
1) Protect Americans from the Covid-19 pandemic. I don't need government to protect me from a pandemic. I need them to protect our liberties. The exact thing the Democrat party is tearing down day by day. Maybe you want a nanny state. I do not.
2) Building a stronger, fairer economy. Sounds good, but if you read their bs, it's all about the fairness of outcome and not opportunity. If that's not socialism, what is?
3) Achieving universal, affordable health care. Government controlled single payer health care. More government oversight. When has government done anything efficiently? Never.
4) Reforming our criminal justice system. Pull your head out of the sand and check out what's happened when defund the police has become a reality. Minneapolis, Seattle, SF, LA, and the grand daddy of them all: Portland, where the mayor is now begging to put money back into the police force. LA, where the DA is proposing to let out anyone who's already done 15 years of time - they are literally toasting him inside the prisons.
5) Healing the Soul of America. Again, sounds nice, but read further. It's really about combating systemic racism - whatever the hell that means. What it really means, is make everything about identity, and teach whitey how racist they are. And if anyone complains, then they get silenced.
6) Combating Climate crisis. That's just code for supporting a trillion dollar big business industry. Who's in bed with corporate america? Anyone spouting about climate crisis over and over again.
7) Creating a 21st Century Immigration System. Don't even need to read the text, you can just take a look at the "non-crisis" at the border. Democrats just view this as providing a path to citizenship for 30-40MM Democrat voters which they see as a path to one party rule for the next century.
8) Providing World Class Education for Every Zip Code. WHAT A COMPLETE JOKE. Who's keeping classrooms closed because the teachers unions rule them? Democrats. Who does this hurt the most? The poor. Democrats couldn't give two shits about children - they'd rather pay homage to the Teachers unions. Plus, it wouldn't look good to open schools because the orange man said we should do it.
9) Renewing American Leadership. Wow, we've got a doddering old fart who can't even remember who his Defense Secretary is, nor what the Defense Department is or does. That's some great renewing. They've also got Pelosi who's even older than Joe. What a refreshing renewal.
If that isn't a socialist platform, I don't know what is. But keep blaming it on the other side and live in your bubble with your double mask, face shield and endless supply of disinfectant.
Respectfully, I don't think you know what you are talking about. Your comment would be accurate if you changed it to "No CAPITALIST government had any power in USA for the past 60 years, All of them either had left wing polices or hard core left wing policies."
Capitalism is simply a system where you provide some goods and service of value and I pay you for it. We don't have capitalism and haven't had it in decades. What we have is a combination of crony capitalism, corporatism and socialism.
Socialism is what destroyed the black community where we have over 75% of black kids are born outside wedlock (used to be 25% back in the 60s) and the numbers for other races are climbing up too.
Corporatism and crony capitalism is where billion dollar companies are getting government subsidies and bail outs. The 2008 bail out wasn't capitalism. In a capitalist system, one would have let all those companies and banks which made horrible decisions go bankrupt. In a capitalist system, car companies (be it ICE based or electric based), oil companies etc won't be getting government subsidies.
You calling Globalization a "right wing" idea clearly shows you have no idea what Globalization. Right wingers hate Globalization and get called conspiracy theorists for saying so.
Low corporate taxes is right wing? Tell that to the Scandinavian countries which the left worships so much - they also have the lowest corporate income taxes. All Scandinavian countries’ corporate income tax rates are lower than the United States’ rate.
Why has Amazon being pushing for $15 minimum wage? Because they know they can afford it and get rid of small business competition which can't afford it. Liberal policies, just like welfare destroying the black community will also destroy small businesses and then claim that wasn't enough socialism.
War mongering is a right wing thing? Nope. It's an establishment thing.
By your logic, either Trump supporters - who are anti-globalists, anti wars are either all hard left or you do not know what these terms mean.
I am someone who watched Jimmy Dore and is a big fan of his - because he's an honest liberal. But I also think he's extremely misguided and doesn't understand that the very government he's calling corrupt, incompetent and bloated - he wants to give them even more power and manage people's health care, decide who owns guns and who speaks what.
"don't agree with but enjoy it" - now there's some entertaining moral gymnastics. The current "shit show" is most definitely the left's doing as illustrated in your parenthetical statement.
The people who are doing it, are not left, they are neo libs, which in any other country are center right, as in same BS economical and imperialist polices, but they pretend to be for minorities and LGBTQ and they use these items to censor their enemies, mostly real leftists, like Glenn for example. Where are the right wing honorable journalists? and why all of the right wingers here? Glenn is a socialist :). Just accept that there is no a single decent leader on right winger side. We don't have much either, but there is hope and we never had real power. Right wingers have been in power for the past 40 years (I include Clinton and Obama) to that too. neo Libs ate right wingers too, only much smarter in their cover up.
Right wingers have been in power for the past 40 years? Wow, that's a silly statement. But I guess if you define "left" and "right" counter to currently understood definitions it works.
100% I never cared for him, but the moment they caned him I new that is censorship and it is bad. As a proper leftist I believe in my ideas with my whole heart and want to win over people rather then censor anyone that I disagree with. Anyone who is for censorship has no faith in their ideas.
Sadly, nearly all people on all sides want "ignorant" or "crazy" opposition "lies" shut up ("cancelled") and only their "righteous truth" to be told. That was so even when the country was founded, but the popular majority of anti-federalist farmers forced our Bill of Rights for protection from Federalist Party elite bankers, merchants, and attorneys. Those elite then too "knew what was best for everyone [particularly themselves]."
"Left" and "right" are arbitrary measurements which depend completely on how you draw the axis. Concepts like classical liberal, conservative or fiscal conservative are less arbitrary, but ONLY if you define them carefully. +With appropriate definitions+, I can then say that I am classically liberal, libertarian-leaning republican, fiscal conservative, conservative, and (old) whiggish (think Burke or John Adams) without any particular conflict. Does that make me "right" or "left"?
"I am not altogether on anybody’s side, because nobody is altogether on my side, if you understand me..." -- Treebeard
"Left" and "right" are arbitrary measurements which depend completely on how you draw the axis."
however, it's wrong. See the lower part of this excellent erudite write up of the terms Left and Right, where the come from and what they mean - the discussion begins after the graphing dialogue:
The "axis" can only be drawn one way, a horizontal line segment.
The leftmost endpoint is 100% State control/power, 0% individual freedom. Think Fascism (Third Reich) or Communist dictatorship (Xi in China today).
The rightmost point is 0% State, 100% individual freedom. Think Anarchy, an unstable, short-lived phenomena as individuals start banding together for protection and progress. True Capitalism (classical liberalism) is just to the left of the rightmost endpoint, let's say ~10% State (think military, police, courts of law) and ~90% individual freedom (the rights of life, liberty, and individual property ownership, collective property ownership by legal corporatioons that are owned by individual stockholders).
Where a society resides on this well-defined axis is determined by a political process, sometimes involving use of force, think "war is politics by other means," and gang/faction violence/terrorism, but usually by debate and some sort of vote, resulting in founding/defining public documents (constitutions) and rules (laws). Changes to a society's position on this well-defined axis are likewise determined over time by the same political processes, the nature of which can also change over time.
U.S today is still a mixed economy around the midpoint (public sector about 50% of whole as measured by GDP), but starting to move faster towards the left, as it has been moving for roughly 160 years, because the political system has been corrupted by the fact that the political party ostensibly for moving right (towards more individual freedom), the GOP, has fooled those voting for moving right, and instead it has just moved left a little bit slower than the party that is for moving left, the Democrats.
In 2016, unbeknownst to the voters themselves, the voters rejected this two party 160 yr. old system, that was failing to provide the voters with a choice of actually moving right, by electing a flawed, almost equally ignorant, non-politician who, surprise, surprise, actually tried to move the nation to the right by following through on what those GOP voters have wanted for 160 years, instead of just moving left a little slower than the other party that had become scary good at accelerating to the left.
I know, confusing, but not really THAT complicated.
Classical liberals (GG, me, Founders, Hayek, von Mises, Friedman, Capitalists) want to move right because we are too far left and heading to Authoritarian Socialism (say ~80% State control, very little individual freedom), to the glee of neo-liberals, who stole the word liberal from its classical understanding of true individual liberty.
That was my point -- there is a tremendous confusion of meaning of both terms -- liberal and neo-liberal -- there is no meaningful discussion if words can bend like hot dogs in various people minds... ;-))
The Reagan administration did a lot in response to AIDS.
Indeed Dr Fauci was in charge of NIAID at NIH during the 1980s.
From November 1986 in the Washington Post:
"Under Fauci's leadership, however, the role of the rejuvenated infectious diseases institute [NIAID] has grown, particularly in large-scale testing of new AIDS drugs.
"The NIAID budget for AIDS jumped from $ 297,000 in fiscal 1982 to $ 63 million in 1986, and $ 146 million is estimated for 1987, accounting for more than one-quarter of the institute's projected $ 545 million budget and nearly 60 percent of NIH's funding for AIDS. The NIAID will spend more than twice as much this year on AIDS work as the NCI."
The kind of left that gets rich or takes over corporations and embraces (as many of them do) capitalism for themselves, but not for you, because you can't be trusted with it.
The New Left and the Old Left are not the same. The New Left is comprised of race baiting, corporate-loving, narcissistic authoritarian conformists. The Old Left were primarily individualist, freedom loving, colorblind rebels. The New Left has banished the Old Left to the hinterlands for the moment.
Who passes the criteria – TYT, Intercept, corp. media, Congress/Senate -- certainly NOT. Anything still missing on my list?
Interestingly, a rising star in DNC in 2015, who was “excommunicated” after declaring for socialist Bernie and not for corrupt queen Hillary (who brazenly named her “Russian asset” after Tulsi demolished Hillary’s protégé Kamala Harris), Tulsi Gabbard, passes most of my progressive criteria. While most opponents of DNC cabal would meekly “bring chocolates” to Pelosi and Schumer, here is the truly epic and exceptional Tulsi’s response:
“Great! Thank you @HillaryClinton . You, the queen of warmongers, embodiment of corruption, and personification of the rot that has sickened the Democratic Party for so long, have finally come out from behind the curtain. From the day I announced my candidacy, there has been a concerted campaign to destroy my reputation. We wondered who was behind it and why. Now we know — it was always you, through your proxies and powerful allies in the corporate media and war machine, afraid of the threat I pose. It’s now clear that this primary is between you and me. Don’t cowardly hide behind your proxies. Join the race directly”.
Dem Party is beyond salvation – a viable third (and fourth..) party is THE solution.
Good news- we agree. Both parties are corrupt beyond salvation and need be replaced as I indicated in my other comment. My actual preference would be to eliminate all political parties. The founding fathers of America correctly believed that political parties would lead to partisan conflict that would threaten the country. Today's climate has proven them prescient. But getting rid of both parties without replacement may be a step too far for the sheeple.
I've been a liberal my entire life, but I've never been a Democrat. The best way to fight black and white thinking is to not subscribe to it in the first place.
"Dem Party is beyond salvation – a viable third (and fourth..) party is THE solution."
In 2016, I was *praying* that, first, Trump (given his temperament) would split off to form a third party, but then Bernie -- if he was serious about "revolution" -- would then split for a *fourth* party.
Well, it was the TPTB who obviously heard my prayers ... and took corrective action on both of them.
If you understood the EXTREME difficulty of building any physical organization to take on the two existing parties here in America, not to mention the required re-education of masses of voters then you would understand the near impossibility of the task.
One has to "take over" an existing structure.
That is what is happening with Trump and the GOP as well as the "progressives" and the Democrats.
As someone who organized campaigns for over three decades at a state level I can tell you that when those machines are "turned in" they are fearsome.
Thank you - I value your expertise. However, why do you think that those fearsome machines would be easier to realign from inside?
Why not support the GOP's launching a challenge to the Electoral College vote -- the way Dems launched one each time they lost over the last 30 years (2000, 2004, 2016), for example.
The Democratic Party is a dictatorship of billionaire donors and arms and intelligence industry interests -- nothing that benefits the 99% of population is relevant to it.
By far the highest interest of Biden government and its DNC cabal is that Russia-gate immense hoax – the scam of the century -- will NOT / will NEVER be exposed. Hence immense obligations to primary propagandists for their roles, including despicable Kamala Harris (Hillary’s protégé), Neera Tanden, Melissa Hodgman (wife of the Comey’s infamous Peter Strzok), Pete Buttigieg, etc,
Yes, that was very disappointing. Ditto for dropping charges against Google (that was a very interesting first deplatforming attempt by big tech, I wonder if she had pursued it more and made a bigger stink about it if Dorsey would be brave enough to censor Trump for example) and letting slide Hillary with the smear. Even so, all around her balance is positive and who knows - she may reenter politics at some point. It would certainly be a welcome change.
The “left” just allegedly got more presidential votes than in the history of our country. If the left left the DNC then who the hell voted for Gropin Joe?
I think it’s now hard to figure out what even is the left or liberal. The same way they have destroyed terms like white supremacy and racism and threat to democracy, same way, terms like liberal don’t mean anything in today’s world. People are claiming to be liberal while calling for censorship. That’s contradicting but unfortunately these people are too dumb to recognize that they aren’t liberal one bit. They are fascists.
Also I do wish there were at least a few from the “left” who had defended Milo, Alex Jones etc. Even tulsi only started talking about censorship when it happened to her (by Google ads and media calling her russian agent). Before then, she stayed silent.
The “right” on the other hand including trump supporters were defending not just tulsi and Alex Jones and Milo, they were even defending Bernie freaking Sanders when he got cheated out twice by the DNC.
Lol. When has the freedom caucus ever called for censorship? The left spent four years shrieking the Trump was a "fascist" even though he never did or said anything to support those charges. Trump stands for individualism and federalism. The left and democrats insist on collectivism and authoritarianism.
A fascist dictator would need media cover, educational institution cover, Hollywood cover, pop culture cover, Big tech cover, federal judge cover, union cover, the whole machine cover to get away with it. We all know who has all of that.
Remember when she went and showed support for Biden in the elections? All that anti war stuff went out the window. At least Jimmy Dore called her out for that.
Tulsi was the one politician who could have spearheaded the left/right synthesis ...instead..she cravenly supported Old Joe who represented everything she supposedly stood against.
Oh what could have been!
A Tongan American Hindu warrior truth telling warrior queen afraid of being tainted by the right.
I admit I wasn't happy about that, but MAYBE she felt she had reason to believe Trump was a lot worse than Biden.
They were / are BOTH shitty, so I'm not going to blame anyone for picking either; for myself, I voted Green Party instead of either of those crappy people. ...I'd like to see a LOT MORE people have the gumption to vote for OTHER THAN D or R - if we did so in massive numbers it would change U.S. politics overnight.
I don't think the "Republican party" is. Majority of the constituents are yes. But majority of the politicians aren't. Majority of republican politicians are incompetent cucks.
This is propaganda from the ultra-rich: "socialist/communist on the left."
Further, the current Democratic Party is right-wing, right where the Republicans were in 1980. The current Republican Party is in batshitcrazy territory.
It's much more useful for the politicians to divide us along "left" and "right", when the actual divide is between collectivist and individualist. Unfortunately, there are useful idiots on both sides of the political aisle that are more than eager to cover for their idols, thus distracting us from the real problems.
The divide is not between "collectivist and individualist" -- no, that's what they want us to think. But both of these things are not only compatible but absolutely necessary values to have in a democratic republic, as both are complementary components of human nature. The real issue is, and always has been, prioritization between those two.
The former was for much of the 20th century (now long gone) more or less convincingly represented by Democrats, the latter by Republicans. The spin doctors in each party have always used each value to accused the other party of failing to live up to "We the People". Meanwhile, because collectivism and individualism are necessary and complentary values, the Democratic Party and Republican Party can never be killed by mere third parties. It's a perfect scam.
The divide that matters *now* is democracy (however implemented), vs anti-democracy. Don't confuse that with L vs R, the two halves that can never be a whole alone.
I'll probably invite a crapstorm with this, but democracy is highly overrated and frankly, I couldn't really care less about voter turnout and other useless metrics of democratic participation. Mob rule is no better than any other authoritarian system. A constitutional republic on the other hand, is worth preserving. Unfortunately, I think in the case of the USA, we're merely preserving its corpse.
As far as balance between individualism and collectivism and the ideas of the social contract go, I'll just leave you with some words of wisdom from its creator, Rousseau.
“whoever refuses to obey the general will will be forced to do so by the entire body; this means merely that he will be forced to be free.”
“The state … ought to have a universal compulsory force to move and arrange each part in the manner best suited to the whole.” And if the leaders of the state say to the citizen, “‘it is expedient for the state that you should die,’ he should die.”
I have nothing against our democratic republic. I support it. Your understanding appears to have been corrupted by the current fashion on the right to conflate "democracy" with "pure democracy". Democracy (per Merriam-Webster) is "government by the people". Are you one of the people? As in "We the People"?
In any case, regarding your assertion that "democracy is highly overrated": Someday, I suspect you'll wonder how the waterline for nearly all participation rose above your head. By "participation", I mean your anywhere -- forget voting, and think of any and all activities you have in business and in life. It's a-comin'. This article of Glenn's is about just one dimension.
Democracy is merely a mechanism. A constitutionally limited government that respects individual rights is the goal. One may argue that the latter is not possible without the former, but it is unwise to ignore the dangers that democracy can pose on its own.
The elevation of democracy to that of a sacred term above all others in our society endangers all of our rights. 51% does not a morality make.
No, it's not "current fashion on the right to conflate "democracy" with "pure democracy"."
How can you even say that? As if people who correct it are just following some meaningless fad?
If you asked the younger generation, most won't be able to even tell you a difference. That's one of the main reasons AOC and her followers have been calling for things like abolishing the electoral college. Abolishing the electoral college will bring full on democracy - mob rule where 51% rule over the 49%. California and New York gets to rule over everyone else.
It is very important to correct people when they want democracy and explain to them the dangers of one.
I wish US had electoral college even in the states and cities.
I see the divide most simply as: The ultra-rich, their puppets, henchmen, and sycophants (the true "right") vs absolutely everybody else ("We, The People" but also the true "left").
If we leave out the stuff I put in parenthesis, whoever calls themselves right or left can likely see the truth of the statement - at least, those who are the "We. The People" category.
BTW, you can also call this "oligarchy vs some-form-of-democracy", if you like - it amounts to the same thing.
Or the Deplorables (the elitist globalist, corporate-fascists) vs. those who want nothing but TRUE Freedom and Liberty (everyone else who isn't an elitists globalist, corporate-fascist).
Someone, of course, already *did call them "philosopher kings", as well you know, and I *still cherish the qualifications upon which Plato insisted in order to "vet" those who would be politicians.
In the Athenian democracy, similar to the much later U.S. Democracy, "people" were defined for voting purposes as "free, white, male, landowners, over age 21."
Plato reasonably argued that *landowners would suffer financial losses by ignoring the maintenance of their farms while they took years away from home to come to Athens to perform a public service by sitting in the Senate, etc. And yet, of course, even now, we have people spending in excess of a quarter of a *billion dollars plus in their frantic attempt to secure a job (POTUS) that pays about a quarter million dollars a year in salary.
To counter this clearly suspicious phenomenon, Plato proposes in his work "The Republic", that we insist that the ONLY people we allow into office are those people who can PROVE that they really do NOT want the job at all !
That was roughly 2,400 years ago, but it is *still a solid idea ! :-D
YOU, in your individualism, haven't any chance whatsoever of overcoming the chains and yoke the ultra-rich have already set on your shoulders.
Wake up, dude, this is a "class war" and the ultra-rich are winning. You could stop supporting them, you know, by changing your tune and 1) stop attacking other non-rich people and 2) realize that collective action is REQUIRED for us to regain control over the ultra-rich.
Otherwise,they're going to bring the vast majority of the entire current biosphere, including humanity, to extinction since they know no moderation - demonstrably.
You are helping our oppressors. WAY TO GO! -face-palm-
Yes, of course, collectivism is the only way to fight collectivism.
I may choose to join with others in a struggle against those who wish to deprive me of my natural rights, but I do not cede my rights to those I am joining with any more than I do to those who currently violate those rights.
Your mistake is thinking that you can replace one collectivist system with another and retain your freedoms when collectivist systems always deny the rights of the individual and make your own person the property of the state.
And you misidentify the problem. The rich aren't my oppressors. They don't possess the power to imprison me, to invade my home without a warrant, to seize my assets, to take my children from me, to send me off to war in the name of the state, to prevent me from trading freely.... The government holds the monopoly on force. And it is from that power that all else flows.
Certainly, the rich and powerful collude with government to fulfill their desires, but it is the government that holds the actual power. Don't believe me? Consider for a moment that the rich have only one tool to work with, money. Now consider that the government controls the value of that money thru printing and they can seize it at will like FDR did with physical gold during the Depression or any number of fortunes seized during the War on Drugs. Ask Jack Ma how his money protected him... oh wait, you can't.
If society doesn’t protect the rich, than everyone becomes poor? If society doesn’t protect the poor, then society is meaningless and will be overthrown
I feel that power resides in the collective as the first cause of power. However, that the community is better served to take that power and distribute it to individuals as much as possible
You are exactly right about this. You were spot-on when you drew the line between liberty/free thinking and authoritarianism.
What I am seeing is so-called conservatives like David French, Bill Kristol and the like joining up with those on the Left calling for suppression.
What this is comes down to, at least in part, to those who see themselves as part of the Elect (thanks, John McWhorter) flexing their muscles to put sinners in their place. I know you are not a Trump fan, but he was emblematic of this--he threatened their grip on all the levers of power and control, and so he had to be destroyed.
Both groups of oligarchs that rule us - DNC and GOP - are equally repulsive and hopeless. We need to unite for a third party -- it will not win for decades but we need to break out of current monopoly.
Nope, it comes down to those who believe their choices should be exported to the "unwashed infidels" and those who prefer to let people make their own choices, even when they might be "suboptimal."
And how is this not an issue of power and control? The non-Elect, the infidels, the peasants, the serfs...we must be told what to think, because allowing us to think for ourselves threatens the ecclesial hierarchy (and it IS a religion). We must be controlled, lest the Elect lose their exalted positions.
I think most people on the right would agree, that free speech is deeply rooted on the left or in liberalism. But very few on the left are standing up for it today. There should be a massive torrent coming forward, instead, it is a trickle.
Free speech is rooted in CLASSICAL liberalism (Capitalism), as stated in the Declaration, and implemented in the Constitution. The Left today is NEO-liberalism (Statism, the OPPOSITE of Capitalism. Capitalism demands a SMALL State). The Left today is FOR censorship, FOR Authoritarian Socialism, FOR the destruction of free market Capitalism, FOR the destruction of individual freedom.
And you are mis-defining The Left, as Leftists throughout history have found it necessary to do, in order to grow the State, at the expense of the freedom of the individual.
This is both false, and a perfect summary of what the propaganda of the ultra-rich has been trying to get the "right leaning" population to believe. In short, you have taken the bait, hook, line, and sinker, of what they want you to believe.
That article gives the origin and full evolution of the political terms Left, Right, and Liberal, and touches on the more modern usage of Neo-Liberal and Neo-Conservative as well.
The title is: The Left / Right Dichotomy, the Meanings of Left, Right & Liberal, and U.S. Politics Today
It's rather long but here's the "table of contents":
U.S. Politics Today
Shortcomings of the left-vs-right dichotomy
Propagandistic Manipulation
Relativism
Centrism
Freedom & Liberty
Origin and Evolution of the terms left, right, and liberal in politics
The original Right's opposition to original Liberalism
Early Left opposition to Liberalism
Mid 1800s
Marxist opposition to Liberalism
Rise of the modern Right
The emergence of modern politics
Left and Right in relation to Liberalism and each other
The Recent Re-Definition of Left
Liberalism and Neo-Liberalism vs Left
Alternative Systems to the left vs right linear continuum
The Political Compass
The Rational Spectrum
I recommend you read the whole thing. I'm 100% sure you'll learn more than you expect to.
