740 Comments

Glenn opposed over-reach and sacrifice of civil liberties in original GWOT (global war on terror), a position shared by (many) liberals and opposed by (most) conservatives way back then. Now Glenn opposes over-reach and sacrifice of civil liberties in DWOT (domestic war on terror), a position shared by (almost all) conservatives and opposed by (almost all) liberals. I think we should tip our collective hat to Glenn for his principled consistency.

Expand full comment

Its sad that we have to celebrate journalists actually behaving like journalists but here we are.

The devil always loved vanity the best.

Expand full comment

... tip our collective hat to Glenn for his principled consistency.

Mr. Greenwald's actions are the antithesis of consistency. First he supports liberals, then he supports conservatives. He should pick a side and stick with it. You may argue that he has been consistent on his principles, and that may be true, but if you aren't willing to support your side when it is wrong, then your support doesn't mean very much.

Expand full comment

This is the opposite of correct. If you aren't willing to *criticize* your side when it is wrong, you have no principles, and are a liability to everyone that participates in a democratic republic.

Expand full comment

Yes and I have noticed carlson doing that these days. He was such a boy when the Bush/Gore countdowbn was going on. I still have to pinch myself to realize how much he has changed. It is qyite remarkable. He now seems to be getting much of his material from Greenwald these days.

Expand full comment

That's your problem, not Glenn's. He's on the side of principles. Not on the side of some labeled Party or cultural camp.

Expand full comment

It's also Glenn's problem, because both liberals and conservatives know they can't really trust him not to tell the truth.

Expand full comment

And independents like myself love him for telling the actual truth instead of the party line truth.

Get your head out of your fucking ass.

Expand full comment

You love him now yes. But when he becomes a target for deadly retaliation where will you be. People want a brave leader but they do not protect that person.

Expand full comment

Ill be right here in Norcal with the rest of the gun-toting conservatives in CA.

Expand full comment

(He's fooling with you.)

Expand full comment

Why do you want Glenn not to tell the truth? Or are you just being facetious and am I missing the sarcasm?

Expand full comment

What I want has nothing to do with it. Someone who tells the truth is always going to be distrusted by both sides.

Expand full comment

Which is fine by me as long as they stick to principles.

Expand full comment

Wait a minute. You actually meant to say what you said?? As a criticism?

Expand full comment

Yes, you have been fooled by one of this forums excellent satirists. (Join the club!)

Expand full comment

The lack of cheekiness concerns me.

Expand full comment

How are people even liking this? Is this some kind of Tribalism Over Truth movement? Because if it is, that's how I know humanity is not worth saving.

Expand full comment

Yes true. Neither side owhns him. substack is so far independent enough to host him. But then they have not come down hard on substack as the others have their own problems right now.

Expand full comment

"can't . . . trust him not to tell the truth" would mean he tells the truth, and they know they can't trust him not to. Do you get stupider than this? I can't wait to find out. *Searching*

Expand full comment

Fuck them.

Problem solved.

Expand full comment

You wouldn't know the truth if it slapped you upside your vapid head.

Expand full comment

(And you wouldn't know the satire if it.....)

Expand full comment

I’m printing out this post and framing it on my wall.

Expand full comment

There is no "TRUTH!" As Jesus said to Pilate, "My truth is not yourtruth."

Expand full comment

He pays dearly for that. Most are too afraid.

Expand full comment

Disagree. One should be sticking to principles, not some tribalistic “side”.

The current DNC democrats have nothing in common with what the definition of liberalism used to be: “ willingness to respect or accept behaviour or opinions different from one's own; openness to new ideas. a political and social philosophy that promotes individual rights, civil liberties, democracy, and free enterprise.”

Expand full comment

Many people stick to principles they cherish. Perhaps most of these are just IDEOLOGY the veil - the mask - that covers the REAL.

Expand full comment

You mistakenly select the wrong binary choice. Glenn isn't aligned right v left. He's liberty v authoritarian oppression. Because his political ideology is primarily to the left many in the political left see him as a traitor and apostate. They do this because they, too, see only the right v left binary choice.

Expand full comment

Pick a side and stick with it or you’re not principled?

That’s fucking retarded.

Never mind picking sides can eat my ass.

Expand full comment

Greenwald supports intellectual honesty, not an ideology.

Expand full comment

I 100% disagree. Glenn calls out anyone who is full of shit or massive hypocrites.

Lately (since about 08) thats been the DNC.