It's my perception that a huge fraction of the actual left doesn't engage in social media like the neo-liberals do, so we don't see as much of it and have fewer opportunities to visibly respond. However, the left people I know all talk about this among ourselves and where we can outreach - like in comment sections - and universally decry what's going on now with cancel culture and this neo-liberal bullshit.
"I don't even begin to understand what you mean by "the actual left.""
Yes, it's very clear from your postings you don't understand what the left actually is.
The left is what brought you the 5 day work week with a 2 day weekend, the 8 hour work day (so far as we can keep that in this day and age), public education (as opposed to no educattion for the masses), and I could go on. Today, to distinguish ourselves from that heinous NOT left bullshit brought about by, for example, the fans of Hillary Clinton, the Neo-Liberals, we often call ourselves Progressives. We are FOR THE PEOPLE and advocate policies that help the people (as opposed to the oligarchs and the insanely rich).
I would have much more respect for progressives if they just fought for the people in an honorable way. Instead, you allow what you call neoliberals to represent you and use the tools of hatred and envy you likely claim to not use or believe, all for their own agenda. It happens on the right as well. It just isn’t nearly as destructive to society.
It would greatly benefit the progressive left to demarcate what you would be willing to accept. Otherwise, us producers on the right are never going to believe your motives pure and that you are doing nothing more than trying to take what someone else worked for. It is never ending. We have gone from child labor to a welfare state and now UBI in a hundred years. The entitlement, a concept foreign to me, is through the roof. Half the county wants something for nothing and is willing to ignore their activist representatives burning down entire city blocks and ruining lives.
Many on the right now believe you want us all dead. With all the insane societal destructive things neoliberals are pushing it is getting harder to think otherwise. That was likely the neoliberal’s plan from the beginning and RINO’s were a part of it.
Progressives need to wise up and realize there will be nothing left if the UniParty succeeds. For example, why in the world would a progressive be in favor of disarming law abiding citizens leaving only criminals and the state with arms? This position alone makes me question the sanity of the entire movement. Are they really so naive and gullible as to think they will let you live after that?
He means these people most likely. Elitists that would never vote non Democrat yet have the sanity to see the authoritarianism they voted for destroying their children’s minds. They whisper in the dark amongst themselves about how this could have come to pass oblivious to the fact their votes ushered it in.
Yes, this IS true! I was at Michigan state even in mid-70's and the political science teacher was teaching Marxism and when I raised my hand to debate with him, he literally IGNORED me. Even then. This has been creeping up. They are free speech AS LONG AS IT IS THEIR SPEECH. Otherwise, it could always be shut down. Still, they did have a point in Berkley back then...
Marxism is a Janus monster. On the one hand, it oh so passionately complains about the oppressed. On the other hand, it won't let them do anything about it. Not on their own, that is. "Stand back! The experts have arrived! We'll take over from here, thank you very much!" I'm surprised they haven't been laughed out of existence. But I suppose it works because it's actually a psy-op.
Yes! That's why Lula in Brazil Is NOT a Castro or Lenin, who confiscated (State theft) private property. Lula MAY have engaged in corruption, and give lip service to Marxism/communism, but he is no oppropriator of private property, THE worst aspect of Bolshevik/Bolivar revolution. Lula is a (small d) democrat, in that he will respect democracy, and leave office if he loses.
At San Diego State, where I attended and graduated from, conservative speakers were regularly chased from campus - with the tacit approval of the administration. I was suspended from the school newspaper for violating an "unwritten rule" against running offensive letters to the editor. Yes, we had a a YAF chapter at SDSU, but we also had a SPEC chapter that actively tried to ban military and corporate recruiters from campus. In fact, left-wing activists managed to get the Avalon Hill wargaming club banned! (They changed their name from the "Wargaming Club" to the "Conflict Resolution Club" and had no more problems when playing their favorite board games, as I recall.) So far as I know, YAF was the one invoking the 1st Amendment. It certainly wasn't SPEC.
There were also attempts at the same time at UC San Diego to have the California Review newspaper banned from campus for daring to run conservative content.
Oh, and my sophomore year, I was taking a creative writing class for my English minor, and the instructor (not a professor) pulled me aside and said my Air Force ROTC uniform was "offensive" and I needed to change before class each Tuesday. I told her that would not happen - at which point she told me that if I insisted on wearing the uniform, the best grade I could hope for was a C. She was honest, at least - I got a C that class.
Oh bull. Your occupation DOES enter into it. And we are talking about major universities -- this was happening in the 70's at any major university. I'm sure some smaller colleges were conservative, but it was already on the march. YOU "prove" you are right! What arrogance.
Wally, I'd like to know what kind of work allowed you to gather such an incorrect impression. By 1990, the left had all but taken over the major west coast university where I worked. They started writing articles about "White Male Dinosaurs" in the university paper, and soon thereafter there were calls for censorship of any critical view "that created a chilly climate for feminist research."
I published an article stating that all research should be subject to criticism, and soon faced calls for my resignation, hate mail in my inbox, two attempts to set fire to my office, a mysterious cancellation of a research grant, and direct reprisals *against my children*. That was when things were easy. Things are ten times worse now.
As a longtime mainstream liberal and feminist (I was attending NOW meetings with my wife in 1972), I found this very disheartening. I'm now a "conservative" (although I share many views with Glenn).
Right, I'd like to know that, too. I was a student in the late 70's 80's and an adjunst professor beginning later after my children grew up (I had a handicapped child), and the censorhip when I was teaching is a very long sad story. At universities, this has been happening a very long time.
Sorry you had to deal with that. By 1994, there were already enough dramatic cases that John Fekete, a professor at a Canadian university, wrote a whole book called “Moral Panic:Biopolitics Rising.”
Many cases were classic left liberals who thought (erroneously) that their good deeds and simple logic (not to mention facts) would protect them. Even then, many were ruined.
NOT A CHANCE! What work? I was a student in the mid 70's at Michigan State and they literally shut down debate that was not Marxist. Your work? What work?? Your bologne did happen, but NOT on campuses! Not at all. That was the position of older conservative people. MAN, you must be nuts.
Yes, this is true. It's not a right or left thing -- but Reagan also said totalitarian threats would come from the left and he was right. Elitism is a disease that infects both parties, too, and by the very nature that they think they know what's best for everyone, they know what we should think and say. But this atrocity is coming directly from the left now and I appreciate you saying so outright -- something Matt tries to avoid at all costs.
Just turns out the cover of "social justice" is a much easier camouflage in which to sneak in the totalitarianism than hoary old right-wing rhetoric. The culture and systems seem pretty resistant to any right-wing impulse to authoritarianism--for the most part; we didn't exactly resist the Patriot Act--but the urge to power always tends to lead towards authoritarianism. When it comes through a channel for which there are few defenses . . . well, this is what we get!
Yes, but again, as I said above, censorship and authoritarian behavior has come from both parties in the past; however, by its very nature the conservatives philosophy believe in smallest government possible, so in order for socialism to succeed, they need conformity, huge government, censorship, in order to pull off their radical crap. Ronald Reagan WAS right that totalitarianism would com ein the form of liberalism. And it is. Also, our consitution prohitibs state sponsored religion; it does NOT prohibit socialism, apparently, or or other liberal garbage, so they are by far the greater threat.
The First Amendment was not written by leftists. Enforcing the first amendment SHOULD be universal. But it no longer is. The left is intent upon crushing dissent. Everyone knows that, except perhaps you. You struggle to play word games to avoid acknowledging this truth. We see you.
Nosh, you keep confusing corrupt DNC oligarchs with -- "left". Why such persistent blindness? You will never realize how are we being played, like a violin, by two equally repulsive oligarch groups competing for power.
You are, of course, rightfully incensed by DNC scam of the century -- the Russia-gate hoax. But Trump was also a disaster and incompetent -- he didn't give pardon to his biggest ally - Julian Assange who unmasked decades of neo-liberal crimes, for example.
But it was written by the left as it existed at the time. Liberalism and the idea of innate human rights were a revolutionary break from the conservative order of feudal Europe, a revolution conservatives of the era were fighting right up to the Russian Revolution.
You conflate classical liberalism with the political Left. It's a common mistake. Classical liberals believe in free speech. The Left does not, and never has. Suppression of free speech is the cornerstone of every leftist regime in human history.
And the rightist ones too - Franco, Salazar, Videla, Shah of Iran (the list is endless) were not exactly champions of free speech either. Journalists were regularly imprisoned, beaten, sometimes "disappeared".
I don't see much "liberal" in current Republican party - too many religious nutjobs there. Nor do I see any "socialism" in Democratic party of Wall Street and Silicon Valley tech billionaires. These are all just labels thrown out to the public for endless distraction from the fact that both parties serve the same owner class (maybe two factions) and when they "change" (another grand theater performance) nothing really changes neither domestically nor internationally in their policies.
"The current Democratic party is socialist and radical. The Republican party is conservative and liberal."
They both serve the ultra-rich.
You also are using propagandized definitions of these political terms, intentionally distorted so we can't understand one another. That is explained and addressed here:
You've bought into the propaganda about who or what is "left"; you're actually talking about neo-liberals who are NOT "left."
The ultra-rich have been attacking the left since at least FDR since the left is where all the ideas about helping The People - instead of only the ultra-rich - originate. And, so they have put out a lot of propaganda and you've bought into it.
Ben Franklin and Sam Adams would be surprised to hear your take. Don't forget that those bolshy pamphlets of theirs were the main driver of revolt. And Ben hung out in Paris with pre Jacobins.
Ok, but do you acknowledge that de-platforming is new because in the past dissenting opinions were free to rail in the public park but they weren’t given serious consideration on major platforms.
I mean, in the 70’s Angela Davis might be in the news but not her viewpoint.
Entrenched opinion makers are being displaced. There is definite overreach, I don’t like the methods or the ignorant, low iq, lacking nuance and accuracy approach (hallo MSDNC and the Clinton News Network) but there is more diversity of thought possible when entrenched positions built on shared unspoken assumptions are forced to share.
Unfortunately, the silenced of old wish to silence anew. Nobody is sharing. They’re all pigs.
It's easy to see who are the bad actors in the propaganda/censorship war. But simply calling them "the left" (which I myself often do as shorthand), is unfair to honest people who maybe support, say, socialist style economic policies but who are intellectually honest and tolerant of dissent and debate.
Consider that the NYT crowd are in full alliance with the national security state and monopolist billionaire oligarchs. And they hate old style lefties like Bernie. This isn't your father's Left. We need a better name.
I'm fine with "Censors" vs. "Free Speechers" ... because there are censors on the Right, of course, too. They're currently out of power, and out of fashion in most of their own circles, but they're there.
Specific terminology be damned. Let's agree on one word for those authoritarians who are deluding themselves about being liberals. Then we can agree on a single word for those authoritarians who are deluding themselves about being conservatives. And, the "liberals" can convince the idealistic solipists in academia that they're liberal, and the journalism students and all other journalists and various groups of people with white guilt that they must support the blue side. And, the "conservatives" can convince the village idiots that they're conservative and the fundamentalists of all stripes that they must support the red side.
I'll sign on to any terms anyone else wants, just so long as we agree on the definitions. They're distinctions without a difference in any event. Then, perhaps, those of us who still have measurable IQs and a pulse can call ourselves We The People and vote the bums out.
Like most 30 y/o things, this has changed. The moral majority has no power, replaced by the SPLC. Reagan has been in the ground for 25 years, and anyway of his ideas/policies were overturned by the Bush 41 neo-cons.
Today its the right defending free speech, with 5% help from the remains of the civil libertarian left (where are you when we need you, Nat Hentoff?).
But remember MOST of the civil libertarian left voted straight Dem since Bill Clinton...
Censorship is always the crusade of the powers that be as their powers become threatened by vocal dissent. Liberals - democrats at the time - were vocal advocates for freedom of expression against traditional conservatism. Goes without saying that conservatives felt their powers would be eroded if society liberalized. But it can’t be denied that radicalism is more in tune with the left. What we’re seeing at play right now has nothing to do with liberalism in the classic sense, but it’s undeniably leftist, the natural result of the trajectory of western leftist radicalism. It’s illiberal, but regardless of that this movement remains a utopian dream of the radical left.
That's mostly true, but the very idealism of this radical left almost depends on fascist behavior and conformity in its very nature. Since the right ideology is one of smallest government possible, the same threat really cannot come from the right unless one person seized power. Not that they didn't try to shut down some radical ideas in the 60's, also not allowed. But again, the very nature of the socialist left almost demands what they are trying to institute here. So the left is and will be the greater threat.
A great solution is just boycott the bastards. If enough people just quit reading their lousy papers and watching their crappy corporate billionaire bilge we can make a dent in their bottom line and turn the tide.
The tables have completely flipped, There are a few free speech leftists out there, like you. But, not many. And you are being targeted by the left, not the right. Part of the problem of the establishment left is you strayed off their reservation. Those folks go after both right and the real left (because they are not actually on the left, they just pretend they are). The right appreciates you for that and that pisses the left off even more. I am a free speech progressive and feel I have way more in common these days with the right than I do the Biden apologists saying the Covid Relief Bill is the greatest bill in the history of bills. Where have we heard that before? Like I always like to point out, every time a Democrat becomes president, the opposition returns to under their rocks.
Well said. Authoritarianism is authoritarianism and has nothing to do with Left-Right. The authoritarian right is no better than the authoritarian left is no better than the authoritarian. The struggle is between authoritarianism and libertarianism.
Technically, the bulk of the most recent censorship campaigns has been directed at both sides, but more so on the left. I feel like your conflating censorship with criticism and being called-out; after all, many people forget that free speech, it does not mean freedom from consequences. And I say that because censorship from the right has been happening at state government levels with their 'anti-woke' bills designed to censor left-wing speech.
Also, it's kind of a giant false equivalency to compare the call-outs on right-wing individuals with governments in the western world censoring anti-Israeli activists, because free speech only protects you from censorship instigated by the government. Private companies, on the other hand, have free reign to censor people because they are a private entity.
Finally, the 'free speech' crusade by the right is not about freedom of speech, it's about only having speech they approve of. Hence, the anti-woke bills listed above.
Please, please, please, we need a new book, how's about "2024"? Too near-future? I'll settle for "2034," even though it's just a mid-term (if they still exist then), but things seem to be quickening, and the kids are growing up faster these days.
I do enjoy the symmetry of "2034." Maybe instead of Winston and the Ministry of Truth, we'll focus on the people who "volunteer" to do the dirty work by shouting down the non-believers.
Yeah, those useful idiots sure seem to love their "charity" work. Maybe they should have to get an honest government job in order to do it. There might be a few slots still open, judging by the confirmation difficulties, and there's always openings in "acting" duties (pun intended, of course).
It’s going to be a tough ask, but don’t fall for it, man. It’s middle-class Democratic liberals running interference for the establishment, with the help of a bunch of petty middle-class “progressive” foot soldiers, who’re heading up the current witch hunt. Lefties, especially non-academic Marxists and nonconformist social democrats and lefty civil libertarians, have already been either banished or burned at the stake, going as far back as 2015. The World Socialist Website, award-winning journalist Chris Hedges, The Grayzone, and a bunch of indie lefties you probably haven’t heard or cared about are practically nonexistent to the mainstream. Can’t forget about Julian Assange—ever. Most lefties critical of Russiagate, the impeachments, the Obama administration, Clinton/Bush/Obama/Trump/Biden foreign and economic policy, ideological censorship, and so on have already been sent deep into the digital hinterlands. And you better believe the GOP and most right-wingers haven’t shed a tear. Sure, it’s Democrats and their “progressive” pets doing this right now, using half-baked “wokeness” as cover, but it’s continuing a tradition the Republicans and their “right-winger” pets used in the 1980s through 2000s. And the same ruling class is reaping the rewards.
Spot on. On the surface it really seems that the owner class totally won on all fronts - economic, social, ideological. Principled opposition is few and far between, lone voices in the desert. However, behind the screen something strange is going on - that same owner class must be scared and feeling very unsecure when they decide to invest so much time and effort destroying those apparently insignificant voices and their platforms (such as Substack). Do they pick up the signals we don't see yet - essentially that the era of neoliberalism is over, the only question is how it will disintegrate and which critical pieces and positions can be salvaged? Consciously or not, they may see that each successive victory is essentially a Pyrrhic one - each one dismantles another negative feedback loop that could stabilize or moderate the system. All feedback loops are positive ones (inequality always rises, concentration of power, mergers too, debt always grows, MIC eats up more and more budget and creative productive resources, bases and conflicts always increase etc.) amplifying the errors, aberrations and injustices. The whole machine is already shaking and throwing off springs and coils, pistons are next and ultimately the crankshaft. Some future historians will deem the neoliberal ruling class probably the most stupid and short lived in the history - unlike many others that wisely kept some mechanism of moderation and redistribution of wealth or influence in the system to keep it going, these ran it to the ground in 50 years or so.
Don't be absurd. No side has a corner on saintliness. Abuses of power are routinely performed by whomever possesses unchecked power. When the left is in power, the left attempts to silence its ideological enemies, precisely as the right was doing in American in the 1950s, when it was in power.
McCarthy drew too broad a brush, but there were actually agents of a hostile nuclear armed power working inside the federal government. Harry Dexter White, Alger Hiss, etc..
Meanwhile, dozens of ordinary Americans lost their livelihoods working for a media cartel known as "Hollywood" (this was before the ascendancy of McCarthy) simply for holding unorthodox opinions or having unauthorized associations, in many cases fifteen or twenty years in the past. Anyone who defended them while not agreeing with them (eg, the Committee for the First Amendment, which included Bette Davis, Billy Wilder, Burgess Meredith, Burt Lancaster, Danny Kaye, Dorothy Dandridge, Edward G. Robinson, Evelyn Keyes, Frank Sinatra, Gene Kelly, Groucho Marx, Henry Fonda, Humphrey Bogart, Ira Gershwin, Jane Wyatt., John Garfield, John Huston, Joseph Cotten, Judy Garland, Jules Buck, June Havoc, Katharine Hepburn, Kay Thompson, Lauren Bacall, Lena Horne, Lucille Ball, Marsha Hunt, Melvyn Douglas, Myrna Loy, Paul Henreid, Philip Dunne, Robert Ryan, Sterling Hayden, Vincente Minnelli and William Wyler) was similarly threatened, and so they dutifully STFU.
The same thing is happening now. Today's left is taking a page from the right wing playbook of the late 1940s and early 1950s.
Except Frank Sinatra didn't get his recording contract pulled, and they didn't yank Lucille Ball off the air. Can you say the same about Ted Geisel and Abigail Shrier?
As I posted above, the members of the Committee for the First Amendment were threatened with as much, and so they disbanded.
Not really sure what point you are trying to make here. Professional ostracism or threatened ostracism had the same chilling effect, and it's something we are feeling once again and the hands of yet another huge media cartel.
While it’s true that most of the current calls for censorship are coming from the New Left, you are glossing over attacks on free speech that came from Trump (persecution of Julian Asante) and Bush (too many to list here, but let’s start with the “Patriot” Act). Greenwald has fought them all.
And, the Obama DOJ refused to prosecute Assange, while it was the Trump DOJ -- due primarily to Jeff Sessions and Mike Pompeo -- which filed the charges against him and sought his extradition. It's a mistake to try to paint this as left v. right.
The sooner we dispense with the outdated and unhelpful left/right dichotomy, the sooner those on the side of liberty can join forces (despite other disagreements) and focus on the authoritarianism that is infiltrating from all quarters.
The scary thing about this drive toward censorship means that we can’t even *discuss* our political disagreements/differences. There can’t be a marketplace of ideas when one side is called fascist and shut down without even a discussion. Notwithstanding Glenn’s whistleblower examples, it is the left trying to shut down the policy discussion by simply saying any position but theirs is “dangerous” or “extreme”. I still remember when the left humble bragged about being able to understand “nuance” where he right could not. Yet it’s the left who can’t tell the difference between nazis and border security, between murder and in-person schooling
You seem kind of hung up on how *you* define those words and I get that you are trying to carve out a space for yourself as a person who is honestly advocating for progressive policy as opposed to neoliberals who advocate for progressive goals dishonestly. Forgive me but I insist on not playing by *your* language rules and allow me the indulgence of correcting my earlier post to say it is *progressives* who are shutting down policy discussion by calling everyone fascist. Not distinguishing between the various factions of progressives, in other words. Police your own ideology and stop trying to control other people’s language use
We are not going to dispense with group identification, especially when it comes to classifying "the other". It serves the purposes of those advancing the cause of authoritarianism far too well to be dispensed with.
But to be honest, if I am not mistaken Biden himself (correct me if wrong) made it clear that European “Allies” should not give Assange asylum...or guarantee he wouldn't be extradited ..
The stories about Biden blocking asylum were regarding Snowden: he personally threatened countries that they would suffer serious retaliation if they did.
That said, the Biden DOJ is appealing the UK decision denying Assange's extradition. They're also trying to imprison him. But it was started by Sessions and Pompeo.
Biden doesn't do anything other than serve as a useful fall guy for the third Obama administration, or the fifth Bush administration, or however you want to look at it.
Right, and although I would personally be inclined to label these kinds of actions by big-R Republicans as not in line with little-r republican ideals-- and they are most certainly +not+-- that can rapidly devolve into a No-Tru-Republican argument. However one wants to frame it, we Republicans too often elect and RE-elect people who violate republican principles, just as Democrats elect people who violate democratic principles. It simply comes down to the fact that we all have a duty to oppose these authoritarian tendencies +wherever+ we happen to find them.
In many ways, as a Republican, I feel my duty to oppose it within my own party is the more acute: I have access to the primary process to fight bad Republicans (or at least support good ones). They are my responsibility. I cannot, myself, fix bad Democrats.
And Kentucky is trying to make it illegal to insult cops, while the right is currently trying to ban books in TN. The left is a bigger threat right now, but neither "side" has a monopoly on shutting down speech.
Maybe you should try a new news source (or read more carefully).
"The bill says a person can be charged with the Class B misdemeanor of disorderly conduct if the individual “Accosts, insults, taunts, or challenges a law enforcement officer with offensive or derisive words, or by gestures or other physical contact, that would have a direct tendency to provoke a violent response from the perspective of a reasonable and prudent person.”"
That's true. Authoritarians will use any avenue available to them to gain power. Simply defeating the "bad people" now won't stop them from trying again in a new way.
Note to Timothy: The actual left, as opposed to Neo-Liberals, STRONGLY support individual freedoms AND solidarity with our fellow man, families, communities, etc.
Agreed! But today's left is still too wedded to top-down Authoritarian public-sector solutions, instead of private sector free market solutions to societal problems. Give the individual a chance, not the State, which only acts against the interests of the poor, for example.
What do "left" and "right" even mean in common parlance? Or "conservative" and "liberal" for that matter? If Trump is on "the right" and so is David Frum, does it really have any meaning? If Glenn Greenwald is on "the left" and so is Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama, does that have any meaning? Clearly it doesn't. Its far more useful to talk about authoritarians and non-authoritarians. Authoritarians may differ on what sort of your behavior and speech they want to regulate and eliminate, but they all have much more in common with each other than those who believe in freedom and liberty.
Not necessary. Don't overcomplicate things. There is 1 (one) political axis, with two endpoints. The rest is obfuscation and deception by Statists (who occupy the far Left, 100% State control, 0% individual freedom).
With all due respect, I think the concept of debating the definition of the words LEFT and RIGHT is not productive. What would be productive imo is building a populist left-right coalition that can work together towards common goals such as fighting online censorship.
You won't persuade him. Glenn is fighting a rearguard action against the change of language, trying to keep "Left" for the pro-working-class Left of yore, by calling the "woke" and their corporate overlords "neo-liberal". It's a losing battle like trying to keep "marriage" for the ancient institution that was intended to produce a life-long bond between potential biological parents in the interest of their natural offspring. I suspect he and others fighting this rearguard will be able to keep it up for about a decade before deciding it's hopeless, and joining me in calling for the deprecation of "Left" and "Right" as political terms.
Your analysis is correct. I've been "on the left" all my life and I don't have a single friend or family member who voted for Trump. Some of them supported Bernie, and they decry the Dem's lack of class consciousness. One such friend is having a permanent temper tantrum because she opines (correctly) that the woke mobs who burned down Starbucks in the name of anti-racism are not leftists, and she wishes the media would stop referring to them that way. Sorry pal, those days are over. Continue to call yourself a "leftist" if you like, but if you believe in freedom of speech and freedom of the press, you're going to have to dump that obsolete terminology. Turn off MSNBC and use whatever critical thinking neurons you still have to ask yourself some questions:
Is it possible that all 74 million people who voted for Trump, including blacks and Latinos (who are often both of those things at once), are white supremacists? Including your friendly next-door neighbor whom you've known for 30 years?
Is it really all about good vs. evil, and you're on the side of the angels, give or take a few cancellations and banned books?
Do you believe in the Constitution and the principles it codifies? When did the word "freedom" become code for moral miscreant, so that you're afraid to utter it? Thomas Jefferson might have something to say about that, but he's been thrown in the river.
<b>Is it possible that all 74 million people who voted for Trump, including blacks and Latinos (who are often both of those things at once), are white supremacists? </b>
The question might be: which is more likely? That they are white supremacists voting for might white supremacy because it's so awesome to be a white supremacist in 2021 America that even minorities are doing it . . . or that they responded to policy, the pre-COVID economy, revulsion at what the Democrats were offering, picking the least-bad of two bad choices, enveloped by Trump's cult of personality or something else entirely?
There are many reasons people might have voted for Trump, many of them not flattering for Trump, that make more sense than "white supremacy".
"Continue to call yourself a 'leftist' if you like, but if you believe in freedom of speech and freedom of the press, you're going to have to dump that obsolete terminology."
That's a reasonable observation. But part of the overall battle in support of free speech is to stop the continual language-shifting, both for acceptable words and acceptable definitions. That generates constant turmoil in the discourse. In this, MSM and mainstream institutions have a distinct advantage, given their reach. At some point, it has to instead be aggressively called out and nailed to the wall. If not now, when?
I don't disagree. It's a good observation that regardless of the terms, it's the principles that matter. The focus must be on the primacy of free speech. Also I'm not implying that leftist values themselves are obsolete and people who hold such values should forsake them now because times have changed.
My observation is that most of the liberal people I know think of themselves as "on the left" and blindly adhere to woke ideology on that basis. The term has no real meaning but they don't seem to care. They're obsessed with January 6, feel secure in their belief that everyone on "the right" is evil, and that right-wing speech; i.e., whatever doesn't support the woke narrative, must to be censored for the survival of the country. Then there are the hardcore leftists who complain about the betrayal of leftist policies in the Democratic party and don't seem to be paying attention to the fact that our fundamental rights are seriously threatened.
You're right when you say: "...part of the overall battle in support of free speech is to stop the continual language-shifting, both for acceptable words and acceptable definitions. " But this is very challenging when people adhere to certain terms and definitions with unconsciously tribal intensity.
"most of the liberal people I know think of themselves as "on the left" and blindly adhere to woke ideology on that basis."
In particular "think of themselves" - yes - when in fact they're not "on the left" but apparently on the right!
I am as "on the left" as it gets and so when you write:
"Then there are the hardcore leftists who complain about the betrayal of leftist policies in the Democratic party and don't seem to be paying attention to the fact that our fundamental rights are seriously threatened."
...I strongly agree with the first part and strongly disagree with the second part of that sentence; we're very aware of the serious threats - at least, all the hard-core leftists I know (which comprise nearly 100% of the people I know well - not a small list). We just don't have much a platform to share our concerns since a huge number want to conflate us with the right-wing Neo-Liberals.
As a for-instance, my friends and I were all saying the actions of Jan 6 were interpreted wrongly on purpose; WE think the people who acted on that day have a perfectly legitimate beef, but took action in the wrong way. What's needed is to secure our voting systems, which have NEVER been secured because both Ds and Rs like to cheat - the Ds more in the primaries to keep Progressives out, and the Rs in general elections as it's often the only way they can win. So, they both tolerate cheating to some extent since they both do it and want to continue to to so.
The vilification of the so-called insurrectionists was an intentional political ploy, and, by the way, ignores that BOTH the police OPENED THE BARRICADES and also OPENED THE CAPITAL BUILDING DOORS to the protesters. Prosecuting them for being there has a VERY easy route to acquittal... However, the shouldn't be prosecuted!
Thank you for your response. Glad to hear your perspective. I agree with you regarding the events of Jan. 6 and how they should be viewed. The problem of fair elections seems hopeless. Any suggestions or thoughts?
Pretending that the labels of old don't apply isn't being honest. They apply. The tech companies somehow seem to know exactly whom to suspend because they're using these labels.
Labels apply to those for whom group identity is very important--and on the left, right now, it is very important. For classical liberals and old-school lefties who aren't looking to "burn it all down", the labels may not apply so well.
And what does saying: "It's all group X" accomplish? Either we endorse or we reject actions, policies, etc. It wouldn't matter to me who advanced the Patriot Act, or HR1, or open borders, or was trying to get news networks deplatformed. I object to what's being done, I don't care who is doing it. Mostly people who identify as left but let's not forget a lot of GOP folks who ostensibly "right wing" are voting for or tacitly endorsing this crap, too.
No, they aren't actually left. A neolib is attacking anyone left of center with the same viterol as they attack the right. Tulsi is a good example. They either fail in line, like Bernie or AOC, or they face the rabid maoist mob. Please stop thinking of them as 'left. Anti war, free speech, wealth equality are actual left principles. A neolib is what you are, rightly, raging against.
You are approaching this the wrong way. It is very important that we have left wing people be as aggressively pro first amendment as Glenn and some of the other writers he mentioned on Substack are. We can argue about how best to allocate capital and our foreign policy later, if we lose the first amendment we are done.
This is coming from a conservative Christian who probably disagrees with Glenn on a vast majority of issues. Liberals (real ones, not the modern day corporatist progressives) can and should be our ally on this front.
It's CLASSICAL liberalism (GG, me, small State, max individual freedom)
versus
NEO liberalism (censors, overbearing State, little individual freedom)
The word "liberal" no loger has meaning. It MUST be qualified to have any idea what its speaker means. Same with left/right.
The axis is Authoritarian Socialism (100%State power, 0% individual freedom) on the far left, and Classical Capitalism (~10%State power, ~90% individual freedom) on the far right. (Anarchy, an immediately disappearing phenomena, think about it, is 0%State power, 100%individual freedom, and is the far right endpoint.)
All forms of Socialism are on the left side (soft communism, Fascism, crony-Capitalism, all forms of Totalitarianism).
The comment I'm replying to identifies you as either a serious victim of the propaganda of the ultra-rich, a person deeply steeped in group-think, or a bit of both.
You'd do well to re-think things and reexamine your premises and assumptions as it's apparent to me you're being manipulated.
True Journalism -- like Greenwald's -- gives both sides as it is perceived by the journalist. What you advocate, Jay, is the same damn nonsense the NYT reporters are doing, except in reverse.
McCarthyism died when the namecalling and labeling no longer had an effect on Americans. That takes journalists doing their old fashioned journalism, not slanting the stories to favor a political bias.
What Glenn told you, only not in such kurt terms, is "you're wrong." In short, there's an intentional conflation between neo-liberalism and "the left", trying, on purpose, to smear the left and you've bought into it. YOU are complaining about the neo-liberals, not the left, and SHAME on Glenn for not saying so bluntly.
The neo-liberals ARE NOT "left" in any way, shape or form. And Glenn's just too stuck in his ways to call it like it is on that particular point.
I think Glenn may be hesitant to do that because "The Right" also loves censoring points of view they don't like. For examples just research a bit about all the censoring they like to do to oppose the BDS movement in particular and anyone who may oppose Israel's policies in general.
Jay, you've fallen into the trap that others set- the one that leads to people willingly accepting boxes (labels and camps) and filters through which they must view all things. Speaking as one who probably would be labeled "leftist", I can tell you there is no homogeneous "left". The label "liberal" is possibly even more useless, as it may encompass any number of ideological tendencies. There are self-proclaimed liberals who concern themselves only with social-identitarian issues, i.e. this or that aspect of the culture war that is maintained in part by media and other elites to keep people at the bottom from looking at the fundamentally important issues of governance. There are all kinds of "liberals", in fact- and while they are all lumped by the establishment or anyone in a camp on the opposite side with "the left", this is an unfortunate result of the tribalism- the splitting of everyone into camps- to which I'm referring.
While the Democrats (not any left, for certain) seem to be most vocal now in calling for censorship, in general, as Glenn has replied, free speech movements have long been leftish causes, so much so that the ACLU, an entity hated by social conservatives for its work on civil rights, risked much to defend the KKK as well as the NRA and others. On the other hand, it has been social conservatives who've promoted book bans and sought control of content in school books (to require treating the religiously-inspired "Creationism" as a valid scientific theory, for example).
For the record, I don't regard "right-wing" as any more a smear than "left-wing". I tend to avoid using labels to the extent possible, myself; and tend to discount them when used by others- especially in the mainstream media, which I see as mostly corporatist, not left, right or even some mythical "centrist" - unless you think of the center as the center of financial and political power.
As an immigrant from a country that lost the media war of censorship & was silenced, i find it ironic that the very Americans who claim to be fighting for "justice" are the same people clapping like seals on attacks of independent media. The same writers calling their "hit" pieces journalism & crying when exposed as hypocrites or liars, are often working for the same big corporate ghouls in positions of privledge. If Americans of all political bents do not rise up to demand a free and independent media, they may awaken from their sleep to find freedom lost.
Dear Substack: Stand up like a grown up and tell these hall monitors to find another job. Hire / recruit more adults like Geenwald. I just increased my donation. Find another great reporter like Greenwald and I will increase it again. Find a third and I will start passing out Substack business cards to my friends and relatives.
Dear Real Reporters on Substack, develop a strategy to fight back please.
The thing I find most interesting about Mr. Greenwald's following on substack is that there do, from the comments, seem to be a sizable number of conservatives. This is interesting to me because Mr. Greenwald's views are decidedly NOT conservative. On a vast number of subjects, these conservatives and Glenn Greenwald would vociferously disagree.
Myself, I have strong libertarian leanings and, thus, disagree with Mr Greenwald on some pretty fundamental issues, myself.
But not on the issues that matter most. I subscribe to Voltaire's interpretation of anyone's right to speech. It is fundamental to a working republic for us to be able to publicly disagree without fearing government and government-aligned forces seeking to ruin our lives for simply disagreeing.
This article sums up where we have arrived in this culture war. It is no longer about dissent. The has evolved to total cultural warfare, where every aspect of anyone's life is a valid target for complete destruction. We stand at the precipice of disaster.
Conservatives follow Glenn and Matt Taibi for the same reason they follow Jonathon Turley, because they favor free speech and are open-minded. They recognize that Glenn and Matt see what the Left is doing and while we might not agree with everything they write, we respect their right to say it. Remember that Matt came out against the Russia witch hunt and Glenn exposed the illegal domestic info gathering of No Such Agency.
I wasn't trying to characterize conservatives in any particular way, to be clear. I just find it interesting that when it comes right down to it, the /core/ values of people so different as Glenn Greenwald and certain types of conservative are so similar.
It actually makes me feel a little hopeful, as if maybe there's a chance we can change course.
When the French, the British and the Russians are at war, two of them have to wind up in the same trench. That doesn't make the ideologically aligned. But they have recognized an existential threat.
That's not exactly applicable. We *should* not be at war with our fellow Americans. That's what is scary about this whole thing. The Left (particularly the elite/media/Hollywood/Journalists/Big Tech) - has veered into the territory where they are lockstep and groupthink that their opponents views are "dangerous".
The Right, even when they censored, have never tried to "cancel" people - as in, want them unemployed, or even jailed. They may have had moral misgivings, but they still allowed free speech and opinions to flow. If that weren't true, the Left wouldn't exist today.
As Glenn mentions, this is freedom vs. authoritarianism. As long as Glenn continues to be a paragon in the defense of freedom, he'll have allies in Conservatism. The current swing of the pendulum has nothing to do with it. The Right has continued to shift over the past fifty years where individual rights are a core component of the philosophy. It's one reason why Libertarians generally find a home on the Right, and why things like gay marriage have become more accepted.
That's due to RIGHT-WING opened mindedness, not any merits of the Left's ability to persuade.
So, no, the French/British/Russian analogy isn't quite apt, b/c as soon as the fight's over, the one-time allies would be opposed once again.
Err... free market capitalists? Naaa. I'm talking the groupthink that exists where Parler can get deplatformed by a collusion of talking heads in the media, Democrat politicians, and at least three of the major Big Tech companies all in the space of a couple of days.
I specified those in parentheticals, because I don't *think* most of the typical democrat voters actually want to suppress free-speech. I have no assurance whatsoever, though, about the aforementioned Elites, in fact, I think quite the opposite, which is what this article we're commenting on is about.
Call them neo-liberals if you want, though it's not remotely accurate to the actual usage of the term.
...My "complaint" with your post wasn't so much on your ideas overall as labels. SO MANY PEOPLE HERE are confused / wrong about most (or even all) things "left". The neo-liberals are the ones that are doing all the bad things people are citing top-to-bottom in these comments but keep erantly referring to them as left. And that leads to wrong conclusions.
I don't agree with your closing sentence there, but at least we can have a dialogue about that. ...If they're not neo-liberals, wtf are they? They're some form of right-wing authoritarianism that is antithetical to left views and they aren't classical right-wingers either, but then liberalism has ALWAYS been neither left nor right. (See the lower portion of this work for more about that: http://www.rationalrevolution.net/articles/redefining_the_political_spectru.htm)
Okay - well, did you read Glenn's article? If you don't take my word for the fact that it's the Left suppressing free speech right now, take his.
Neo liberals, if we're going to get into arcane political theory - sure, those eventually became neo-cons on the Right and have had a lot of influence over the past 25 years, though they've spent the last four being NeverTrumpers.
I reviewed your article a bit, and there are parts in it that make sense, and some that don't - I mean, it's all well and good to think of the article as gospel, but I mean, it's literally titled "re-defining the political spectrum" - and you're expecting people to automatically agree with those definitions - that aren't remotely universally accepted.
I'll be the first to say that many political terms are misused, fascism being the first one (and these days, racism being the second).
But, I will just reiterate - Glenn says above that the Left (and in this case, lefty journalists) are the ones pushing for authoritarianism. You'll need to take up that argument with him. ;)
Glenn, I am a life-long conservative who recently found you here on Substack after seeing you on TC Tonight a couple of times. Your work is remarkable. In just a short time you have opened my eyes to a lot of new issues and perspectives. Stay strong and you and others like you will change the world. I know that when these "journalists" attack you, you must feel a pressing need to respond and defend yourself. Please do as you see fit, but also know there are many people who appreciate you and you are free to focus on your other highly important topics without taking the time out to just defend yourself.
And I agree with your position in the comments below on 'recent leftist censorship' but 'historically rightist censorship.' The difference is mainly in where the true center of cultural power lies. Historically, censorship initiatives have been mainly conservative and have only recently shifted; like within the last 20 years. I did not truly appreciate the first amendment and freedom of the press until recently. Turns out, us conservatives have a lot in common now with true liberals, and we are going to have to find ways to work together to deal with these rather new neoliberal (fascist) cultural and political forces. By all means, please let me know if I can help. I think the stability of the entire planet might eventually depend on it.
I think it is libertarians vs authoritarians, not conservative vs liberal that is the true dividing line. As a life long liberal, I now find myself having more in common with conservatives. I think that is because the left is becoming more authoritarian and conservatives are becoming more libertarians. Authoritarian utopian governments always dissolve into dystopian nightmares.
"I think it is libertarians vs authoritarians, not conservative vs liberal that is the true dividing line."
No, it's class warfare; it's the ultra-rich against everyone else. And their method of going after "everyone else" is the ole divide and conquer strategy - time tested. So, they use their media to keep us fighting one another.
... And ONE way they do it, and have done since at least WWII, is to lie about "the left."
The left has NOT become more authoritarian; instead, there was a splintering: the former standard bearer for The Left was the Democrats, but with Bill Clinton's presidency, it became clear to The Left that the Dems were on the wrong path. And so the split - neo-liberals resulted from what were formerly left-leaning Liberals, but they became right-wingers during Clinton and beyond, and the MSM kept pretending they were actually left since it fit the narrative of the ultra-rich.
BUT DON'T YOU BELIEVE IT! No, the actual left is still out here, keeping our left values. The ultra-rich WANT you to think the neo-liberals are "left!" Don't give them the win!
The idea of libertarians vs authoritarians is a repudiation of class issues is not true. The woke authoritarians are wealthy. The move in the state of Oregon to stop requiring black kids to master math in our school system is funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. "The actual left" that you refer to is in the writings of Glenn Greenwald and others. Conservatives are reading Glenn's writing and finding common ground. The issue is that the authoritarian left is abandoning class issues and taking on race and gender issues and this is coming from the wealthy: https://www.city-journal.org/the-miseducation-of-americas-elites
A strong government response right now will hurt the working class because the elites are more concerned about creating race and gender equity than dealing with income inequality.
"the [ultra-rich] are more concerned about creating race and gender equity than dealing with income inequality."
I believe that's only partially true. SURELY the ultra-rich aren't EVER going to "deal" with income inequality (much less _wealth_ inequality) - oh, and being filthy rich doesn't make one elite as the elite are people who have EARNED their place. But anyway...
... I STRONGLY disagree the ultra-rich want gender or race equality, rather it's just a tool to keep us fighting one another and beyond that they really don't give a damn.
I think it has always been between libertarians and authoritarians. Classic liberal values are at the heart of what it means to be an American. They are what bind us together. They are, or should be, truly bipartisan. We have to openly reject any political platform that would suggest otherwise.
I have been following Glenn's work for years and I am THRILLED to support his work rather than subscribe to the garbage marketed as journalism today. Substack, I will follow Glenn and other journalists to other platforms if they are silenced or pressured in any way. Fight the good fight Glenn. We support you.
Keep pushing and fighting Glenn. I’ve been pushed into another line of work after pursuing data-based health journalism as my findings didn’t reinforce the race-based and divisive narrative. It truly is a hostile time for those seeking truth.
Keep it up Jon. I'm so sick of politically driven policy on Covid, and MSM and big tech killing any attempt to voice opposing views based on science and data
I've been reading your articles for free. Because of this article I just paid for a subscription. What is happening is so very very dangerous. I'm grateful for your courage, Glenn.
I also just paid for a subscription. Ironically, the first amendment has become one of the defining issues of our time. If we lose this fight, we will never recover.
I fervently agree with the spirit of your comment so hopefully I'm not just splitting hairs with mine. The first amendment doesn't (yet) bear on the content of GG's last two posts since it applies only to the government. The attacks he's condemning are directed at cultural norms relating to free speech by powerful non-governmental forces.
People trying to obfuscate shouldn't get easy targets to derail the conversation. The cancellers (for lack of a better term) can deflect by saying they aren't violating the first amendment, which is true, but irrelevant since the problem is how they're wielding social power to try to coerce people into silence and conformity.
The non-governmental forces - corrupto-crats - are in a symbiotic relationship with DC. So while private companies are not subject to FA restrictions, they profit from doing the bidding of the Ds and their R subsidiary. Big government and big corporations - two peas in a pod.
Me too! I just signed up. I want to show Substack we are willing to support free and open journalism! Next I guess I have to support Matt Taibi. (I think I spelled his last name wrong…)
And with the money I’m saving since I canceled my NPR national propaganda radio subscription I’m also supporting Status Coup investigative channel. And then there’s Grayzone… Ugh I wish they were all in the same network so I could support them all together!
Bravo Glenn. I just subscribed. Your crusade against thought Nazis is the best marketing campaign for Substack and free speech. Your writing is superb- honest and acerbic. Brilliant. Keep up the good fight.
I concur. Not yet 5 months in and (as another mentioned) I feel like I'm taking advantage of the man. I include the annual subscriptions I gifted to my siblings in that calculation as well, despite that act hardly being totally selfless.
The Hillary Clinton model of leftist media is not left. It’s corporate. It’s pure corporate media with a rainbow flag. Please don’t call it left-wing because it’s not at all. And I don’t think there ever was and antifa movement, I think that was all made up BS. Most of the BLM protesters in places like Portland were young white kids with awareness they were over privileged—my two young nieces were out there protesting all the time. Sure wish they would fight like that for national healthcare...
Hillary Clinton has forever tarnished the label “left.“ And yeah it sucks that her and her friends are the shadow presidents now and are borrowing China’s censorship model.
Lisa, read Andy Ngo's dispatches (and upcoming book) then look at the thousands of videos of the destruction committed and incited by Antifa throughout 2020. They are real - the street thugs are meth heads and other societal castoffs but the management layer is organized, smart, and well trained a la the members in the root organizations in Europe. They use military-grade comms and organize into cells to prevent infiltration. Their training manual is also on-line and accessible. My "liberal" (read woke lefty) brother thought they were "just an idea" which was the media's propaganda up until the evidence of their crimes became known.
It's still sjw left, though. Just listen to your admiration of your nieces promoting "white privilege" and other BLM bullshit. Hillary's still your gal.
I didn’t say any admiration for my nieces. I was stating a fact. There are not many people I hate as much as Hillary Clinton. I think the Clintons together have ruined the USA forever. And the USA is ruining the world.
How did US Corporate media ended rechristened as leftist media?
Please look at how the leftist media reported the riot of Antifa and BLM when these people setting fire every where. Look at how the leftist media reported the "riot" on Jan 6 with no one setting any fire and/or causing any major destroy on property. Compare the destruction caused by Biden supporters (Antifa and BLM) and Trump supporters and comparing how the leftist media comments on the acts of these 2 groups of people. You then know how US corporate media ended rechristened as leftist media.
US Corporate media are rechristened as leftist NOT by brainwashing but by how US Corporate media have reported the "riot" of Biden vs Trump supporters.
Why yes, Wally, it is. But it's the new commie corporate left, allied on open borders from day one and any other policy to screw the working classes and enrich the corporation. So old school leftism doesn't fit into this new framework. Please get with the program.
No, I think Glenn is right. The biggest war here is between people who believe in freedom of expression and those that do not -- of either party. I don't expect to agree with everything they say. Matt Taibbi pisses me off a lot, but he IS taking a stand against censorship and the deplorable state of journalism now. So I subscribe to him. Matt won't hold the left responsible somehow in the way Glenn does. But the point is Glenn would hold the right equally responsible if they were being repressive. But you are right (Jay) that the left has always been more repressive than the right in my life time. There were few elitist types and usually they were not for stopping free speech. The left has always advocated control of all types, from gun control, to redistribution of wealth, so by nature, they want government control. Now they want control of thought. Which is a step too far for even many liberals.
Well living in Chicago with practically every teenager having a gun and using it, if we had only kept gun control going from the 1960s when even Republicans were not pushing for legalizing machine guns, the country would be a way better place. I’m glad I have the window of history, being born in 1959. Back in the 1960s we learned about the very divided understanding of the Second Amendment. Not to start a big thing here, but we are so alone in the world in our stance on guns.
And the redistribution of wealth, well we didn’t need that when taxes were actually at a decent level where millionaires were still making plenty of money but states could actually fix roads and have libraries.
The new “liberals“ wanting control of thought are nothing to do with the liberals I grew up with. They are the Hillary Clinton liberals.
"The left has always advocated control of all types"
I think that from the Right, "control" is too often conflated with "collective". This is completely understandable to me, as authoritarians took over the Left (over several generations) and brainwashed the unthinking into following them (*and* into "unthinking"!)