I may not agree with Glenn politically but I find him to be arguably the most consistent journalist out there along with Brian Krebs and Rob Wolchek.

Expand full comment

"sides" are a trick of Oligarchy; they cynically tug on the strings of tribalism, so we fight amongst ourselves, and we don't see what they're up to. I prefer Truth to Tribalism. Bush 1 = Clinton = Bush 2 = Obama = Biden, as far as I can tell.

Expand full comment

I believe you've caught your limit here NoSuch. Reel in your line and come back tomorrow.

Expand full comment

If that’s their day job, they shouldn’t quit.

Expand full comment

I’ll endeavor to distract the authorities if they promise to continue!

Expand full comment

Is this satire?

Expand full comment

I can't speak for GG, but I think he would say that civil liberties are his "side," not a political party.

Expand full comment

Partisan silliness

Expand full comment

This is about loyalty to the truth.

Expand full comment

Excellent job! Look at the length of the thread consisting of folks who claim to be a discerning bunch.

Expand full comment

Glass houses, bro. You’ve said some dumb shit too.

Expand full comment

I'm listening...

Expand full comment

As stated.

Expand full comment

You sure? Next time look for an invisible smiley.

Expand full comment

Best caricature of a corporate Democrat ever. So morally smug he regards his own hypocrisy as a virtue. Brilliantly done, sir.

Expand full comment

Excellent sarcasm, bravo.

Expand full comment

Where is your evidence that "almost all liberals" support a domestic war on terror? I don't, and I'd assume, for example, that you'd label me a "liberal" as I value science, civil rights and justice, protection of the environment and public commons, fair taxation - and oppose the military-industrial complex's stranglehold on the treasury, and corporate cash's control over elections and policy.

Expand full comment

Sounds like we share at least some views! When capital D Democratic politicians encourage the dominant social media platforms to censor certain views, I view that as fertile soil for over-reach and compromise of civil liberties. Matt Taibbi has written about this repeatedly. And how is Facebook's previous censorship of "Let's not rule out lab leak" aging? And the Ohio chapter of the ACLU stated that a police officer "murdered" someone who was endeavoring to stab someone. I thought ACLU supported presumption of innocence. But you are right that I lack empirical data.

Expand full comment

Yes, this shows the problem with labels, which become so loosely applied that they become almost useless. I agree ... far too many Dem. partisans are fine with censorship these days, and increasingly tolerant of compromises of civil liberties. The Patriot Act of 2001 really set the stage, and had bipartisan support, with only 63 D's and 3 R's voting against it in the House, and only Russ Feingold voting against it in the Senate. Though it was a response to the 9/11 attack, it was clear that it was a broad attack on civil liberty generally.

The corporate media, much of which is supposedly "liberal" in orientation, are first and foremost the protectors of a system that maintains order for concentrated financial power. Fox and MSDNC , et al, differ only in the same ways that the two major parties differ- i.e. on matters that are part of "the culture wars", for example. I see the culture wars themselves as primarily maintained to keep the regular people in their respective camps...divided over their feelings about race relations/gender/sexuality and a few other issues ("God, gays and guns!"); and dang it, that strategy, used for decades, still works!

The majority of D's are not truly interested in democracy, in my view, any more than the R's in many cases. They are the "soft liberal" (i.e. liberal on social identity issues, primarily). But I don't want to fall into the broad-brush trap of labeling, either.

In any case, media do what they do, and the shallowness of so much of the population is fertile ground for those who sow and spin narratives to gain unthinking acceptance - and language is cheapened in the process.

Speaking of the ACLU, they don't ALWAYS get it right (in my opinion), but they usually do, and they did get it right on the Patriot Act and other such infringements.

Expand full comment

Fox News is considered objective (see the reports by Harvard University's Shorenstein Center on the Media, for example). Their opinions are not, but are kept separate from the news programs.

Expand full comment

Good comment, Jack. I largely agree. Media are addicted to sowing and spinning narratives, regardless of factual accuracy. And far too much of population is thirsty only for caricatures that align with their pre-existing views. Your point on danger of labels is well taken and good advice. Thanks, and have a good day.