But it is dead wrong. The Left is the side that cherishes democracy, as it is by definition egalitarian. Democracy has *zero* to do with lopsided control by an authoritarian few over a subordinate many. *That* point of view comes instead from the two-faced Marxism, which hijacked Leftism, and which thinks it knows not only truth and morality of the past -- but also, exactly what *must* (truth & morality, again) happen in the future! Does any movement have bigger balls??
Leftism 1.0 was the French Revolution (however badly executed) -- not Marx. But through Marxism, the authoritarians not only snookered the Left ("Stand back, proles -- we've got this!"), but as of late *also* snookered the Right into thinking Marxism is the Left!
I feel for you, but unfortunately, the Marxists and fascists started taking over and brainwashing our students in the late 70's in universities and it's worked. And too many sheep out here. We understimated their influence. Huge shame. But really, they've been behind the scenes for decades.
Glenn, let me start by warning you and your readers that I am preparing to write a very long essay in response to your brilliant post today, so stop now if you don’t want to make a bit of a commitment.
First, while I find all of your posts to be smart, well informed and relevant, today you found another level, another gear. Today, your post was PENETRATING! I think the difference is that these little pathetic trolls pissed you off, so you responded with the intellectual version of “OK, let’s dance”. Suffice it to say that I really like the pissed off Glenn.
Second, as a heterosexual, middle-aged, white, conservative who grew up in rural Kansas - I can provide a high degree of credibility to your claim that you are not right-wing. If we were back in the days when the two parties actually had ideologies, you would be a reliable Democrat and I would be a reliable Republican. In fact, it may be true that one of the only things you and I agree on is that we both want to have the freedom to debate and defend our positions vs. silencing and/or canceling those we disagree with. Indeed, we are as they say - strange bedfellows.
Third, you are correct in your statement that this is not a right-left culture or political war, but rather a war for or against the free exchange of speech and ideas. I would describe you as a traditional liberal, a primary tenant of which is that you want to defend freedom of speech and thought. Further, a traditional liberal is moored to an actual set of beliefs that can be defended in an open debate - and welcomes the opportunity to engage in that debate. Further, a traditional liberal is moored to a set of beliefs that can form a coherent governing philosophy. While I would disagree with the practicality and/or effectiveness of that governing philosophy, it is based in reason and can be defended.
The opposing ideology today is not liberal, but rather progressive/woke and it is more akin to a religion than it is a cultural or political ideology. This group is unmoored to any set of beliefs or principles that can be either defended in open and rational debate, or put into an actual governing philosophy. In essence, this group wants to live inside a John Lennon song, as it makes them feel good and virtuous. As Shelby Steele (someone you probably agree with rarely) so brilliantly explains, the progressive/woke crowd is invested in a narrative tied to “poetic truth” vs. actual truth. When the actual truth is not consistent with their poetic truth, those advancing the actual truth must be silenced, as actual truth is more powerful than poetic truth in an open debate. They have learned the power of silencing the purveyors of actual truth by accusing them of: racism, misogyny, xenophobia, homophobia, transphobia, etc. The irony, of course, is if those they accuse of these bigotries actual were what they are being accused of, the slurs would not be very effectual. However, since the vast majority of Americans are none of these things, they recoil at being accused of something they find repulsive.
I have said to my liberal friends for some time now that they will have to join us conservatives in the fight against this progressive/woke mob, if the battle is to be won. Conservatives are easily dismissed by this mob as insensitive deplorables, particularly if they chose Trump over the other bad alternatives. And while most reasonable liberals don’t agree with much of what these progressive/woke nuts say and do, they have been fearful of being called a name - and find it hard to make common cause with conservatives in this highly polarized environment. This is why you and your Substack colleagues are so “dangerous”, as you are traditional liberals with strong credentials as journalists. Since it is much more difficult to brand you as bigoted hate mongers, (like us conservatives) the technique against you is to call you a right-wing sympathizer, who is “harassing and endangering” these poor little defenseless New York Times journalists. The irony and hypocrisy it takes for people who spend their lives literally trolling the internet for some gotcha moment that allows them to destroy another person to accuse a distinguished journalist like you of being a troll is simply staggering.
Sir, you have my respect and support for your courage and commitment to the values required for the functioning of any democratic republic. I hope you keep a bit of the controlled emotion you displayed in today’s post in the future. We are certainly in a battle for the future of this republic and it will not be won by the timid.
This article is really on the next level, agreed. Ive been posting comments on these articles for like 10+ years and I am officially in a position to judge stuff like that.
Glenn, you absolutely destroy these "journalists" with facts, logic, and reality. Don't let up... you, Taibbi, Sullivan, Weiss are the only people keeping some of us sane.
McWhorter is the only one with a day job in that he teaches at Columbia. I am glad he saw the importance of making his book "The Elect" that he is publishing chapter by chapter on Substack free for all to see because the issues it covers are so important. Be sure to check out his latest appearance on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CbJWi6KkcHs
But the so-called "fourth branch" SHOULD be, in its ideal, another societal "check and balance" on possible chicanery in the other branches of government. It is just that today, most of it seems to be "in the tank" for State power, and therefore a failure of its more noble and necessary function.
Not all of it, though. GG and other "good" actors are, after all, part of the Fourth Estate, too.
You can read a certain number of free NYTimes articles. The only thing they write well on is Arts. The war coverage is atrocious. You can’t really believe anything now they are writing about. And after they did the hit piece on Tulsi Gabbard I unsubscribed. Do it, cut the cord!!
Here’s how it happened for me. I subscribed to The Guardian and downloaded their iPad app. As a subscriber, the content is almost ad-free. I also downloaded apps for Reuters and AP. I read The Guardian first, and the thumb through Reuters and AP to see what I missed. Next, I look through the NYT and WaPo. It turns out there’s very little in NYT and WaPo that I haven’t already seen.
I also read some Substack authors and I never miss Democracy Now!
Try that for a week, and then decide whether NYT, etc., are worth your money and your time.
The three of them are really something, aren't they? So different and so smart. And courageous and principled.
And I'm LOVING reading the give-and-take on their sites. It remindes me that there are a lot of very smart people who care deeply about the things I care about, principally free speech an the open exchange of ideas.
Dear Substack: The ONLY reason I visit your website is to read authors like Greenwald who are able to publish real journalism here. If any of the authors I subscribe to are censored or pressured to change ANY of their content, I will immediately cancel my subscriptions and follow those authors to whatever platform they choose.
Me too! In a heartbeat, faster a heart beat!
Likewise. I really do hope the decision-makers at Substack read your comment. I have already dumped facebook and twitter for participating in the censorship crusade and I would dump Substack in a heartbeat if they join in to censor Greenwald and Taibbi.
Indeed, this is why I refuse to subscribe to Medium or give them one thin dime. They censor and shadow ban. Not one penny will they ever see from me. I'm starting to find more interesting content on Substack anyway.
Thank you, Van.
Does anyone know if the powers that be at Substack are talking this call for censorship seriously?
Yup. Best keep this in mind.
Me too. Just subscribed to support this important work.
No, Glenn, you're wrong. It is the very definition of Left vs. Right. It's a war that the Left has declared against the Right. They use "right-wing" as if it's a smear. They can kiss my ass, it's a badge of honor. At least, I have honor and I'm not a Left-wing piece of shit like them.
ALL of the canceling, the censoring, and the silencing is coming from THE LEFT. I know that you're not a fearful journalist, so call them out and don't try to give us this both sides are bad bullshit.
One side is bad. It's evil. It's the LEFT.
Do better. I expect more from you.
The free speech movement in the 20th century was driven by left-wing politics. Many of the key First Amendment decisions on which I relied as a free speech lawyer were written by the court's left-wing members. ACLU lawyers who represented the NRA, the KKK and Christian students did so in the name of leftism. The free speech movement started at Berkeley. Many of the campaigns of the 1980s and 1990s to censor were done in the name of social conservatism by groups like the Moral Majority and other pro-Reagan organization. Many on the left vehemently oppose online censorship, while people on the right have supported some (see here (https://theintercept.com/2017/12/30/facebook-says-it-is-deleting-accounts-at-the-direction-of-the-u-s-and-israeli-governments/) and here: https://theintercept.com/2018/12/17/israel-texas-anti-bds-law/.
I agree that the bulk of the most recent censorship campaigns have been directed at the right, but by no means all (the writers Broderick identified as needing moderation are almost exclusively ones who identify as liberals). Don't make the mistake of reducing support for the cause of free speech by insisting that it is only a right-wing crusade.
I know that it was pushed by the liberal forces on the Left. We all benefited greatly from that. But the Left is no longer liberal.
Oh, I most definitely do "mistake" it as solely a right wing crusade. Please name all of the left-wing commentators/politicians who are standing up against cancel culture or even one who spoke up in defense of Alex Jones.
He was the first to be deplatformed and the success of that first one without one peep in his defense got the snowball rolling. It's ABSOLUTELY one sided.
Left and liberal are distinct political philosophies that do not agree on key foundational beliefs.
This has been a huge problem in finding way to work with conservatives. Too many refuse to accept the left is not a monolith.
Even within Marxism, which is just one of many traditions in socialism, there's a huge range of ideas and schools of thought with lots of major disagreements.
Liberalism? It's an entirely different ideology with different goals.
This is a universal problem. I tend to lean more right logistically although I'm open to anything that sounds like a positive and productive solution or a program that benefits humanity and expands human liberty. All for the conversation. But strongly partisan and ideological people see the other side as a monolith, very consistently.
It's a problem I've found intractable. If you're on the left, a majority on the right make huge assumptions about your views on a host of issues because you believe certain typically liberal or leftist things on a small set of topics. If you're on the right, the same thing from the other angle. So many conversations about one thing turn into "that makes you just like Trump" or "I guess you like kids being in cages" . . . and other stuff often of no relevance to the original discussion.
Because people are prone to view individuals through a lens of group membership. Alas. In the modern era, it is not productive. But it tends to be what we do.
Libertarians learned long ago that you have to work with anybody who agrees with you on the issue you're trying to tackle, or you won't get anywhere.
I don't care WHY you're against the war on drugs as long as you fight against it beside me. We can worry about the other stuff at another time.
Of course it helps a few people if we're all screaming at one another instead of talking.
This is an astute observation. It is why the two-party political system we have is no longer working. Once people become part of one "tribe", they will become tribal. We need to somehow get rid of the GOP and Democrat parties, or at a minimum, have some alternate options with some real influence. I am in favor of a new party that represents working class citizens with traditional American values. I have not been successful though, in convincing many other people....
You remind me of Glenn's interview with Nathan Robinson, and Nathan's refusal to accept any ideological diversity among conservatives.
So you're right this is a thought problem to which the Left isn't immune.
But true liberals support free speech.. I mean, at its core isn't it a "liberal" idea?
Free speech is central to political liberalism, you are correct. It's just that liberals seem to have decided they'll throw the political away to protect their economic liberalism.
Which, for me, is the essence of fascism.
At its core it is a GOD given right.
My personal definition of "liberal" is live and let live. California used to be the very heart of this philosophy until thoughts and feelings were elevated above all other considerations. Alas, I am now a former Californian, deeply troubled by the contortions our professional political class has subjected to the concept and reality of liberalism.
I took the Red Pill, and no longer consider myself anything other than a conservative.
Sure, so long as the words still mean the same thing they did a decade ago or a year ago or last week.
True liberals do. This is one of those places I expect Art or Mona to show up and violently point out that the DNC is not "liberal" anymore.
It's balanced in a way. Many/most harder left pretend the tiny few NSDAP imitators, scattered anti-semites, and also tiny white supremacist groups are representative of the "right." At least they perpetually show those in their extremely prejudiced propaganda.
"The left", especially the 'harder left" doesn't have any propaganda.
You're thinking of Neo-Liberals - THEY have propaganda, and power, while the left does not.
If you disagree, read up: http://thetroypress.com/articles/art/20210314/art.20210314.html
Defending Alex Jones from the left? Here's a few: Jimmy Dore for one. Kyle Kulinski, Ben Norton, Krystal Ball, Max Blumenthal...
Defending the rights of an Alex Jones to express his opinions, however toxic they may be, is NOT the equivalent of "defending Alex Jones". That is precisely the kind of false equivalency being used to attack ALL non-corporate media, as Mr. Greenwald has clearly stated above.
There are laws against free speech that result in harm. So, the current popular argument that people like Jones need to be muzzled because they're encouraging said harm to be done are specious.
Either all of us are free to speak our minds, or none of us are. That such a simple principle of human rights should even need to be discussed is terrifying.
Defending Alex Jones' rights to speak in the public square is a necessary part of defending that right for yourself and everyone else.
It's really not that hard to understand.
Liz, you've nailed it. For those who object to Jones, or anyone else, the best approach is to voice your objection, not silence those you oppose.
Well said, Liz! Very well said.
I hope you will indulge a personal anecdote. Back in the day, Bill O'Reilly would sometimes interview people with absolutely outrageous views. He'd end the interview saying something like: "Thanks for being on the Factor and I respect your opinion."
That drove me nuts, and I finally sent him a note telling him that respect for an opinion is a high complement, and the words "I respect your opinion" should not be flung around indiscrimently the way Tinker Bell flings pixie dust. Those words should be reserved for opinions that are worth respecting.
When dealing with an opinion that does NOT deserve respect, if he must comment on it and and feels compelled to be polite, he should instead say: "I respect your right to your opinion."
Within 3 days, he's stopped using the word "respect" altogether.
To be fair - when I think of defending someone's fundamental human right to free speech, I am talking about someone who will ask people to not vote for the party at all which has been advocating for censorship. Neither of them have done that. They still want people like AOC who advocates for censorship and making lists of Trump supporters to be in power. To me free speech and being anti-critical race theory are two important things.
Ps. I am a Jimmy Dore fan even though I disagree with him on most of policies. I think he's misguided.
I tend to agree with Glenn. This isn't left vs right (as much as it might look like that). This is progressive vs. non-progressive. Or "far-left vs. everybody-an-inch-to-the-right-of far, far left". Liberalism and even leftism used to include valuing of free speech and individual liberty--the government was supposed to stay out of your womb and your bedroom and your private conversations and so on. There are some old school liberals who still believe that, and some who do stand up to what's going on. And there will be more as eventually all sort of liberals and even pretty-far-lefties will be dragged into struggle sessions and be deplatformed for inadequate purity.
And right and left are labels. Sometimes distracting. What we need right now is more Glenn Greenwalds. Don't really care what label they apply to themselves.
The left has been captured and brainwashed by corporate media. I grew up in the 1960s and Noam Chomsky was in the news all the time. I remember the values I grew up with but most people don’t. Corporate left knows that actual left-wing people have nowhere to go because of the entrenched two party system. My family thinks they are liberal but they are advocating for censorship and they think I’m the one who’s brainwashed when I talk about Glenn Greenwald or Chris Hedges. So at this point people like me have to team up with some of the smarter right wing people who are also against censorship. The New York Times has brainwashed everybody, as much as Fox News has.
It's all corporate media. And so easily manipulated. And always beholden to its advertisers. Fox might be willing to criticize Obama but when it comes to Big Pharma who pays most of their bills? Heck, no.
It would and probably is happening to other networks--NewsMax, OANN and the rest of the right-wing or alternative news, if they get an audience, can be taken over the exact same way.
The brainwashing is mostly thinking that what any of these corporate news organizations covers is actually news, irrespective of the partisan bent of one or the other.
Agreed. When I go on a supposedly Socialist site like Common Dreams, and 95% of posters are pushing Biden and the Democrats, that ain't left-wing. I understand some Right populists, Repubs are eyeing the new pro union bill. They've got to get voters from somewhere, and the Rust Belt voters who left the Dems for Trump have unions in their blood. Anyway, it is a sign of some positive oldtimey lefty movement!
Same in my family... ;-))
BTW - there is no "corporate left" -- only mouthpieces for DNC oligarchs
What group preaching socialism hasn't had oligarchs running the show from their high seats of hypocrisy?
The horshoe
Horseshoe? or whoreshoe?
Or horrorshoe, horrorshow?
Jimmy Dore and Kyle Kulinski, to name two.
We don't need to do Jay's homework for him. Plenty of leftists and liberals denounce censorship in entirely even-handed ways. Jay bought some stupid media talking point and is asking us to debunk. But I think the burden of evidence is on Jay to prove it.
You're right it's usually futile to respond to people not acting in good faith. I still try on occasion, hoping for something positive.
That’s a bullshit way of asserting the unproven. It’s a message board, a non consequential conversation and limp dick here is like who? Who? Plenty that’s who. I don’t need to do your homework in this conversation.
You’re a sanctimonious limp dicked prick asswipe
Is it non consequential though? I have had my mind changed by comments here before. Who knows, I could end up becoming president.
💯
If only the leftists in positions of power stood up for free speech, as opposed to comedians whose livelihoods depend on it. This is Glenn’s point is it not? Or are the anti free speech anti civil rights statists at these most powerful media companies not leftist?
Personally, I find this label argument that everyone one of these comment sections turn into a, tiresome. It is the same people making the same arguments and nothing is ever settled.
All that matters is what they people with guns believe and that is why they are trying so hard to take them away from us plebes that continue to think for ourselves.
What leftists are in positions of power? If you are even just a little bit moderately progressive then they won't even hide all the dirty tricks, cheats, smears and fraud they use to deny you power.
Yes, all of two. They are not in power and are never going to be. Dore is making noises about giving up. Chomsky will be dead soon enough, and nobody listened to him, either. The distinctive character of the new left is it's very clear adoption of and sympathy for communist thought and methods.
George Galloway. Caleb Maupin. Max Blumenthal. Aaron Mate. There's no shortage.
all equally Ineffectual who in any case could be easily canceled at any time should that status ever change.
Who?
LOL. Name those among "the new left" are advocating for nationalization of industries and collectivization of agriculture? I'll agree with you that this group seems authoritarian, but this can be either left or right (which is Glenn's point).
It can be left or right or theory, but, today, in practice, it's left.
Socialism is the future of humanity ;-))
True. Humans are stupid and will fuck up anything good. See Garden of Eden. The future is bleak.
To be fair - when I think of defending someone's fundamental human right to free speech, I am talking about someone who will ask people to not vote for the party at all which has been advocating for censorship. Neither of them have done that. They still want people like AOC who advocates for censorship and making lists of Trump supporters to be in power. To me free speech and being anti-critical race theory are two important things.
Ps. I am a Jimmy Dore fan even though I disagree with him on most of policies. I think he's misguided.
I've disagreed with YOU about a lot of things, but I agree with your statement here about critical-race-theory; it's a disaster.
Cheers! :)
I was writing mine when you posted! LOLZ
Jay, it's not acceptable to demand that we disprove your assertions. It's your job to show us that your assertions are valid or stfu.
Every self respecting leftist like Glenn objected for that idiot losing his job. I, as hardcore leftist, hated it, since i knew it was wrong and they will come after real left soon enough. real left has no power, but at least we keep fighting. What about right wingers? Corporate power, Citizens VS United are all right wing ideas, so take responsibility I suppose. To be honest i absolutely enjoy the misery that is befallen to right wing people (don't agree with that but enjoy it). Right wingers have been the staunchest supporters of war and capitalism and now they are paying the price for their mess ups. The shit show is not left's doing, we tried to warn all of you, but you wouldn't listen.
So Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, and John F., Kennedy were all right wing!! Amazing!!They started the wars involving the U.S. in the 20th century.
And Donald Trump is left wing!! Even more amazing!! He is the first President in decades not to start a war. And he worked hard to withdraw our troops from other countries. And he promoted peace in the Middle East, successfully.
What is really astonishing is that some very high ranking military people admitted (virtue signaled) that they resisted and in some cased outright disobeyed some of Trumps efforts to deescalate or drawdown troops in some areas. The military/industrial complex is not an idea it is an actual structured, operational hidden organization dedicated to feeding the sons and daughters of America into the maw of never ending wars to make MONEY and keep their power. Dismantling this monster would take a revolution that well fed and satisfied Americans nave no real stomach for. Its' very existence all around the globe is the reason that torroism keeps expanding and popping up like mushrooms after a rainstorm. They need one another.
it is a cancer that is metastazing and gradually eating up this country from the inside. I wonder at what point will the budget be enough to "defend" the US? At 1 trillion? (it is close to that), 1.5? Why not 2? Beside the obvious self-serving pork, there is important social aspect - military service is becoming the last possibility of upward social mobility for working class kids (economically depressed minorities are overrepresented in the lower ranks), and also a convenient way to remove many thousands of young, potentially rebellious youth from the streets of America and ship them to far flung bases to be trained and disciplined.
Trump, Democrats, and Republicans always had bipartisan consensus when it came to expanding the military industrial complex with record breaking funding year after year.
Wrong. The U.S. military/industrial complex needs to get ready to win the coming shooting war with the Communist Chinese Party.
Yes, actually, they actually were right-wing, if by that you mean committed to the preservation of capitalism against any and every other economic system. At no time in history has either legacy US political party truly been a "party of the the people". I know. I got curious and started reading up on the subject. I recommend that for people who still think they get the full story on the internet.
Democrats are "leftist" only as often and to the minimal degree necessary to maintain their hold on power. Under Clinton, they essentially abdicated even that level of commitment. The myth that they have, in the past, been "taken over by the left" is just that—a myth. That we are in a place where that takeover might actually be within our reach is inspiring.
I can't comment on those wars since I am not sure on details on the ground, but American Imperialism is a right wing idea, irrespective who is pushing it. Trump "played" like he was trying to do it, but nothing happened so nothing to brag about, All America leadership is guilty of it and right wingers have been the biggest cheerleaders of war with neo libs (who are light rig wingers). So eat your cake friends, you made it :)
So-called right wing imperialism started in World War II. It is bi-partisan. People on the far right and far left oppose it. All establishment politicians support it . Follow the money. It is neoliberalism in a nutshell. It is one of the things that most disturbs about the current censorship that seeks to silence all opposition, doesn't matter if it is left or right. Right now in history, the left is supporting this censorship in a big way. Trump was one of the anomalies in this era. That is one reason both sides conspired to destroy him. But, as far as war is concerned, Reagan, Clinton, Bush and Obama, all were the same.
I would be interested in knowing about a history book that states that Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt were "right wing"! Please identify such a book for me. By the way, "The Zimmerman Telegram" by Barbara Tuchman does not make Wilson in any way "right wing".
President Trump was the exact opposite of what you say. He withdrew from areas of the world where we had no business to be. He started no wars, unlike his predecessors. He negotiated peace among many countries, something that President Obama did not do anywhere (Obama did restart the slave trade in North Africa, probably his most significant "accomplishment").
Trump certainly liked to tell his fans that he was working hard at it, and apparently they believed him. I supported any moves away from interventionism, even when he was criticized for them, but didn't see many of them. There were a few underwhelming troop withdrawals... But civilian deaths skyrocketed in the middle east after Trump took office, he loved selling arms to the Saudis to bomb Yemen, and clearly he didn't care that much about peace (Or was just unsurprisingly ignorant) associating with the likes of John Bolton and Erik Prince.
What’s your take on the Abraham Accords?
So Bahrain, the UAE, Sudan, Kosovo, and Morocco did not sign peace agreements and recognize Israel? That was all fake news?
And Pre3sident Trump did not stand up to rhe Chinese Communist Government over their treatment of their people? He spoke about this constantly, spoke out for the people of Hong Kong, spoke against the rampant slavery used to harvest cotton, and in his last full day in office he issued the declaration of the treatment of Muslims in Xinjiang as genocide. Of course, he was the first U.S. President to take office fully educated about Communist China.
Actually, you can really blame Eisenhower and the Dulles brothers for all those wars, including Vietnam.
Truman didn't warmonger?!?!
According to you, we shouldn't have opposed Soviet Communism empiring the globe over?!?!
Of course. The Dulles brothers were totally responsible for World War 1. One of the Dulles brothers was married to President Edith Wilson and got her to start World War 1! Thanks for pointing out this obvious fact!
And the Dulles brothers and Eisenhower were clearly responsible for Pearl Harbor. I didn't know that Eisenhower was a General in the Air Force and an Admiral in the Navy. Interesting for this to finally come out after 80 years! You urgently need to correct Wikipedia which falsely claims "he served under various generals and was promoted to the rank of brigadier general in 1941".
You've been a victim of the main stream media. Yes, conservatives lean towards supporting businesses. That's different than large media conglomerates that have monopoly power (google, facebook, amazon, twitter, etc) who are now partners with Democrats in the all out assault on free speech. As far as wars are concerned, the last official war was WW2, but that aside, I think we could easily argue that Obama, Bush, Clinton and Bush #11 got us all into "wars". The number of drone strikes unleashed by Obama, 540 by the way, far surpassed anything Trump ever did or any other President did.
Not sure what "real left means", but the "real left" in this country are doing the following:
- attacking free speech
- banning books they don't agree with
- promoting an identity politics agenda where everything is based on race
Name one group of people in the last 200 years that did those things with good intentions and positive outcomes?
"Real Conservatives" - which is most conservative I know, believe in personal liberties, smaller government (name one thing the government does efficiently - and you're not allowed to say "grow the government" - cause I'd agree, that's the only thing politicians do effectively), small and medium sized business success - the engine that powers our economy - or, at least it used to until the Democrats shut them all down over the last year, a merit based social construct where everyone has an opportunity to succeed if they work hard - not an equal outcome based utopia, and a belief that government is not here to protect us, it's here to protect our liberties.
The current shit show is the left's doing. The fact that you can't see that just shows how blind you are.
I'm glad you admit you don't know what "real left" means since from there you go on to cite real phenomena but use the wrong label. Your comment deserves a competent and thorough rebuttal, which you'll find at the link below:
"Not sure what "real left means", but the "real left" in this country are doing the following:" (followed by a list the left did not and would not do and has never condoned)
http://thetroypress.com/articles/art/20210314/art.20210314.html
Exactly right. We are conservative and try to buy from locally-owned stores whenever possible and go to locally-owned restaurants, among other things.
lol your entire post is pathetic. No socialist government (which is what left is) had any power in USA for the past 60 years, All of them either had right wing polices or hard core right wing policies. The issues with right wingers is that they will never accept their screw up, well it is all good by me, because at this point they have no choice but do. Globalization, Low corporate taxes, war mongering, private insurance, Citizens VS United all right wing ideas so try and protect them. Enjoy your shit show cause it is hereto stay :)
A typical liberal maneuver. Move the bar. In your fantasy land, left means socialism. Let's just look at the Democratic party platform:
1) Protect Americans from the Covid-19 pandemic. I don't need government to protect me from a pandemic. I need them to protect our liberties. The exact thing the Democrat party is tearing down day by day. Maybe you want a nanny state. I do not.
2) Building a stronger, fairer economy. Sounds good, but if you read their bs, it's all about the fairness of outcome and not opportunity. If that's not socialism, what is?
3) Achieving universal, affordable health care. Government controlled single payer health care. More government oversight. When has government done anything efficiently? Never.
4) Reforming our criminal justice system. Pull your head out of the sand and check out what's happened when defund the police has become a reality. Minneapolis, Seattle, SF, LA, and the grand daddy of them all: Portland, where the mayor is now begging to put money back into the police force. LA, where the DA is proposing to let out anyone who's already done 15 years of time - they are literally toasting him inside the prisons.
5) Healing the Soul of America. Again, sounds nice, but read further. It's really about combating systemic racism - whatever the hell that means. What it really means, is make everything about identity, and teach whitey how racist they are. And if anyone complains, then they get silenced.
6) Combating Climate crisis. That's just code for supporting a trillion dollar big business industry. Who's in bed with corporate america? Anyone spouting about climate crisis over and over again.
7) Creating a 21st Century Immigration System. Don't even need to read the text, you can just take a look at the "non-crisis" at the border. Democrats just view this as providing a path to citizenship for 30-40MM Democrat voters which they see as a path to one party rule for the next century.
8) Providing World Class Education for Every Zip Code. WHAT A COMPLETE JOKE. Who's keeping classrooms closed because the teachers unions rule them? Democrats. Who does this hurt the most? The poor. Democrats couldn't give two shits about children - they'd rather pay homage to the Teachers unions. Plus, it wouldn't look good to open schools because the orange man said we should do it.
9) Renewing American Leadership. Wow, we've got a doddering old fart who can't even remember who his Defense Secretary is, nor what the Defense Department is or does. That's some great renewing. They've also got Pelosi who's even older than Joe. What a refreshing renewal.
If that isn't a socialist platform, I don't know what is. But keep blaming it on the other side and live in your bubble with your double mask, face shield and endless supply of disinfectant.
Respectfully, I don't think you know what you are talking about. Your comment would be accurate if you changed it to "No CAPITALIST government had any power in USA for the past 60 years, All of them either had left wing polices or hard core left wing policies."
Capitalism is simply a system where you provide some goods and service of value and I pay you for it. We don't have capitalism and haven't had it in decades. What we have is a combination of crony capitalism, corporatism and socialism.
Socialism is what destroyed the black community where we have over 75% of black kids are born outside wedlock (used to be 25% back in the 60s) and the numbers for other races are climbing up too.
Corporatism and crony capitalism is where billion dollar companies are getting government subsidies and bail outs. The 2008 bail out wasn't capitalism. In a capitalist system, one would have let all those companies and banks which made horrible decisions go bankrupt. In a capitalist system, car companies (be it ICE based or electric based), oil companies etc won't be getting government subsidies.
You calling Globalization a "right wing" idea clearly shows you have no idea what Globalization. Right wingers hate Globalization and get called conspiracy theorists for saying so.
Low corporate taxes is right wing? Tell that to the Scandinavian countries which the left worships so much - they also have the lowest corporate income taxes. All Scandinavian countries’ corporate income tax rates are lower than the United States’ rate.
Why has Amazon being pushing for $15 minimum wage? Because they know they can afford it and get rid of small business competition which can't afford it. Liberal policies, just like welfare destroying the black community will also destroy small businesses and then claim that wasn't enough socialism.
War mongering is a right wing thing? Nope. It's an establishment thing.
By your logic, either Trump supporters - who are anti-globalists, anti wars are either all hard left or you do not know what these terms mean.
I am someone who watched Jimmy Dore and is a big fan of his - because he's an honest liberal. But I also think he's extremely misguided and doesn't understand that the very government he's calling corrupt, incompetent and bloated - he wants to give them even more power and manage people's health care, decide who owns guns and who speaks what.
This is quite wrong:
"No socialist government (which is what left is)"
THat's a propagandized definition of "left" - intentionally fed to you to drive us Americans apart. Find an erudite explanation and correct defintions here: http://thetroypress.com/articles/art/20210314/art.20210314.html
"don't agree with but enjoy it" - now there's some entertaining moral gymnastics. The current "shit show" is most definitely the left's doing as illustrated in your parenthetical statement.
The people who are doing it, are not left, they are neo libs, which in any other country are center right, as in same BS economical and imperialist polices, but they pretend to be for minorities and LGBTQ and they use these items to censor their enemies, mostly real leftists, like Glenn for example. Where are the right wing honorable journalists? and why all of the right wingers here? Glenn is a socialist :). Just accept that there is no a single decent leader on right winger side. We don't have much either, but there is hope and we never had real power. Right wingers have been in power for the past 40 years (I include Clinton and Obama) to that too. neo Libs ate right wingers too, only much smarter in their cover up.
Right wingers have been in power for the past 40 years? Wow, that's a silly statement. But I guess if you define "left" and "right" counter to currently understood definitions it works.
President Obama was right wing? I never heard that. Amazing!
If you stood up for Alex Jones, who is a proxy for free speech, you have my respect and undying gratitude.
100% I never cared for him, but the moment they caned him I new that is censorship and it is bad. As a proper leftist I believe in my ideas with my whole heart and want to win over people rather then censor anyone that I disagree with. Anyone who is for censorship has no faith in their ideas.
Sadly, nearly all people on all sides want "ignorant" or "crazy" opposition "lies" shut up ("cancelled") and only their "righteous truth" to be told. That was so even when the country was founded, but the popular majority of anti-federalist farmers forced our Bill of Rights for protection from Federalist Party elite bankers, merchants, and attorneys. Those elite then too "knew what was best for everyone [particularly themselves]."
"Left" and "right" are arbitrary measurements which depend completely on how you draw the axis. Concepts like classical liberal, conservative or fiscal conservative are less arbitrary, but ONLY if you define them carefully. +With appropriate definitions+, I can then say that I am classically liberal, libertarian-leaning republican, fiscal conservative, conservative, and (old) whiggish (think Burke or John Adams) without any particular conflict. Does that make me "right" or "left"?
"I am not altogether on anybody’s side, because nobody is altogether on my side, if you understand me..." -- Treebeard
I'm sure SOME people think this way:
"Left" and "right" are arbitrary measurements which depend completely on how you draw the axis."
however, it's wrong. See the lower part of this excellent erudite write up of the terms Left and Right, where the come from and what they mean - the discussion begins after the graphing dialogue:
http://www.rationalrevolution.net/articles/redefining_the_political_spectru.htm
The "axis" can only be drawn one way, a horizontal line segment.
The leftmost endpoint is 100% State control/power, 0% individual freedom. Think Fascism (Third Reich) or Communist dictatorship (Xi in China today).
The rightmost point is 0% State, 100% individual freedom. Think Anarchy, an unstable, short-lived phenomena as individuals start banding together for protection and progress. True Capitalism (classical liberalism) is just to the left of the rightmost endpoint, let's say ~10% State (think military, police, courts of law) and ~90% individual freedom (the rights of life, liberty, and individual property ownership, collective property ownership by legal corporatioons that are owned by individual stockholders).
Where a society resides on this well-defined axis is determined by a political process, sometimes involving use of force, think "war is politics by other means," and gang/faction violence/terrorism, but usually by debate and some sort of vote, resulting in founding/defining public documents (constitutions) and rules (laws). Changes to a society's position on this well-defined axis are likewise determined over time by the same political processes, the nature of which can also change over time.
U.S today is still a mixed economy around the midpoint (public sector about 50% of whole as measured by GDP), but starting to move faster towards the left, as it has been moving for roughly 160 years, because the political system has been corrupted by the fact that the political party ostensibly for moving right (towards more individual freedom), the GOP, has fooled those voting for moving right, and instead it has just moved left a little bit slower than the party that is for moving left, the Democrats.
In 2016, unbeknownst to the voters themselves, the voters rejected this two party 160 yr. old system, that was failing to provide the voters with a choice of actually moving right, by electing a flawed, almost equally ignorant, non-politician who, surprise, surprise, actually tried to move the nation to the right by following through on what those GOP voters have wanted for 160 years, instead of just moving left a little slower than the other party that had become scary good at accelerating to the left.
I know, confusing, but not really THAT complicated.
Classical liberals (GG, me, Founders, Hayek, von Mises, Friedman, Capitalists) want to move right because we are too far left and heading to Authoritarian Socialism (say ~80% State control, very little individual freedom), to the glee of neo-liberals, who stole the word liberal from its classical understanding of true individual liberty.
Whoop, there it is!
Sometimes I wish I were an Ent.
Jay is just a troll -- please ignore him
That's right. Anyone with an opinion different from yours is a troll. Good one.
Liberals are neither left nor right. For an erudite discussion of this, read here: http://thetroypress.com/articles/art/20210314/art.20210314.html
That was my point -- there is a tremendous confusion of meaning of both terms -- liberal and neo-liberal -- there is no meaningful discussion if words can bend like hot dogs in various people minds... ;-))
I'll be curious what you think of the article I pointed you at - after all, I wrote it!
Will do -- started -- that is an elaborate and impressive essay... BR, Boris
'What will it take to whip you [non-left] into line, a broken heart, a broken head? It can be arranged. It can be arranged."
That’s because the entrenched status quo opinion makers are being silenced now.
They had no problem when the Federal govt skated through the 1980’s without addressing AIDS but for moral condemnation of its carriers.
I'm March 1987 the first drug to treat AIDS, AZT, was marketed. Who was skating?
The Reagan administration did a lot in response to AIDS.
Indeed Dr Fauci was in charge of NIAID at NIH during the 1980s.
From November 1986 in the Washington Post:
"Under Fauci's leadership, however, the role of the rejuvenated infectious diseases institute [NIAID] has grown, particularly in large-scale testing of new AIDS drugs.
"The NIAID budget for AIDS jumped from $ 297,000 in fiscal 1982 to $ 63 million in 1986, and $ 146 million is estimated for 1987, accounting for more than one-quarter of the institute's projected $ 545 million budget and nearly 60 percent of NIH's funding for AIDS. The NIAID will spend more than twice as much this year on AIDS work as the NCI."
Period.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1986/11/03/anthony-s-fauci/8d270beb-e95d-46e5-808b-d670630223f4/
Yeah. Reagan and Fauci were less impressive if you or those you cared about actually had the virus in the 80’s
Damn, MORE wrong labeling. Here, read this so you can get your lables un-propagandized: http://thetroypress.com/articles/art/20210314/art.20210314.html
Which is such a self-contradiction, you gotta wonder what it might mean. The only kind of "left" that can actually be corporate is a phony one.
The kind of left that gets rich or takes over corporations and embraces (as many of them do) capitalism for themselves, but not for you, because you can't be trusted with it.
No...neo-liberalism.
Thank you Glenn for documenting this. It makes sick to see US corporate media described as -- "left".
PS: Anything "left" has left DNC oligarch leadership long ago...
The New Left and the Old Left are not the same. The New Left is comprised of race baiting, corporate-loving, narcissistic authoritarian conformists. The Old Left were primarily individualist, freedom loving, colorblind rebels. The New Left has banished the Old Left to the hinterlands for the moment.
There is NOTHING left in your "New Left" whatever that means. Just empty names. A simple test on who is progressive - “Left” versus “fake Left”:
- Defended publisher Assange
- Protested “Russia-gate” hoax and two impeachment “entertainments” time waste - while citizens were collapsing into poverty
- Demand massive DNC corruption investigation (e.g., Hunter’s laptops)
- Demand stop of sanctions against “godless” socialist countries
- (plus -- M4A, Trump virus $2K/mo, $30/hr min, urgent action on climate change, police brutality, (in)justice reform, “defense” budget, etc.)
Who passes the criteria – TYT, Intercept, corp. media, Congress/Senate -- certainly NOT. Anything still missing on my list?
Interestingly, a rising star in DNC in 2015, who was “excommunicated” after declaring for socialist Bernie and not for corrupt queen Hillary (who brazenly named her “Russian asset” after Tulsi demolished Hillary’s protégé Kamala Harris), Tulsi Gabbard, passes most of my progressive criteria. While most opponents of DNC cabal would meekly “bring chocolates” to Pelosi and Schumer, here is the truly epic and exceptional Tulsi’s response:
“Great! Thank you @HillaryClinton . You, the queen of warmongers, embodiment of corruption, and personification of the rot that has sickened the Democratic Party for so long, have finally come out from behind the curtain. From the day I announced my candidacy, there has been a concerted campaign to destroy my reputation. We wondered who was behind it and why. Now we know — it was always you, through your proxies and powerful allies in the corporate media and war machine, afraid of the threat I pose. It’s now clear that this primary is between you and me. Don’t cowardly hide behind your proxies. Join the race directly”.
Dem Party is beyond salvation – a viable third (and fourth..) party is THE solution.
Tulsi Gabbard is the best of the Democratic Party. No one else even comes close. That is probably why the establishment doesn't like her.
Good news- we agree. Both parties are corrupt beyond salvation and need be replaced as I indicated in my other comment. My actual preference would be to eliminate all political parties. The founding fathers of America correctly believed that political parties would lead to partisan conflict that would threaten the country. Today's climate has proven them prescient. But getting rid of both parties without replacement may be a step too far for the sheeple.
Change must come from within the system. The only alternative is bloody revolution.
I've been a liberal my entire life, but I've never been a Democrat. The best way to fight black and white thinking is to not subscribe to it in the first place.
"Dem Party is beyond salvation – a viable third (and fourth..) party is THE solution."
In 2016, I was *praying* that, first, Trump (given his temperament) would split off to form a third party, but then Bernie -- if he was serious about "revolution" -- would then split for a *fourth* party.
Well, it was the TPTB who obviously heard my prayers ... and took corrective action on both of them.
If you understood the EXTREME difficulty of building any physical organization to take on the two existing parties here in America, not to mention the required re-education of masses of voters then you would understand the near impossibility of the task.
One has to "take over" an existing structure.
That is what is happening with Trump and the GOP as well as the "progressives" and the Democrats.
As someone who organized campaigns for over three decades at a state level I can tell you that when those machines are "turned in" they are fearsome.
Thank you - I value your expertise. However, why do you think that those fearsome machines would be easier to realign from inside?
Why not support the GOP's launching a challenge to the Electoral College vote -- the way Dems launched one each time they lost over the last 30 years (2000, 2004, 2016), for example.
The Democratic Party is a dictatorship of billionaire donors and arms and intelligence industry interests -- nothing that benefits the 99% of population is relevant to it.
By far the highest interest of Biden government and its DNC cabal is that Russia-gate immense hoax – the scam of the century -- will NOT / will NEVER be exposed. Hence immense obligations to primary propagandists for their roles, including despicable Kamala Harris (Hillary’s protégé), Neera Tanden, Melissa Hodgman (wife of the Comey’s infamous Peter Strzok), Pete Buttigieg, etc,
And even if we did, the Democrats would just rig another election.
Right but then Gabbard endorsed Biden 5 minutes after her own party used McCarthyism on her, like a good little bootlicker that she is.
Perhaps she concluded that Trump is worse choice....
Yes, that was very disappointing. Ditto for dropping charges against Google (that was a very interesting first deplatforming attempt by big tech, I wonder if she had pursued it more and made a bigger stink about it if Dorsey would be brave enough to censor Trump for example) and letting slide Hillary with the smear. Even so, all around her balance is positive and who knows - she may reenter politics at some point. It would certainly be a welcome change.
They are not new and not left, so I don't accept the label. It's very misleading.
This is mistaken:
"The New Left and the Old Left are not the same."
You're following a carefully crafted propagandized definition - it's explained in detail here:
http://thetroypress.com/articles/art/20210314/art.20210314.html
New Left = neo-liberal = Statism
Old Left = classical liberal = Capitalism
Covers 99% of ALL politics.
Let's not confuse an authoritarian status quo with "the left".
Well said, M. Boris Petrov. We are allies once again!
The “left” just allegedly got more presidential votes than in the history of our country. If the left left the DNC then who the hell voted for Gropin Joe?
Joe lost so maybe less than you think
Hence the word “allegedly”. Anyone with any brains knows it was stolen.
I think it’s now hard to figure out what even is the left or liberal. The same way they have destroyed terms like white supremacy and racism and threat to democracy, same way, terms like liberal don’t mean anything in today’s world. People are claiming to be liberal while calling for censorship. That’s contradicting but unfortunately these people are too dumb to recognize that they aren’t liberal one bit. They are fascists.
Also I do wish there were at least a few from the “left” who had defended Milo, Alex Jones etc. Even tulsi only started talking about censorship when it happened to her (by Google ads and media calling her russian agent). Before then, she stayed silent.
The “right” on the other hand including trump supporters were defending not just tulsi and Alex Jones and Milo, they were even defending Bernie freaking Sanders when he got cheated out twice by the DNC.
We agree - we have two fascist parties who have monopoly on elections...
Lol. When has the freedom caucus ever called for censorship? The left spent four years shrieking the Trump was a "fascist" even though he never did or said anything to support those charges. Trump stands for individualism and federalism. The left and democrats insist on collectivism and authoritarianism.
A fascist dictator would need media cover, educational institution cover, Hollywood cover, pop culture cover, Big tech cover, federal judge cover, union cover, the whole machine cover to get away with it. We all know who has all of that.
You know..I know..but does Slow Joe know..the shade of Brezhnev
Your assertions about "the left" are mistaken, based on a propagandized definition of "left". I recommend you read at least parts of this: http://thetroypress.com/articles/art/20210314/art.20210314.html
VERY well said.
"I do wish there were at least a few from the “left” who had defended Milo, Alex Jones etc."
IDK who Milo is, but did defend Jones.
Tulsi was in a political race; your criticism of her isn't the least bit valid - it's not like you can say she never addressed these questions.
Remember when she went and showed support for Biden in the elections? All that anti war stuff went out the window. At least Jimmy Dore called her out for that.
Tulsi was the one politician who could have spearheaded the left/right synthesis ...instead..she cravenly supported Old Joe who represented everything she supposedly stood against.
Oh what could have been!
A Tongan American Hindu warrior truth telling warrior queen afraid of being tainted by the right.
I admit I wasn't happy about that, but MAYBE she felt she had reason to believe Trump was a lot worse than Biden.
They were / are BOTH shitty, so I'm not going to blame anyone for picking either; for myself, I voted Green Party instead of either of those crappy people. ...I'd like to see a LOT MORE people have the gumption to vote for OTHER THAN D or R - if we did so in massive numbers it would change U.S. politics overnight.
Exactly. "Left" and "Liberal" or not in any way the same. There are two parameters for politics that provide this distinction.
One is extent of freedom from government control: libertarian on the right, liberal in the center, socialist/communist on the left.
The second is degree of changing society: conservative is in the center, progressive/radical on the left and reactionary on the right.
The current Democratic party is socialist and radical. The Republican party is conservative and liberal.
I don't think the "Republican party" is. Majority of the constituents are yes. But majority of the politicians aren't. Majority of republican politicians are incompetent cucks.
This is propaganda from the ultra-rich: "socialist/communist on the left."
Further, the current Democratic Party is right-wing, right where the Republicans were in 1980. The current Republican Party is in batshitcrazy territory.
It's much more useful for the politicians to divide us along "left" and "right", when the actual divide is between collectivist and individualist. Unfortunately, there are useful idiots on both sides of the political aisle that are more than eager to cover for their idols, thus distracting us from the real problems.
The divide is not between "collectivist and individualist" -- no, that's what they want us to think. But both of these things are not only compatible but absolutely necessary values to have in a democratic republic, as both are complementary components of human nature. The real issue is, and always has been, prioritization between those two.
The former was for much of the 20th century (now long gone) more or less convincingly represented by Democrats, the latter by Republicans. The spin doctors in each party have always used each value to accused the other party of failing to live up to "We the People". Meanwhile, because collectivism and individualism are necessary and complentary values, the Democratic Party and Republican Party can never be killed by mere third parties. It's a perfect scam.
The divide that matters *now* is democracy (however implemented), vs anti-democracy. Don't confuse that with L vs R, the two halves that can never be a whole alone.
I'll probably invite a crapstorm with this, but democracy is highly overrated and frankly, I couldn't really care less about voter turnout and other useless metrics of democratic participation. Mob rule is no better than any other authoritarian system. A constitutional republic on the other hand, is worth preserving. Unfortunately, I think in the case of the USA, we're merely preserving its corpse.
As far as balance between individualism and collectivism and the ideas of the social contract go, I'll just leave you with some words of wisdom from its creator, Rousseau.
“whoever refuses to obey the general will will be forced to do so by the entire body; this means merely that he will be forced to be free.”
“The state … ought to have a universal compulsory force to move and arrange each part in the manner best suited to the whole.” And if the leaders of the state say to the citizen, “‘it is expedient for the state that you should die,’ he should die.”
I have nothing against our democratic republic. I support it. Your understanding appears to have been corrupted by the current fashion on the right to conflate "democracy" with "pure democracy". Democracy (per Merriam-Webster) is "government by the people". Are you one of the people? As in "We the People"?
In any case, regarding your assertion that "democracy is highly overrated": Someday, I suspect you'll wonder how the waterline for nearly all participation rose above your head. By "participation", I mean your anywhere -- forget voting, and think of any and all activities you have in business and in life. It's a-comin'. This article of Glenn's is about just one dimension.
Democracy is merely a mechanism. A constitutionally limited government that respects individual rights is the goal. One may argue that the latter is not possible without the former, but it is unwise to ignore the dangers that democracy can pose on its own.
The elevation of democracy to that of a sacred term above all others in our society endangers all of our rights. 51% does not a morality make.
No, it's not "current fashion on the right to conflate "democracy" with "pure democracy"."
How can you even say that? As if people who correct it are just following some meaningless fad?
If you asked the younger generation, most won't be able to even tell you a difference. That's one of the main reasons AOC and her followers have been calling for things like abolishing the electoral college. Abolishing the electoral college will bring full on democracy - mob rule where 51% rule over the 49%. California and New York gets to rule over everyone else.
It is very important to correct people when they want democracy and explain to them the dangers of one.
I wish US had electoral college even in the states and cities.
Very well put, Wayne. Exactly right, thanks.
I see the divide most simply as: The ultra-rich, their puppets, henchmen, and sycophants (the true "right") vs absolutely everybody else ("We, The People" but also the true "left").
If we leave out the stuff I put in parenthesis, whoever calls themselves right or left can likely see the truth of the statement - at least, those who are the "We. The People" category.
BTW, you can also call this "oligarchy vs some-form-of-democracy", if you like - it amounts to the same thing.
The Elites vs the Deplorables, (for lack of a better understood term.)
Or the Deplorables (the elitist globalist, corporate-fascists) vs. those who want nothing but TRUE Freedom and Liberty (everyone else who isn't an elitists globalist, corporate-fascist).
Kind of hard to "design" a society without granting a commanding position to someone.
Maybe we could call these designers "philosopher-kings" and their ideal society a kallipolis.
Someone, of course, already *did call them "philosopher kings", as well you know, and I *still cherish the qualifications upon which Plato insisted in order to "vet" those who would be politicians.
In the Athenian democracy, similar to the much later U.S. Democracy, "people" were defined for voting purposes as "free, white, male, landowners, over age 21."
Plato reasonably argued that *landowners would suffer financial losses by ignoring the maintenance of their farms while they took years away from home to come to Athens to perform a public service by sitting in the Senate, etc. And yet, of course, even now, we have people spending in excess of a quarter of a *billion dollars plus in their frantic attempt to secure a job (POTUS) that pays about a quarter million dollars a year in salary.
To counter this clearly suspicious phenomenon, Plato proposes in his work "The Republic", that we insist that the ONLY people we allow into office are those people who can PROVE that they really do NOT want the job at all !
That was roughly 2,400 years ago, but it is *still a solid idea ! :-D
That would divide our very self, as we are both
The collectivism I participate in is purely voluntary. The collectivism of government is anything but.
YOU, in your individualism, haven't any chance whatsoever of overcoming the chains and yoke the ultra-rich have already set on your shoulders.
Wake up, dude, this is a "class war" and the ultra-rich are winning. You could stop supporting them, you know, by changing your tune and 1) stop attacking other non-rich people and 2) realize that collective action is REQUIRED for us to regain control over the ultra-rich.
Otherwise,they're going to bring the vast majority of the entire current biosphere, including humanity, to extinction since they know no moderation - demonstrably.
You are helping our oppressors. WAY TO GO! -face-palm-
Yes, of course, collectivism is the only way to fight collectivism.
I may choose to join with others in a struggle against those who wish to deprive me of my natural rights, but I do not cede my rights to those I am joining with any more than I do to those who currently violate those rights.
Your mistake is thinking that you can replace one collectivist system with another and retain your freedoms when collectivist systems always deny the rights of the individual and make your own person the property of the state.
And you misidentify the problem. The rich aren't my oppressors. They don't possess the power to imprison me, to invade my home without a warrant, to seize my assets, to take my children from me, to send me off to war in the name of the state, to prevent me from trading freely.... The government holds the monopoly on force. And it is from that power that all else flows.
Certainly, the rich and powerful collude with government to fulfill their desires, but it is the government that holds the actual power. Don't believe me? Consider for a moment that the rich have only one tool to work with, money. Now consider that the government controls the value of that money thru printing and they can seize it at will like FDR did with physical gold during the Depression or any number of fortunes seized during the War on Drugs. Ask Jack Ma how his money protected him... oh wait, you can't.
If society doesn’t protect the rich, than everyone becomes poor? If society doesn’t protect the poor, then society is meaningless and will be overthrown
I feel that power resides in the collective as the first cause of power. However, that the community is better served to take that power and distribute it to individuals as much as possible
Wonder who, in the community, decides on the distribution.
Former Black Communist Leonard Patterson Exposes Racial Psyops of The Divide And Conquer Method:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h0ksHW1mnlA
https://streamable.com/4lgzh2
You are exactly right about this. You were spot-on when you drew the line between liberty/free thinking and authoritarianism.
What I am seeing is so-called conservatives like David French, Bill Kristol and the like joining up with those on the Left calling for suppression.
What this is comes down to, at least in part, to those who see themselves as part of the Elect (thanks, John McWhorter) flexing their muscles to put sinners in their place. I know you are not a Trump fan, but he was emblematic of this--he threatened their grip on all the levers of power and control, and so he had to be destroyed.
It always comes down to power and control.
Both groups of oligarchs that rule us - DNC and GOP - are equally repulsive and hopeless. We need to unite for a third party -- it will not win for decades but we need to break out of current monopoly.
Nope, it comes down to those who believe their choices should be exported to the "unwashed infidels" and those who prefer to let people make their own choices, even when they might be "suboptimal."
And how is this not an issue of power and control? The non-Elect, the infidels, the peasants, the serfs...we must be told what to think, because allowing us to think for ourselves threatens the ecclesial hierarchy (and it IS a religion). We must be controlled, lest the Elect lose their exalted positions.
Could you define "suboptimal", identify who makes this determination, and by what right?
👍
I think most people on the right would agree, that free speech is deeply rooted on the left or in liberalism. But very few on the left are standing up for it today. There should be a massive torrent coming forward, instead, it is a trickle.
Free speech is rooted in CLASSICAL liberalism (Capitalism), as stated in the Declaration, and implemented in the Constitution. The Left today is NEO-liberalism (Statism, the OPPOSITE of Capitalism. Capitalism demands a SMALL State). The Left today is FOR censorship, FOR Authoritarian Socialism, FOR the destruction of free market Capitalism, FOR the destruction of individual freedom.
You don't know the first thing about The Left.
And you are mis-defining The Left, as Leftists throughout history have found it necessary to do, in order to grow the State, at the expense of the freedom of the individual.
This is both false, and a perfect summary of what the propaganda of the ultra-rich has been trying to get the "right leaning" population to believe. In short, you have taken the bait, hook, line, and sinker, of what they want you to believe.
Find a good write up here: http://thetroypress.com/articles/art/20210314/art.20210314.html
That article gives the origin and full evolution of the political terms Left, Right, and Liberal, and touches on the more modern usage of Neo-Liberal and Neo-Conservative as well.
The title is: The Left / Right Dichotomy, the Meanings of Left, Right & Liberal, and U.S. Politics Today
It's rather long but here's the "table of contents":
U.S. Politics Today
Shortcomings of the left-vs-right dichotomy
Propagandistic Manipulation
Relativism
Centrism
Freedom & Liberty
Origin and Evolution of the terms left, right, and liberal in politics
The original Right's opposition to original Liberalism
Early Left opposition to Liberalism
Mid 1800s
Marxist opposition to Liberalism
Rise of the modern Right
The emergence of modern politics
Left and Right in relation to Liberalism and each other
The Recent Re-Definition of Left
Liberalism and Neo-Liberalism vs Left
Alternative Systems to the left vs right linear continuum
The Political Compass
The Rational Spectrum
I recommend you read the whole thing. I'm 100% sure you'll learn more than you expect to.
Happy Reading.
It's my perception that a huge fraction of the actual left doesn't engage in social media like the neo-liberals do, so we don't see as much of it and have fewer opportunities to visibly respond. However, the left people I know all talk about this among ourselves and where we can outreach - like in comment sections - and universally decry what's going on now with cancel culture and this neo-liberal bullshit.
I don't even begin to understand what you mean by "the actual left."
Do you mean Statists, or Capitalists?
"I don't even begin to understand what you mean by "the actual left.""
Yes, it's very clear from your postings you don't understand what the left actually is.
The left is what brought you the 5 day work week with a 2 day weekend, the 8 hour work day (so far as we can keep that in this day and age), public education (as opposed to no educattion for the masses), and I could go on. Today, to distinguish ourselves from that heinous NOT left bullshit brought about by, for example, the fans of Hillary Clinton, the Neo-Liberals, we often call ourselves Progressives. We are FOR THE PEOPLE and advocate policies that help the people (as opposed to the oligarchs and the insanely rich).
I would have much more respect for progressives if they just fought for the people in an honorable way. Instead, you allow what you call neoliberals to represent you and use the tools of hatred and envy you likely claim to not use or believe, all for their own agenda. It happens on the right as well. It just isn’t nearly as destructive to society.
It would greatly benefit the progressive left to demarcate what you would be willing to accept. Otherwise, us producers on the right are never going to believe your motives pure and that you are doing nothing more than trying to take what someone else worked for. It is never ending. We have gone from child labor to a welfare state and now UBI in a hundred years. The entitlement, a concept foreign to me, is through the roof. Half the county wants something for nothing and is willing to ignore their activist representatives burning down entire city blocks and ruining lives.
Many on the right now believe you want us all dead. With all the insane societal destructive things neoliberals are pushing it is getting harder to think otherwise. That was likely the neoliberal’s plan from the beginning and RINO’s were a part of it.
Progressives need to wise up and realize there will be nothing left if the UniParty succeeds. For example, why in the world would a progressive be in favor of disarming law abiding citizens leaving only criminals and the state with arms? This position alone makes me question the sanity of the entire movement. Are they really so naive and gullible as to think they will let you live after that?
I give you exhibit 1,457 to go along with the overt racist Critical Race Theory being taught all over the country.
https://www.city-journal.org/calif-ethnic-studies-curriculum-accuses-christianity-of-theocide
He means these people most likely. Elitists that would never vote non Democrat yet have the sanity to see the authoritarianism they voted for destroying their children’s minds. They whisper in the dark amongst themselves about how this could have come to pass oblivious to the fact their votes ushered it in.
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/im-cult-miseducation-americas-elites
False.
While I agree with most of this comment, Glenn, even by the early 1980s it was the Left that was largely driving censorship on college campuses.
Yes, this IS true! I was at Michigan state even in mid-70's and the political science teacher was teaching Marxism and when I raised my hand to debate with him, he literally IGNORED me. Even then. This has been creeping up. They are free speech AS LONG AS IT IS THEIR SPEECH. Otherwise, it could always be shut down. Still, they did have a point in Berkley back then...
Marxism is a Janus monster. On the one hand, it oh so passionately complains about the oppressed. On the other hand, it won't let them do anything about it. Not on their own, that is. "Stand back! The experts have arrived! We'll take over from here, thank you very much!" I'm surprised they haven't been laughed out of existence. But I suppose it works because it's actually a psy-op.
I should clarify that I feel that way specifically about prescriptive Marxism, not about democratic socialism.
The key is democracy. Marxism, as I have always seen it, claims monopolies on truth and morality. Democracy -- by definition -- doesn't.
Yes! That's why Lula in Brazil Is NOT a Castro or Lenin, who confiscated (State theft) private property. Lula MAY have engaged in corruption, and give lip service to Marxism/communism, but he is no oppropriator of private property, THE worst aspect of Bolshevik/Bolivar revolution. Lula is a (small d) democrat, in that he will respect democracy, and leave office if he loses.
What is the difference between voting in socialism or having it forced upon you? You still end up with socialism.
At San Diego State, where I attended and graduated from, conservative speakers were regularly chased from campus - with the tacit approval of the administration. I was suspended from the school newspaper for violating an "unwritten rule" against running offensive letters to the editor. Yes, we had a a YAF chapter at SDSU, but we also had a SPEC chapter that actively tried to ban military and corporate recruiters from campus. In fact, left-wing activists managed to get the Avalon Hill wargaming club banned! (They changed their name from the "Wargaming Club" to the "Conflict Resolution Club" and had no more problems when playing their favorite board games, as I recall.) So far as I know, YAF was the one invoking the 1st Amendment. It certainly wasn't SPEC.
There were also attempts at the same time at UC San Diego to have the California Review newspaper banned from campus for daring to run conservative content.
So you can analyze all that if you like ...
Oh, and my sophomore year, I was taking a creative writing class for my English minor, and the instructor (not a professor) pulled me aside and said my Air Force ROTC uniform was "offensive" and I needed to change before class each Tuesday. I told her that would not happen - at which point she told me that if I insisted on wearing the uniform, the best grade I could hope for was a C. She was honest, at least - I got a C that class.
What year was this?? Thanks for writing this.
1983-86.
lol - typical troll, trying to impose some kind of rules on the discussion to favor his point of view.
Oh bull. Your occupation DOES enter into it. And we are talking about major universities -- this was happening in the 70's at any major university. I'm sure some smaller colleges were conservative, but it was already on the march. YOU "prove" you are right! What arrogance.
Wally, I'd like to know what kind of work allowed you to gather such an incorrect impression. By 1990, the left had all but taken over the major west coast university where I worked. They started writing articles about "White Male Dinosaurs" in the university paper, and soon thereafter there were calls for censorship of any critical view "that created a chilly climate for feminist research."
I published an article stating that all research should be subject to criticism, and soon faced calls for my resignation, hate mail in my inbox, two attempts to set fire to my office, a mysterious cancellation of a research grant, and direct reprisals *against my children*. That was when things were easy. Things are ten times worse now.
As a longtime mainstream liberal and feminist (I was attending NOW meetings with my wife in 1972), I found this very disheartening. I'm now a "conservative" (although I share many views with Glenn).
Right, I'd like to know that, too. I was a student in the late 70's 80's and an adjunst professor beginning later after my children grew up (I had a handicapped child), and the censorhip when I was teaching is a very long sad story. At universities, this has been happening a very long time.
Sorry you had to deal with that. By 1994, there were already enough dramatic cases that John Fekete, a professor at a Canadian university, wrote a whole book called “Moral Panic:Biopolitics Rising.”
Many cases were classic left liberals who thought (erroneously) that their good deeds and simple logic (not to mention facts) would protect them. Even then, many were ruined.
NOT A CHANCE! What work? I was a student in the mid 70's at Michigan State and they literally shut down debate that was not Marxist. Your work? What work?? Your bologne did happen, but NOT on campuses! Not at all. That was the position of older conservative people. MAN, you must be nuts.
Yes, this is true. It's not a right or left thing -- but Reagan also said totalitarian threats would come from the left and he was right. Elitism is a disease that infects both parties, too, and by the very nature that they think they know what's best for everyone, they know what we should think and say. But this atrocity is coming directly from the left now and I appreciate you saying so outright -- something Matt tries to avoid at all costs.
Just turns out the cover of "social justice" is a much easier camouflage in which to sneak in the totalitarianism than hoary old right-wing rhetoric. The culture and systems seem pretty resistant to any right-wing impulse to authoritarianism--for the most part; we didn't exactly resist the Patriot Act--but the urge to power always tends to lead towards authoritarianism. When it comes through a channel for which there are few defenses . . . well, this is what we get!
Yes, but again, as I said above, censorship and authoritarian behavior has come from both parties in the past; however, by its very nature the conservatives philosophy believe in smallest government possible, so in order for socialism to succeed, they need conformity, huge government, censorship, in order to pull off their radical crap. Ronald Reagan WAS right that totalitarianism would com ein the form of liberalism. And it is. Also, our consitution prohitibs state sponsored religion; it does NOT prohibit socialism, apparently, or or other liberal garbage, so they are by far the greater threat.
The First Amendment was not written by leftists. Enforcing the first amendment SHOULD be universal. But it no longer is. The left is intent upon crushing dissent. Everyone knows that, except perhaps you. You struggle to play word games to avoid acknowledging this truth. We see you.
Nosh, you keep confusing corrupt DNC oligarchs with -- "left". Why such persistent blindness? You will never realize how are we being played, like a violin, by two equally repulsive oligarch groups competing for power.
You are, of course, rightfully incensed by DNC scam of the century -- the Russia-gate hoax. But Trump was also a disaster and incompetent -- he didn't give pardon to his biggest ally - Julian Assange who unmasked decades of neo-liberal crimes, for example.
Sorry for such an “incompetent” he accomplished a tremendous amount with the entire DC (and media, etc) against him. Very impressive.
But it was written by the left as it existed at the time. Liberalism and the idea of innate human rights were a revolutionary break from the conservative order of feudal Europe, a revolution conservatives of the era were fighting right up to the Russian Revolution.
You conflate classical liberalism with the political Left. It's a common mistake. Classical liberals believe in free speech. The Left does not, and never has. Suppression of free speech is the cornerstone of every leftist regime in human history.
And the rightist ones too - Franco, Salazar, Videla, Shah of Iran (the list is endless) were not exactly champions of free speech either. Journalists were regularly imprisoned, beaten, sometimes "disappeared".
Totalitarian. Left or right is oppressive.
The Shah was fighting radical islamist terrorists. The secular society was not "right".
Franco was a Fascist, which is on the far LEFT (100% State control, 0% individual freedom).
Exactly. There are two parameters for politics.
One is extent of freedom from government control: libertarian on the right, liberal in the center, socialist/communist on the left.
The second is degree of changing society: conservative is in the center, progressive/radical on the left and reactionary on the right.
The current Democratic party is socialist and radical. The Republican party is conservative and liberal.
I don't see much "liberal" in current Republican party - too many religious nutjobs there. Nor do I see any "socialism" in Democratic party of Wall Street and Silicon Valley tech billionaires. These are all just labels thrown out to the public for endless distraction from the fact that both parties serve the same owner class (maybe two factions) and when they "change" (another grand theater performance) nothing really changes neither domestically nor internationally in their policies.
WOW is THIS ever wrong!
"The current Democratic party is socialist and radical. The Republican party is conservative and liberal."
They both serve the ultra-rich.
You also are using propagandized definitions of these political terms, intentionally distorted so we can't understand one another. That is explained and addressed here:
http://thetroypress.com/articles/art/20210314/art.20210314.html
Nope. 1 (one) axis only.
You've bought into the propaganda about who or what is "left"; you're actually talking about neo-liberals who are NOT "left."
The ultra-rich have been attacking the left since at least FDR since the left is where all the ideas about helping The People - instead of only the ultra-rich - originate. And, so they have put out a lot of propaganda and you've bought into it.
Ben Franklin and Sam Adams would be surprised to hear your take. Don't forget that those bolshy pamphlets of theirs were the main driver of revolt. And Ben hung out in Paris with pre Jacobins.
And -- Ben Franklin visited, with his son, dying Voltaire on his deathbed...
Sam Adams would have been stacking bodies by now for same reasons as the first time.
Ok, but do you acknowledge that de-platforming is new because in the past dissenting opinions were free to rail in the public park but they weren’t given serious consideration on major platforms.
I mean, in the 70’s Angela Davis might be in the news but not her viewpoint.
Entrenched opinion makers are being displaced. There is definite overreach, I don’t like the methods or the ignorant, low iq, lacking nuance and accuracy approach (hallo MSDNC and the Clinton News Network) but there is more diversity of thought possible when entrenched positions built on shared unspoken assumptions are forced to share.
Unfortunately, the silenced of old wish to silence anew. Nobody is sharing. They’re all pigs.
It's easy to see who are the bad actors in the propaganda/censorship war. But simply calling them "the left" (which I myself often do as shorthand), is unfair to honest people who maybe support, say, socialist style economic policies but who are intellectually honest and tolerant of dissent and debate.
Consider that the NYT crowd are in full alliance with the national security state and monopolist billionaire oligarchs. And they hate old style lefties like Bernie. This isn't your father's Left. We need a better name.
I'm fine with "Censors" vs. "Free Speechers" ... because there are censors on the Right, of course, too. They're currently out of power, and out of fashion in most of their own circles, but they're there.
Specific terminology be damned. Let's agree on one word for those authoritarians who are deluding themselves about being liberals. Then we can agree on a single word for those authoritarians who are deluding themselves about being conservatives. And, the "liberals" can convince the idealistic solipists in academia that they're liberal, and the journalism students and all other journalists and various groups of people with white guilt that they must support the blue side. And, the "conservatives" can convince the village idiots that they're conservative and the fundamentalists of all stripes that they must support the red side.
I'll sign on to any terms anyone else wants, just so long as we agree on the definitions. They're distinctions without a difference in any event. Then, perhaps, those of us who still have measurable IQs and a pulse can call ourselves We The People and vote the bums out.
*solipSists (right?)
Get rid of right/left, conservative/liberal
classical liberal = right side of spectrum = small govt. free market (formerly Capitalism)
neo-liberal = left side of spectrum = more govt. State controlled markets (formerly Socialism)
"liberal" HAS NO MEANING ANYMORE. (who is against liberty?)
classical liberal = Glen Greenwald = Declaration + U.S. Constitution
neo-liberal = Authoritarian Socialism = CURRENT Democrat Party = censorship = cancel culture
Like most 30 y/o things, this has changed. The moral majority has no power, replaced by the SPLC. Reagan has been in the ground for 25 years, and anyway of his ideas/policies were overturned by the Bush 41 neo-cons.
Today its the right defending free speech, with 5% help from the remains of the civil libertarian left (where are you when we need you, Nat Hentoff?).
But remember MOST of the civil libertarian left voted straight Dem since Bill Clinton...
Censorship is always the crusade of the powers that be as their powers become threatened by vocal dissent. Liberals - democrats at the time - were vocal advocates for freedom of expression against traditional conservatism. Goes without saying that conservatives felt their powers would be eroded if society liberalized. But it can’t be denied that radicalism is more in tune with the left. What we’re seeing at play right now has nothing to do with liberalism in the classic sense, but it’s undeniably leftist, the natural result of the trajectory of western leftist radicalism. It’s illiberal, but regardless of that this movement remains a utopian dream of the radical left.
That's mostly true, but the very idealism of this radical left almost depends on fascist behavior and conformity in its very nature. Since the right ideology is one of smallest government possible, the same threat really cannot come from the right unless one person seized power. Not that they didn't try to shut down some radical ideas in the 60's, also not allowed. But again, the very nature of the socialist left almost demands what they are trying to institute here. So the left is and will be the greater threat.
A great solution is just boycott the bastards. If enough people just quit reading their lousy papers and watching their crappy corporate billionaire bilge we can make a dent in their bottom line and turn the tide.
Another great solution would be to break up the tech monopolies that are trying to use their dangerous monopoly powers to abolish free speech
The tables have completely flipped, There are a few free speech leftists out there, like you. But, not many. And you are being targeted by the left, not the right. Part of the problem of the establishment left is you strayed off their reservation. Those folks go after both right and the real left (because they are not actually on the left, they just pretend they are). The right appreciates you for that and that pisses the left off even more. I am a free speech progressive and feel I have way more in common these days with the right than I do the Biden apologists saying the Covid Relief Bill is the greatest bill in the history of bills. Where have we heard that before? Like I always like to point out, every time a Democrat becomes president, the opposition returns to under their rocks.
Sorry, this is backwards:
"And you are being targeted by the left, not the right."
No, Glenn is being targeted by the ultra-rich, status quo, who are quite decidedly NOT "left."
Well said. Authoritarianism is authoritarianism and has nothing to do with Left-Right. The authoritarian right is no better than the authoritarian left is no better than the authoritarian. The struggle is between authoritarianism and libertarianism.
Technically, the bulk of the most recent censorship campaigns has been directed at both sides, but more so on the left. I feel like your conflating censorship with criticism and being called-out; after all, many people forget that free speech, it does not mean freedom from consequences. And I say that because censorship from the right has been happening at state government levels with their 'anti-woke' bills designed to censor left-wing speech.
https://www.concordmonitor.com/Education-bill-would-ban-teaching-racism-sexism-38821767
https://www.wvlegislature.gov/Bill_Status/bills_text.cfm?billdoc=HB2595%20INTR.htm&yr=2021&sesstype=RS&i=2595
http://oklegislature.gov/BillInfo.aspx?Bill=SB803
Also, it's kind of a giant false equivalency to compare the call-outs on right-wing individuals with governments in the western world censoring anti-Israeli activists, because free speech only protects you from censorship instigated by the government. Private companies, on the other hand, have free reign to censor people because they are a private entity.
Finally, the 'free speech' crusade by the right is not about freedom of speech, it's about only having speech they approve of. Hence, the anti-woke bills listed above.
It's a war where you are "right-wing" if you disagree with them, regardless of your actual affiliations
"Alt-Right" is anything that doesn't agree with the Ctrl-Left.
LOL Alas, Substack does not provide a way of rating a post as funny.
The fact that "Ctrl-Left" never took off is all the proof I need of media bias. It's the perfect term, and has the added bonus of being hilarious.
Does that make anarchists Ctrl-Alt-Delete?
Hmm.
Damn it, Seth, I wanted to post that. Would you please slow down.
Damn, that is too funny!
Dude!! You did it again with "Ctrl-Left."
Please, please, please, we need a new book, how's about "2024"? Too near-future? I'll settle for "2034," even though it's just a mid-term (if they still exist then), but things seem to be quickening, and the kids are growing up faster these days.
That WOULD make an even half-century since your last non-fiction (title wise, anyway).
I do enjoy the symmetry of "2034." Maybe instead of Winston and the Ministry of Truth, we'll focus on the people who "volunteer" to do the dirty work by shouting down the non-believers.
Yeah, those useful idiots sure seem to love their "charity" work. Maybe they should have to get an honest government job in order to do it. There might be a few slots still open, judging by the confirmation difficulties, and there's always openings in "acting" duties (pun intended, of course).
It’s going to be a tough ask, but don’t fall for it, man. It’s middle-class Democratic liberals running interference for the establishment, with the help of a bunch of petty middle-class “progressive” foot soldiers, who’re heading up the current witch hunt. Lefties, especially non-academic Marxists and nonconformist social democrats and lefty civil libertarians, have already been either banished or burned at the stake, going as far back as 2015. The World Socialist Website, award-winning journalist Chris Hedges, The Grayzone, and a bunch of indie lefties you probably haven’t heard or cared about are practically nonexistent to the mainstream. Can’t forget about Julian Assange—ever. Most lefties critical of Russiagate, the impeachments, the Obama administration, Clinton/Bush/Obama/Trump/Biden foreign and economic policy, ideological censorship, and so on have already been sent deep into the digital hinterlands. And you better believe the GOP and most right-wingers haven’t shed a tear. Sure, it’s Democrats and their “progressive” pets doing this right now, using half-baked “wokeness” as cover, but it’s continuing a tradition the Republicans and their “right-winger” pets used in the 1980s through 2000s. And the same ruling class is reaping the rewards.
Spot on. On the surface it really seems that the owner class totally won on all fronts - economic, social, ideological. Principled opposition is few and far between, lone voices in the desert. However, behind the screen something strange is going on - that same owner class must be scared and feeling very unsecure when they decide to invest so much time and effort destroying those apparently insignificant voices and their platforms (such as Substack). Do they pick up the signals we don't see yet - essentially that the era of neoliberalism is over, the only question is how it will disintegrate and which critical pieces and positions can be salvaged? Consciously or not, they may see that each successive victory is essentially a Pyrrhic one - each one dismantles another negative feedback loop that could stabilize or moderate the system. All feedback loops are positive ones (inequality always rises, concentration of power, mergers too, debt always grows, MIC eats up more and more budget and creative productive resources, bases and conflicts always increase etc.) amplifying the errors, aberrations and injustices. The whole machine is already shaking and throwing off springs and coils, pistons are next and ultimately the crankshaft. Some future historians will deem the neoliberal ruling class probably the most stupid and short lived in the history - unlike many others that wisely kept some mechanism of moderation and redistribution of wealth or influence in the system to keep it going, these ran it to the ground in 50 years or so.
Don't be absurd. No side has a corner on saintliness. Abuses of power are routinely performed by whomever possesses unchecked power. When the left is in power, the left attempts to silence its ideological enemies, precisely as the right was doing in American in the 1950s, when it was in power.
History didn't begin in 2010.
McCarthy drew too broad a brush, but there were actually agents of a hostile nuclear armed power working inside the federal government. Harry Dexter White, Alger Hiss, etc..
Meanwhile, dozens of ordinary Americans lost their livelihoods working for a media cartel known as "Hollywood" (this was before the ascendancy of McCarthy) simply for holding unorthodox opinions or having unauthorized associations, in many cases fifteen or twenty years in the past. Anyone who defended them while not agreeing with them (eg, the Committee for the First Amendment, which included Bette Davis, Billy Wilder, Burgess Meredith, Burt Lancaster, Danny Kaye, Dorothy Dandridge, Edward G. Robinson, Evelyn Keyes, Frank Sinatra, Gene Kelly, Groucho Marx, Henry Fonda, Humphrey Bogart, Ira Gershwin, Jane Wyatt., John Garfield, John Huston, Joseph Cotten, Judy Garland, Jules Buck, June Havoc, Katharine Hepburn, Kay Thompson, Lauren Bacall, Lena Horne, Lucille Ball, Marsha Hunt, Melvyn Douglas, Myrna Loy, Paul Henreid, Philip Dunne, Robert Ryan, Sterling Hayden, Vincente Minnelli and William Wyler) was similarly threatened, and so they dutifully STFU.
The same thing is happening now. Today's left is taking a page from the right wing playbook of the late 1940s and early 1950s.
Again, no saints in this game.
Except Frank Sinatra didn't get his recording contract pulled, and they didn't yank Lucille Ball off the air. Can you say the same about Ted Geisel and Abigail Shrier?
As I posted above, the members of the Committee for the First Amendment were threatened with as much, and so they disbanded.
Not really sure what point you are trying to make here. Professional ostracism or threatened ostracism had the same chilling effect, and it's something we are feeling once again and the hands of yet another huge media cartel.
As opposed to today, when agents of another nuclear power pretty much control the federal government. And their spies get presidential pardons too!
While it’s true that most of the current calls for censorship are coming from the New Left, you are glossing over attacks on free speech that came from Trump (persecution of Julian Asante) and Bush (too many to list here, but let’s start with the “Patriot” Act). Greenwald has fought them all.
And, the Obama DOJ refused to prosecute Assange, while it was the Trump DOJ -- due primarily to Jeff Sessions and Mike Pompeo -- which filed the charges against him and sought his extradition. It's a mistake to try to paint this as left v. right.
The sooner we dispense with the outdated and unhelpful left/right dichotomy, the sooner those on the side of liberty can join forces (despite other disagreements) and focus on the authoritarianism that is infiltrating from all quarters.
The scary thing about this drive toward censorship means that we can’t even *discuss* our political disagreements/differences. There can’t be a marketplace of ideas when one side is called fascist and shut down without even a discussion. Notwithstanding Glenn’s whistleblower examples, it is the left trying to shut down the policy discussion by simply saying any position but theirs is “dangerous” or “extreme”. I still remember when the left humble bragged about being able to understand “nuance” where he right could not. Yet it’s the left who can’t tell the difference between nazis and border security, between murder and in-person schooling
"it is the left trying to shut down the policy discussion"
Wrong. Those are neo-liberals, and they are NOT left.
You seem kind of hung up on how *you* define those words and I get that you are trying to carve out a space for yourself as a person who is honestly advocating for progressive policy as opposed to neoliberals who advocate for progressive goals dishonestly. Forgive me but I insist on not playing by *your* language rules and allow me the indulgence of correcting my earlier post to say it is *progressives* who are shutting down policy discussion by calling everyone fascist. Not distinguishing between the various factions of progressives, in other words. Police your own ideology and stop trying to control other people’s language use
We are not going to dispense with group identification, especially when it comes to classifying "the other". It serves the purposes of those advancing the cause of authoritarianism far too well to be dispensed with.
Agreed. What shall be our sigil? We need to start making banners. The Gadsden Flag would be appropriate.
Glenn wrote: " It's a mistake to try to paint this as left v. right."
Amen, bro!
But to be honest, if I am not mistaken Biden himself (correct me if wrong) made it clear that European “Allies” should not give Assange asylum...or guarantee he wouldn't be extradited ..
The stories about Biden blocking asylum were regarding Snowden: he personally threatened countries that they would suffer serious retaliation if they did.
That said, the Biden DOJ is appealing the UK decision denying Assange's extradition. They're also trying to imprison him. But it was started by Sessions and Pompeo.
You are right...Thx for clarification ...your steady output of serious work is invaluable .
Biden doesn't do anything other than serve as a useful fall guy for the third Obama administration, or the fifth Bush administration, or however you want to look at it.
You can be sure that Bai-dun will continue to persecute Assange because his puppet-masters will demand it.
Right, and although I would personally be inclined to label these kinds of actions by big-R Republicans as not in line with little-r republican ideals-- and they are most certainly +not+-- that can rapidly devolve into a No-Tru-Republican argument. However one wants to frame it, we Republicans too often elect and RE-elect people who violate republican principles, just as Democrats elect people who violate democratic principles. It simply comes down to the fact that we all have a duty to oppose these authoritarian tendencies +wherever+ we happen to find them.
In many ways, as a Republican, I feel my duty to oppose it within my own party is the more acute: I have access to the primary process to fight bad Republicans (or at least support good ones). They are my responsibility. I cannot, myself, fix bad Democrats.
wow, what an honor! Glenn has commented on my comment! Thanks Glenn!
Why do you think that is, given how damaging Assange was to the Democratic Party?
Let's not forget Hillary's “Can’t we just drone this guy?” while SecState
The powerful don't like people tattling on them. That's true no matter what political side you're talking about.
That's cherry picking. The Trump admin was far less interested in managing speech than is the Biden admin or was the Obama admin.
Nobody is for 100% free speech but the speech police in average society are almost exclusively coming from the left.
And Kentucky is trying to make it illegal to insult cops, while the right is currently trying to ban books in TN. The left is a bigger threat right now, but neither "side" has a monopoly on shutting down speech.
Maybe you should try a new news source (or read more carefully).
"The bill says a person can be charged with the Class B misdemeanor of disorderly conduct if the individual “Accosts, insults, taunts, or challenges a law enforcement officer with offensive or derisive words, or by gestures or other physical contact, that would have a direct tendency to provoke a violent response from the perspective of a reasonable and prudent person.”"
"The left is a bigger threat right now, but neither "side" has a monopoly on shutting down speech."
You mean neo-liberals are the bigger threat.
Neo-liberals are NOT in any way left. They may not be your kind of right, but that doesn't make them left.
No, the left has never sided on shutting down speech.
That's true. Authoritarians will use any avenue available to them to gain power. Simply defeating the "bad people" now won't stop them from trying again in a new way.
And after they defeat the "bad" people, they will find more "bad" people they must defeat.
Funny how those "bad" people keep popping up with their crazy "bad" ideas of individual freedom from overbearing Authoritarians.
Note to Timothy: The actual left, as opposed to Neo-Liberals, STRONGLY support individual freedoms AND solidarity with our fellow man, families, communities, etc.
Agreed! But today's left is still too wedded to top-down Authoritarian public-sector solutions, instead of private sector free market solutions to societal problems. Give the individual a chance, not the State, which only acts against the interests of the poor, for example.
M. Art, the top problem is there is way too much State power and money to throw around. Let's unite in shrinking the State. All good will follow, imo.
I misspelled Asante... stupid spellcheck!
Argh....again
https://theoatmeal.com/comics/autocorrect
Lol good one
What do "left" and "right" even mean in common parlance? Or "conservative" and "liberal" for that matter? If Trump is on "the right" and so is David Frum, does it really have any meaning? If Glenn Greenwald is on "the left" and so is Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama, does that have any meaning? Clearly it doesn't. Its far more useful to talk about authoritarians and non-authoritarians. Authoritarians may differ on what sort of your behavior and speech they want to regulate and eliminate, but they all have much more in common with each other than those who believe in freedom and liberty.
http://thetroypress.com/articles/art/20210314/art.20210314.html
Not only does that article talk about the left v right continuum, it also discusses several alternatives to a linear political "map."
Agreed about "Authoritarian." May I add an "of the individual" after "freedom and liberty"? The State sure seems to enjoy a lot of "freedom" today.
David Frum is not on the right. He has been exposed as a Statist.
Or rather exposed his politics himself.
Great comment! I like visiting the Political Compass website for that very reason, quadrants for L, R , Authoritarian and non.
Not necessary. Don't overcomplicate things. There is 1 (one) political axis, with two endpoints. The rest is obfuscation and deception by Statists (who occupy the far Left, 100% State control, 0% individual freedom).
With all due respect, I think the concept of debating the definition of the words LEFT and RIGHT is not productive. What would be productive imo is building a populist left-right coalition that can work together towards common goals such as fighting online censorship.
As an actual Leftists who abhors that shit, I'd sign up.
You won't persuade him. Glenn is fighting a rearguard action against the change of language, trying to keep "Left" for the pro-working-class Left of yore, by calling the "woke" and their corporate overlords "neo-liberal". It's a losing battle like trying to keep "marriage" for the ancient institution that was intended to produce a life-long bond between potential biological parents in the interest of their natural offspring. I suspect he and others fighting this rearguard will be able to keep it up for about a decade before deciding it's hopeless, and joining me in calling for the deprecation of "Left" and "Right" as political terms.
Your analysis is correct. I've been "on the left" all my life and I don't have a single friend or family member who voted for Trump. Some of them supported Bernie, and they decry the Dem's lack of class consciousness. One such friend is having a permanent temper tantrum because she opines (correctly) that the woke mobs who burned down Starbucks in the name of anti-racism are not leftists, and she wishes the media would stop referring to them that way. Sorry pal, those days are over. Continue to call yourself a "leftist" if you like, but if you believe in freedom of speech and freedom of the press, you're going to have to dump that obsolete terminology. Turn off MSNBC and use whatever critical thinking neurons you still have to ask yourself some questions:
Is it possible that all 74 million people who voted for Trump, including blacks and Latinos (who are often both of those things at once), are white supremacists? Including your friendly next-door neighbor whom you've known for 30 years?
Is it really all about good vs. evil, and you're on the side of the angels, give or take a few cancellations and banned books?
Do you believe in the Constitution and the principles it codifies? When did the word "freedom" become code for moral miscreant, so that you're afraid to utter it? Thomas Jefferson might have something to say about that, but he's been thrown in the river.
<b>Is it possible that all 74 million people who voted for Trump, including blacks and Latinos (who are often both of those things at once), are white supremacists? </b>
The question might be: which is more likely? That they are white supremacists voting for might white supremacy because it's so awesome to be a white supremacist in 2021 America that even minorities are doing it . . . or that they responded to policy, the pre-COVID economy, revulsion at what the Democrats were offering, picking the least-bad of two bad choices, enveloped by Trump's cult of personality or something else entirely?
There are many reasons people might have voted for Trump, many of them not flattering for Trump, that make more sense than "white supremacy".
Absolutely right. You've added specificity to my argument.
"Continue to call yourself a 'leftist' if you like, but if you believe in freedom of speech and freedom of the press, you're going to have to dump that obsolete terminology."
That's a reasonable observation. But part of the overall battle in support of free speech is to stop the continual language-shifting, both for acceptable words and acceptable definitions. That generates constant turmoil in the discourse. In this, MSM and mainstream institutions have a distinct advantage, given their reach. At some point, it has to instead be aggressively called out and nailed to the wall. If not now, when?
I don't disagree. It's a good observation that regardless of the terms, it's the principles that matter. The focus must be on the primacy of free speech. Also I'm not implying that leftist values themselves are obsolete and people who hold such values should forsake them now because times have changed.
My observation is that most of the liberal people I know think of themselves as "on the left" and blindly adhere to woke ideology on that basis. The term has no real meaning but they don't seem to care. They're obsessed with January 6, feel secure in their belief that everyone on "the right" is evil, and that right-wing speech; i.e., whatever doesn't support the woke narrative, must to be censored for the survival of the country. Then there are the hardcore leftists who complain about the betrayal of leftist policies in the Democratic party and don't seem to be paying attention to the fact that our fundamental rights are seriously threatened.
You're right when you say: "...part of the overall battle in support of free speech is to stop the continual language-shifting, both for acceptable words and acceptable definitions. " But this is very challenging when people adhere to certain terms and definitions with unconsciously tribal intensity.
This is a very good observation:
"most of the liberal people I know think of themselves as "on the left" and blindly adhere to woke ideology on that basis."
In particular "think of themselves" - yes - when in fact they're not "on the left" but apparently on the right!
I am as "on the left" as it gets and so when you write:
"Then there are the hardcore leftists who complain about the betrayal of leftist policies in the Democratic party and don't seem to be paying attention to the fact that our fundamental rights are seriously threatened."
...I strongly agree with the first part and strongly disagree with the second part of that sentence; we're very aware of the serious threats - at least, all the hard-core leftists I know (which comprise nearly 100% of the people I know well - not a small list). We just don't have much a platform to share our concerns since a huge number want to conflate us with the right-wing Neo-Liberals.
As a for-instance, my friends and I were all saying the actions of Jan 6 were interpreted wrongly on purpose; WE think the people who acted on that day have a perfectly legitimate beef, but took action in the wrong way. What's needed is to secure our voting systems, which have NEVER been secured because both Ds and Rs like to cheat - the Ds more in the primaries to keep Progressives out, and the Rs in general elections as it's often the only way they can win. So, they both tolerate cheating to some extent since they both do it and want to continue to to so.
The vilification of the so-called insurrectionists was an intentional political ploy, and, by the way, ignores that BOTH the police OPENED THE BARRICADES and also OPENED THE CAPITAL BUILDING DOORS to the protesters. Prosecuting them for being there has a VERY easy route to acquittal... However, the shouldn't be prosecuted!
Thank you for your response. Glad to hear your perspective. I agree with you regarding the events of Jan. 6 and how they should be viewed. The problem of fair elections seems hopeless. Any suggestions or thoughts?
Yeah, but this subject demands clarity.
Pretending that the labels of old don't apply isn't being honest. They apply. The tech companies somehow seem to know exactly whom to suspend because they're using these labels.
Labels apply to those for whom group identity is very important--and on the left, right now, it is very important. For classical liberals and old-school lefties who aren't looking to "burn it all down", the labels may not apply so well.
And what does saying: "It's all group X" accomplish? Either we endorse or we reject actions, policies, etc. It wouldn't matter to me who advanced the Patriot Act, or HR1, or open borders, or was trying to get news networks deplatformed. I object to what's being done, I don't care who is doing it. Mostly people who identify as left but let's not forget a lot of GOP folks who ostensibly "right wing" are voting for or tacitly endorsing this crap, too.
No, they aren't actually left. A neolib is attacking anyone left of center with the same viterol as they attack the right. Tulsi is a good example. They either fail in line, like Bernie or AOC, or they face the rabid maoist mob. Please stop thinking of them as 'left. Anti war, free speech, wealth equality are actual left principles. A neolib is what you are, rightly, raging against.
You are approaching this the wrong way. It is very important that we have left wing people be as aggressively pro first amendment as Glenn and some of the other writers he mentioned on Substack are. We can argue about how best to allocate capital and our foreign policy later, if we lose the first amendment we are done.
This is coming from a conservative Christian who probably disagrees with Glenn on a vast majority of issues. Liberals (real ones, not the modern day corporatist progressives) can and should be our ally on this front.
To be fair, it's a war the left has declared against anyone who doesn't bow down to the new orthodoxy.
Most, but not all of those people are of "the right."
Glenn, most clearly is not; but, because they left sees its opponents as "the right" by definition, he gets classified as such.
It's CLASSICAL liberalism (GG, me, small State, max individual freedom)
versus
NEO liberalism (censors, overbearing State, little individual freedom)
The word "liberal" no loger has meaning. It MUST be qualified to have any idea what its speaker means. Same with left/right.
The axis is Authoritarian Socialism (100%State power, 0% individual freedom) on the far left, and Classical Capitalism (~10%State power, ~90% individual freedom) on the far right. (Anarchy, an immediately disappearing phenomena, think about it, is 0%State power, 100%individual freedom, and is the far right endpoint.)
All forms of Socialism are on the left side (soft communism, Fascism, crony-Capitalism, all forms of Totalitarianism).
The comment I'm replying to identifies you as either a serious victim of the propaganda of the ultra-rich, a person deeply steeped in group-think, or a bit of both.
You'd do well to re-think things and reexamine your premises and assumptions as it's apparent to me you're being manipulated.
Oh, it couldn't POSSIBLY my own opinion, could it? You know me SO well!
Well, I AM just trying to help! ...If I haven't already given you this link, here:
http://thetroypress.com/articles/art/20210314/art.20210314.html
It's long but well researched and has links at the top so you can jump to the part(s) you're most interested in.
All forms of Socialism demand greater and greater State power and control over time.
True Journalism -- like Greenwald's -- gives both sides as it is perceived by the journalist. What you advocate, Jay, is the same damn nonsense the NYT reporters are doing, except in reverse.
McCarthyism died when the namecalling and labeling no longer had an effect on Americans. That takes journalists doing their old fashioned journalism, not slanting the stories to favor a political bias.
I disagree with you. To characterize one whole side of the political spectrum as “evil” is adolescent. Life is full of nuance. Do better.
What Glenn told you, only not in such kurt terms, is "you're wrong." In short, there's an intentional conflation between neo-liberalism and "the left", trying, on purpose, to smear the left and you've bought into it. YOU are complaining about the neo-liberals, not the left, and SHAME on Glenn for not saying so bluntly.
The neo-liberals ARE NOT "left" in any way, shape or form. And Glenn's just too stuck in his ways to call it like it is on that particular point.
I think Glenn may be hesitant to do that because "The Right" also loves censoring points of view they don't like. For examples just research a bit about all the censoring they like to do to oppose the BDS movement in particular and anyone who may oppose Israel's policies in general.
Jay, you've fallen into the trap that others set- the one that leads to people willingly accepting boxes (labels and camps) and filters through which they must view all things. Speaking as one who probably would be labeled "leftist", I can tell you there is no homogeneous "left". The label "liberal" is possibly even more useless, as it may encompass any number of ideological tendencies. There are self-proclaimed liberals who concern themselves only with social-identitarian issues, i.e. this or that aspect of the culture war that is maintained in part by media and other elites to keep people at the bottom from looking at the fundamentally important issues of governance. There are all kinds of "liberals", in fact- and while they are all lumped by the establishment or anyone in a camp on the opposite side with "the left", this is an unfortunate result of the tribalism- the splitting of everyone into camps- to which I'm referring.
While the Democrats (not any left, for certain) seem to be most vocal now in calling for censorship, in general, as Glenn has replied, free speech movements have long been leftish causes, so much so that the ACLU, an entity hated by social conservatives for its work on civil rights, risked much to defend the KKK as well as the NRA and others. On the other hand, it has been social conservatives who've promoted book bans and sought control of content in school books (to require treating the religiously-inspired "Creationism" as a valid scientific theory, for example).
For the record, I don't regard "right-wing" as any more a smear than "left-wing". I tend to avoid using labels to the extent possible, myself; and tend to discount them when used by others- especially in the mainstream media, which I see as mostly corporatist, not left, right or even some mythical "centrist" - unless you think of the center as the center of financial and political power.
As an immigrant from a country that lost the media war of censorship & was silenced, i find it ironic that the very Americans who claim to be fighting for "justice" are the same people clapping like seals on attacks of independent media. The same writers calling their "hit" pieces journalism & crying when exposed as hypocrites or liars, are often working for the same big corporate ghouls in positions of privledge. If Americans of all political bents do not rise up to demand a free and independent media, they may awaken from their sleep to find freedom lost.
Freedom lost? Step outside in any American city without a mask and see what freedom you have.
Dear Substack: Stand up like a grown up and tell these hall monitors to find another job. Hire / recruit more adults like Geenwald. I just increased my donation. Find another great reporter like Greenwald and I will increase it again. Find a third and I will start passing out Substack business cards to my friends and relatives.
Dear Real Reporters on Substack, develop a strategy to fight back please.
The thing I find most interesting about Mr. Greenwald's following on substack is that there do, from the comments, seem to be a sizable number of conservatives. This is interesting to me because Mr. Greenwald's views are decidedly NOT conservative. On a vast number of subjects, these conservatives and Glenn Greenwald would vociferously disagree.
Myself, I have strong libertarian leanings and, thus, disagree with Mr Greenwald on some pretty fundamental issues, myself.
But not on the issues that matter most. I subscribe to Voltaire's interpretation of anyone's right to speech. It is fundamental to a working republic for us to be able to publicly disagree without fearing government and government-aligned forces seeking to ruin our lives for simply disagreeing.
This article sums up where we have arrived in this culture war. It is no longer about dissent. The has evolved to total cultural warfare, where every aspect of anyone's life is a valid target for complete destruction. We stand at the precipice of disaster.
Conservatives follow Glenn and Matt Taibi for the same reason they follow Jonathon Turley, because they favor free speech and are open-minded. They recognize that Glenn and Matt see what the Left is doing and while we might not agree with everything they write, we respect their right to say it. Remember that Matt came out against the Russia witch hunt and Glenn exposed the illegal domestic info gathering of No Such Agency.
I wasn't trying to characterize conservatives in any particular way, to be clear. I just find it interesting that when it comes right down to it, the /core/ values of people so different as Glenn Greenwald and certain types of conservative are so similar.
It actually makes me feel a little hopeful, as if maybe there's a chance we can change course.
When the French, the British and the Russians are at war, two of them have to wind up in the same trench. That doesn't make the ideologically aligned. But they have recognized an existential threat.
That's not exactly applicable. We *should* not be at war with our fellow Americans. That's what is scary about this whole thing. The Left (particularly the elite/media/Hollywood/Journalists/Big Tech) - has veered into the territory where they are lockstep and groupthink that their opponents views are "dangerous".
The Right, even when they censored, have never tried to "cancel" people - as in, want them unemployed, or even jailed. They may have had moral misgivings, but they still allowed free speech and opinions to flow. If that weren't true, the Left wouldn't exist today.
As Glenn mentions, this is freedom vs. authoritarianism. As long as Glenn continues to be a paragon in the defense of freedom, he'll have allies in Conservatism. The current swing of the pendulum has nothing to do with it. The Right has continued to shift over the past fifty years where individual rights are a core component of the philosophy. It's one reason why Libertarians generally find a home on the Right, and why things like gay marriage have become more accepted.
That's due to RIGHT-WING opened mindedness, not any merits of the Left's ability to persuade.
So, no, the French/British/Russian analogy isn't quite apt, b/c as soon as the fight's over, the one-time allies would be opposed once again.
"The Left: does not include "(particularly the elite/media/Hollywood/Journalists/Big Tech)"
You're citing neo-liberals, not the left.
Err... free market capitalists? Naaa. I'm talking the groupthink that exists where Parler can get deplatformed by a collusion of talking heads in the media, Democrat politicians, and at least three of the major Big Tech companies all in the space of a couple of days.
I specified those in parentheticals, because I don't *think* most of the typical democrat voters actually want to suppress free-speech. I have no assurance whatsoever, though, about the aforementioned Elites, in fact, I think quite the opposite, which is what this article we're commenting on is about.
Call them neo-liberals if you want, though it's not remotely accurate to the actual usage of the term.
...My "complaint" with your post wasn't so much on your ideas overall as labels. SO MANY PEOPLE HERE are confused / wrong about most (or even all) things "left". The neo-liberals are the ones that are doing all the bad things people are citing top-to-bottom in these comments but keep erantly referring to them as left. And that leads to wrong conclusions.
I don't agree with your closing sentence there, but at least we can have a dialogue about that. ...If they're not neo-liberals, wtf are they? They're some form of right-wing authoritarianism that is antithetical to left views and they aren't classical right-wingers either, but then liberalism has ALWAYS been neither left nor right. (See the lower portion of this work for more about that: http://www.rationalrevolution.net/articles/redefining_the_political_spectru.htm)
Thanks for your understanding!
Okay - well, did you read Glenn's article? If you don't take my word for the fact that it's the Left suppressing free speech right now, take his.
Neo liberals, if we're going to get into arcane political theory - sure, those eventually became neo-cons on the Right and have had a lot of influence over the past 25 years, though they've spent the last four being NeverTrumpers.
I reviewed your article a bit, and there are parts in it that make sense, and some that don't - I mean, it's all well and good to think of the article as gospel, but I mean, it's literally titled "re-defining the political spectrum" - and you're expecting people to automatically agree with those definitions - that aren't remotely universally accepted.
I'll be the first to say that many political terms are misused, fascism being the first one (and these days, racism being the second).
But, I will just reiterate - Glenn says above that the Left (and in this case, lefty journalists) are the ones pushing for authoritarianism. You'll need to take up that argument with him. ;)
Sides, he's the lawyer.
Took the words right out of my mouth.
Glenn, I am a life-long conservative who recently found you here on Substack after seeing you on TC Tonight a couple of times. Your work is remarkable. In just a short time you have opened my eyes to a lot of new issues and perspectives. Stay strong and you and others like you will change the world. I know that when these "journalists" attack you, you must feel a pressing need to respond and defend yourself. Please do as you see fit, but also know there are many people who appreciate you and you are free to focus on your other highly important topics without taking the time out to just defend yourself.
And I agree with your position in the comments below on 'recent leftist censorship' but 'historically rightist censorship.' The difference is mainly in where the true center of cultural power lies. Historically, censorship initiatives have been mainly conservative and have only recently shifted; like within the last 20 years. I did not truly appreciate the first amendment and freedom of the press until recently. Turns out, us conservatives have a lot in common now with true liberals, and we are going to have to find ways to work together to deal with these rather new neoliberal (fascist) cultural and political forces. By all means, please let me know if I can help. I think the stability of the entire planet might eventually depend on it.
I think it is libertarians vs authoritarians, not conservative vs liberal that is the true dividing line. As a life long liberal, I now find myself having more in common with conservatives. I think that is because the left is becoming more authoritarian and conservatives are becoming more libertarians. Authoritarian utopian governments always dissolve into dystopian nightmares.
"I think it is libertarians vs authoritarians, not conservative vs liberal that is the true dividing line."
No, it's class warfare; it's the ultra-rich against everyone else. And their method of going after "everyone else" is the ole divide and conquer strategy - time tested. So, they use their media to keep us fighting one another.
... And ONE way they do it, and have done since at least WWII, is to lie about "the left."
The left has NOT become more authoritarian; instead, there was a splintering: the former standard bearer for The Left was the Democrats, but with Bill Clinton's presidency, it became clear to The Left that the Dems were on the wrong path. And so the split - neo-liberals resulted from what were formerly left-leaning Liberals, but they became right-wingers during Clinton and beyond, and the MSM kept pretending they were actually left since it fit the narrative of the ultra-rich.
BUT DON'T YOU BELIEVE IT! No, the actual left is still out here, keeping our left values. The ultra-rich WANT you to think the neo-liberals are "left!" Don't give them the win!
The idea of libertarians vs authoritarians is a repudiation of class issues is not true. The woke authoritarians are wealthy. The move in the state of Oregon to stop requiring black kids to master math in our school system is funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. "The actual left" that you refer to is in the writings of Glenn Greenwald and others. Conservatives are reading Glenn's writing and finding common ground. The issue is that the authoritarian left is abandoning class issues and taking on race and gender issues and this is coming from the wealthy: https://www.city-journal.org/the-miseducation-of-americas-elites
A strong government response right now will hurt the working class because the elites are more concerned about creating race and gender equity than dealing with income inequality.
As far as this is concerned:
"the [ultra-rich] are more concerned about creating race and gender equity than dealing with income inequality."
I believe that's only partially true. SURELY the ultra-rich aren't EVER going to "deal" with income inequality (much less _wealth_ inequality) - oh, and being filthy rich doesn't make one elite as the elite are people who have EARNED their place. But anyway...
... I STRONGLY disagree the ultra-rich want gender or race equality, rather it's just a tool to keep us fighting one another and beyond that they really don't give a damn.
“The move in the state of Oregon to stop requiring black kids to master math in our school”
Wait what!??? Wtf when did this happen? It’s almost like actual racists who don’t want blacks to prosper are running the state.
John McWhorter makes that point in this video with Glen Loury:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CbJWi6KkcHs&t=1s
and on his substack page:
https://johnmcwhorter.substack.com/p/is-it-racist-to-expect-black-kids
None if the local papers are writing about it, which is why my only source for this is a collage professor in NYC.
I found this too:
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/oregon-math-course-racism-white-supremacy-teachers
Even snores (which is as left narrative as it gets) rated this mixture:
"The Oregon Department of Education (ODE) told teachers that asking students to "show their work" in math class is a form of white supremacy."
Official clown world stuff.
I think it has always been between libertarians and authoritarians. Classic liberal values are at the heart of what it means to be an American. They are what bind us together. They are, or should be, truly bipartisan. We have to openly reject any political platform that would suggest otherwise.
I have been following Glenn's work for years and I am THRILLED to support his work rather than subscribe to the garbage marketed as journalism today. Substack, I will follow Glenn and other journalists to other platforms if they are silenced or pressured in any way. Fight the good fight Glenn. We support you.
Seconded.
I started at UT/Salon, then the Guardian, then the Intercept. I don't mind moving again.
Keep pushing and fighting Glenn. I’ve been pushed into another line of work after pursuing data-based health journalism as my findings didn’t reinforce the race-based and divisive narrative. It truly is a hostile time for those seeking truth.
Keep it up Jon. I'm so sick of politically driven policy on Covid, and MSM and big tech killing any attempt to voice opposing views based on science and data
I've been reading your articles for free. Because of this article I just paid for a subscription. What is happening is so very very dangerous. I'm grateful for your courage, Glenn.
I also just paid for a subscription. Ironically, the first amendment has become one of the defining issues of our time. If we lose this fight, we will never recover.
I fervently agree with the spirit of your comment so hopefully I'm not just splitting hairs with mine. The first amendment doesn't (yet) bear on the content of GG's last two posts since it applies only to the government. The attacks he's condemning are directed at cultural norms relating to free speech by powerful non-governmental forces.
People trying to obfuscate shouldn't get easy targets to derail the conversation. The cancellers (for lack of a better term) can deflect by saying they aren't violating the first amendment, which is true, but irrelevant since the problem is how they're wielding social power to try to coerce people into silence and conformity.
The non-governmental forces - corrupto-crats - are in a symbiotic relationship with DC. So while private companies are not subject to FA restrictions, they profit from doing the bidding of the Ds and their R subsidiary. Big government and big corporations - two peas in a pod.
Me too! I just signed up. I want to show Substack we are willing to support free and open journalism! Next I guess I have to support Matt Taibi. (I think I spelled his last name wrong…)
And with the money I’m saving since I canceled my NPR national propaganda radio subscription I’m also supporting Status Coup investigative channel. And then there’s Grayzone… Ugh I wish they were all in the same network so I could support them all together!
Bari Weiss talked about doing this kind of thing on the Megyn Kelly podcast....definitely worth a listen. I hope it happens too.
Yep, Matt is next on my list!
I'm up to three--Glenn, Matt and now Bari Weiss.
Bravo Glenn. I just subscribed. Your crusade against thought Nazis is the best marketing campaign for Substack and free speech. Your writing is superb- honest and acerbic. Brilliant. Keep up the good fight.
You're gonna get your $'s worth IMO.
I concur. Not yet 5 months in and (as another mentioned) I feel like I'm taking advantage of the man. I include the annual subscriptions I gifted to my siblings in that calculation as well, despite that act hardly being totally selfless.
Yup. That's why I chewed his ass out for coming back early from his break! LOL Could you imagine the kind of Intercept he could run if he had one?
It is sad that USA leftist media is following the step of Communist China
The Hillary Clinton model of leftist media is not left. It’s corporate. It’s pure corporate media with a rainbow flag. Please don’t call it left-wing because it’s not at all. And I don’t think there ever was and antifa movement, I think that was all made up BS. Most of the BLM protesters in places like Portland were young white kids with awareness they were over privileged—my two young nieces were out there protesting all the time. Sure wish they would fight like that for national healthcare...
Hillary Clinton has forever tarnished the label “left.“ And yeah it sucks that her and her friends are the shadow presidents now and are borrowing China’s censorship model.
Lisa, read Andy Ngo's dispatches (and upcoming book) then look at the thousands of videos of the destruction committed and incited by Antifa throughout 2020. They are real - the street thugs are meth heads and other societal castoffs but the management layer is organized, smart, and well trained a la the members in the root organizations in Europe. They use military-grade comms and organize into cells to prevent infiltration. Their training manual is also on-line and accessible. My "liberal" (read woke lefty) brother thought they were "just an idea" which was the media's propaganda up until the evidence of their crimes became known.
"Hillary Clinton has forever tarnished the label “left.“ "
How could she have done that?
She herself is not and never has been left, not for one minute of her life; she's a right-winger who pretends for votes and to manipulate people.
AND, she didn't even come up with the idea of pretending like that; it was "a thing" going way back - at least decades.
Truth is, the utra-rich, through their propaganda, have been trying to trash the good name of the actual left since at least FDR.
It's still sjw left, though. Just listen to your admiration of your nieces promoting "white privilege" and other BLM bullshit. Hillary's still your gal.
I didn’t say any admiration for my nieces. I was stating a fact. There are not many people I hate as much as Hillary Clinton. I think the Clintons together have ruined the USA forever. And the USA is ruining the world.
How did US corporate media ended rechristened as "leftist" media? What happened to you - are you brainwashed by -- somebody? ;-))
How did US Corporate media ended rechristened as leftist media?
Please look at how the leftist media reported the riot of Antifa and BLM when these people setting fire every where. Look at how the leftist media reported the "riot" on Jan 6 with no one setting any fire and/or causing any major destroy on property. Compare the destruction caused by Biden supporters (Antifa and BLM) and Trump supporters and comparing how the leftist media comments on the acts of these 2 groups of people. You then know how US corporate media ended rechristened as leftist media.
US Corporate media are rechristened as leftist NOT by brainwashing but by how US Corporate media have reported the "riot" of Biden vs Trump supporters.
Why yes, Wally, it is. But it's the new commie corporate left, allied on open borders from day one and any other policy to screw the working classes and enrich the corporation. So old school leftism doesn't fit into this new framework. Please get with the program.
"the new commie corporate left,"
I trust that was tongue-in-cheek since, of course, there's no such thing as "commie corporate left."
I wish is were a joke.
Compare the workings and methods of the CCP and the DNC. You're clinging to old definitions.
No, I think Glenn is right. The biggest war here is between people who believe in freedom of expression and those that do not -- of either party. I don't expect to agree with everything they say. Matt Taibbi pisses me off a lot, but he IS taking a stand against censorship and the deplorable state of journalism now. So I subscribe to him. Matt won't hold the left responsible somehow in the way Glenn does. But the point is Glenn would hold the right equally responsible if they were being repressive. But you are right (Jay) that the left has always been more repressive than the right in my life time. There were few elitist types and usually they were not for stopping free speech. The left has always advocated control of all types, from gun control, to redistribution of wealth, so by nature, they want government control. Now they want control of thought. Which is a step too far for even many liberals.
Well living in Chicago with practically every teenager having a gun and using it, if we had only kept gun control going from the 1960s when even Republicans were not pushing for legalizing machine guns, the country would be a way better place. I’m glad I have the window of history, being born in 1959. Back in the 1960s we learned about the very divided understanding of the Second Amendment. Not to start a big thing here, but we are so alone in the world in our stance on guns.
And the redistribution of wealth, well we didn’t need that when taxes were actually at a decent level where millionaires were still making plenty of money but states could actually fix roads and have libraries.
The new “liberals“ wanting control of thought are nothing to do with the liberals I grew up with. They are the Hillary Clinton liberals.
Guns are illegal to own in Chicago so perhaps they are going about it the wrong way. And the more you tell people not to, the more gun sales go up.
"The left has always advocated control of all types"
I think that from the Right, "control" is too often conflated with "collective". This is completely understandable to me, as authoritarians took over the Left (over several generations) and brainwashed the unthinking into following them (*and* into "unthinking"!)
But it is dead wrong. The Left is the side that cherishes democracy, as it is by definition egalitarian. Democracy has *zero* to do with lopsided control by an authoritarian few over a subordinate many. *That* point of view comes instead from the two-faced Marxism, which hijacked Leftism, and which thinks it knows not only truth and morality of the past -- but also, exactly what *must* (truth & morality, again) happen in the future! Does any movement have bigger balls??
Leftism 1.0 was the French Revolution (however badly executed) -- not Marx. But through Marxism, the authoritarians not only snookered the Left ("Stand back, proles -- we've got this!"), but as of late *also* snookered the Right into thinking Marxism is the Left!
F*ck Marxism.
I feel for you, but unfortunately, the Marxists and fascists started taking over and brainwashing our students in the late 70's in universities and it's worked. And too many sheep out here. We understimated their influence. Huge shame. But really, they've been behind the scenes for decades.
Agreed, but I think the psy-op really started in the mid-1800s. Marxism has *always* pied-pipered the egalitarian Left.
Uh-huh. The intelligence spooks historically did not target republicans and there were no objections to their methods
Glenn, let me start by warning you and your readers that I am preparing to write a very long essay in response to your brilliant post today, so stop now if you don’t want to make a bit of a commitment.
First, while I find all of your posts to be smart, well informed and relevant, today you found another level, another gear. Today, your post was PENETRATING! I think the difference is that these little pathetic trolls pissed you off, so you responded with the intellectual version of “OK, let’s dance”. Suffice it to say that I really like the pissed off Glenn.
Second, as a heterosexual, middle-aged, white, conservative who grew up in rural Kansas - I can provide a high degree of credibility to your claim that you are not right-wing. If we were back in the days when the two parties actually had ideologies, you would be a reliable Democrat and I would be a reliable Republican. In fact, it may be true that one of the only things you and I agree on is that we both want to have the freedom to debate and defend our positions vs. silencing and/or canceling those we disagree with. Indeed, we are as they say - strange bedfellows.
Third, you are correct in your statement that this is not a right-left culture or political war, but rather a war for or against the free exchange of speech and ideas. I would describe you as a traditional liberal, a primary tenant of which is that you want to defend freedom of speech and thought. Further, a traditional liberal is moored to an actual set of beliefs that can be defended in an open debate - and welcomes the opportunity to engage in that debate. Further, a traditional liberal is moored to a set of beliefs that can form a coherent governing philosophy. While I would disagree with the practicality and/or effectiveness of that governing philosophy, it is based in reason and can be defended.
The opposing ideology today is not liberal, but rather progressive/woke and it is more akin to a religion than it is a cultural or political ideology. This group is unmoored to any set of beliefs or principles that can be either defended in open and rational debate, or put into an actual governing philosophy. In essence, this group wants to live inside a John Lennon song, as it makes them feel good and virtuous. As Shelby Steele (someone you probably agree with rarely) so brilliantly explains, the progressive/woke crowd is invested in a narrative tied to “poetic truth” vs. actual truth. When the actual truth is not consistent with their poetic truth, those advancing the actual truth must be silenced, as actual truth is more powerful than poetic truth in an open debate. They have learned the power of silencing the purveyors of actual truth by accusing them of: racism, misogyny, xenophobia, homophobia, transphobia, etc. The irony, of course, is if those they accuse of these bigotries actual were what they are being accused of, the slurs would not be very effectual. However, since the vast majority of Americans are none of these things, they recoil at being accused of something they find repulsive.
I have said to my liberal friends for some time now that they will have to join us conservatives in the fight against this progressive/woke mob, if the battle is to be won. Conservatives are easily dismissed by this mob as insensitive deplorables, particularly if they chose Trump over the other bad alternatives. And while most reasonable liberals don’t agree with much of what these progressive/woke nuts say and do, they have been fearful of being called a name - and find it hard to make common cause with conservatives in this highly polarized environment. This is why you and your Substack colleagues are so “dangerous”, as you are traditional liberals with strong credentials as journalists. Since it is much more difficult to brand you as bigoted hate mongers, (like us conservatives) the technique against you is to call you a right-wing sympathizer, who is “harassing and endangering” these poor little defenseless New York Times journalists. The irony and hypocrisy it takes for people who spend their lives literally trolling the internet for some gotcha moment that allows them to destroy another person to accuse a distinguished journalist like you of being a troll is simply staggering.
Sir, you have my respect and support for your courage and commitment to the values required for the functioning of any democratic republic. I hope you keep a bit of the controlled emotion you displayed in today’s post in the future. We are certainly in a battle for the future of this republic and it will not be won by the timid.
This article is really on the next level, agreed. Ive been posting comments on these articles for like 10+ years and I am officially in a position to judge stuff like that.
Well worth the long read....thanks!
Glenn, you absolutely destroy these "journalists" with facts, logic, and reality. Don't let up... you, Taibbi, Sullivan, Weiss are the only people keeping some of us sane.
Proud to be a founding member of GG's substack and also subscribing to MT. Will go check out Sullivan and Weiss later today.
John McWhorter has been lighting it up, as well.
McWhorter is the only one with a day job in that he teaches at Columbia. I am glad he saw the importance of making his book "The Elect" that he is publishing chapter by chapter on Substack free for all to see because the issues it covers are so important. Be sure to check out his latest appearance on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CbJWi6KkcHs
Branding the Fourth Estate as a failsafe against "anti-democratic maneuvers" is the funniest thing I'll read today.
But the so-called "fourth branch" SHOULD be, in its ideal, another societal "check and balance" on possible chicanery in the other branches of government. It is just that today, most of it seems to be "in the tank" for State power, and therefore a failure of its more noble and necessary function.
Not all of it, though. GG and other "good" actors are, after all, part of the Fourth Estate, too.
To do this week:
- Cancel paid NYT subscription - Done
- Become paid Glenn Greenwald subscriber - Done
- Become paid Bari Weiss subscriber - Done
Yeah, I struggle with cancelling NYT because the breadth of coverage is pretty much unrivaled. Even if I disagree with some of the opinion writers
You can read a certain number of free NYTimes articles. The only thing they write well on is Arts. The war coverage is atrocious. You can’t really believe anything now they are writing about. And after they did the hit piece on Tulsi Gabbard I unsubscribed. Do it, cut the cord!!
I hear you on that. Not sure how to replace it at this point.
...I just can't keep giving them money.
Here’s how it happened for me. I subscribed to The Guardian and downloaded their iPad app. As a subscriber, the content is almost ad-free. I also downloaded apps for Reuters and AP. I read The Guardian first, and the thumb through Reuters and AP to see what I missed. Next, I look through the NYT and WaPo. It turns out there’s very little in NYT and WaPo that I haven’t already seen.
I also read some Substack authors and I never miss Democracy Now!
Try that for a week, and then decide whether NYT, etc., are worth your money and your time.
Recommend Jonathan Turley's site Res ipsa loquitur. https://jonathanturley.org
He's a lion on matters of free speech.
The three of them are really something, aren't they? So different and so smart. And courageous and principled.
And I'm LOVING reading the give-and-take on their sites. It remindes me that there are a lot of very smart people who care deeply about the things I care about, principally free speech an the open exchange of ideas.