Expand full comment

Media is addicted to lying

Expand full comment

What makes you think they are media and not PR? Here are NBC employee donations. One donation alone to ACTBLUE from one of their employees dwarfs all their conservative donations from all employees.

https://public.tableau.com/app/profile/patrick.henry1776/viz/NBCPoliticalDonations2020/Sheet1

Expand full comment

"Media" is addicted to advertiser support, and lies, as well as soap operas and "The Bachelor" get great numbers...Truth fails dismally in the ratings camp....so, they lie to stay alive not to inform

Expand full comment

Seriously!

Expand full comment

No, the problem is the media forgot who they were working for just like the politicians.

Both of them think they are working for themselves and really they work for us.

Expand full comment

Many before me have said it, but I'll repeat it again, There is no "left" in America."

Expand full comment

So if the "actual left' isnt voting DNC and the conservatives arent voting DNC how did Joe Biden get 12m more votes than Obama did?

Expand full comment

fraud

Expand full comment

Hummm!!!! an early Christmas present from Google, Facebook, WAPO, NYT, etc...

Expand full comment

why? because of fear promoted by the media and people like Chomsky that Trump was the next Mussolini, although COVID gave Trump the greatest chance to be a dictator. Yet, he was too lazy and stupid to take it.

Expand full comment

They voted against Trump.

Expand full comment

1. Independents are the largest voter bloc. 2. Democrats tend to vote Dem. 3. Among Indies and Dems, many who think of themselves as liberal or even progressive will make what they consider "lesser of evil" choices. 4. Trump was uniquely unsuited for the Presidency and deemed by many of the electorate, "an existential threat". Neither McCain ('08) nor Romney ('12) stimulated such antipathy/fear. And it's not as if conservatives were uniformly thrilled by Trump, either. As you know, some had attacked Trump and actively supported Biden. (Which says a lot about both).

Expand full comment

Then the Dems MUST have MASSIVELY cheated.

Expand full comment

The liberal mainstream media is all over it in support of going after "terrorists" -- read Trump voters. And before I deleted facebook, liberals of all ilk were claiming they would have to be "re-educated" and were essentially terrorists. LOTS of that on there. And obviously Pelosi, that idiot, says that crap constantly. That the "insurrection" -- give me a break -- was because those people cared more about their "whiteness" than they did democracy. Asshole woman. And the politician liberals are certainly using it and lying about it as they always do. Liberal politicians are much bigger liars, though politics mostly is a sad state of affairs. That protest had nothing to do with white supremacy and everything about election integrity which is a joke right now. There is plenty of evidence out there. I'm grateful you don't support it.

Expand full comment

How the fuck can you be a liberal and support the DNC?

What evidence of success can you point to in the major cities around the US where thy have had total control since the late 1960s?

Expand full comment

I'm not sure why this is directed to me, as I don't support the DNC and eschew labels, particularly "liberal" given today's use of the term. And I'm definitely not here to defend that Party.

Expand full comment

It was a rhetorical question in general. I just cant understand what they are pointing to and saying "success, look how good we can do".

Expand full comment

Exactly. Nobody wants to be Baltimore. Or Chicago. Or Seattle. Or New York. Or Philadelphia. Or Portland. Or Detroit. Or San Francisco....

Expand full comment

Sounds like a lot of conservative values to me

Expand full comment

If one moves beyond the labels and looks to basic values, one easily finds lots of things in common with a whole lot more people. It's the labels, and then, secondly, the opinions & feelings about various cultural questions that tend to make people think in terms of "us" vs them.

Expand full comment

"I value science, civil rights and justice, protection of the environment and public commons, fair taxation - and oppose the military-industrial complex's stranglehold on the treasury, and corporate cash's control over elections and policy."

You may have kind of stepped in it by suggesting that those values are unique to being a, "liberal". But as you note here, those are shared values. Conservatives are not illiberal. Many are actually classic liberals.

And yet, the DNC and their PR department (MSM) like to talk about, "conservatives" like we are uniquely opposed things like, "science" and "democracy" but nothing could be further from the truth.

They have expanded the culture war because they need someone to be the bad guy. In their infinite wisdom, they have decided that villifying 74 million people is a good plan to further a power grab.

Expand full comment

Classical liberals may have to leave the Democratic Party and hold their noses and join up with the other major party. If they actually listened to what learned conservatives say, they might find that they have a lot in common with conservatives.

Expand full comment

The left is the illiberal platform now.

Expand full comment

At the risk of again using labels- which serve more to confuse than to inform, I don't want to argue that those values I list (among others) are uniquely liberal. But I take issue with the suggestion that one side of the duopoly is more responsible for the culture wars than the other, or is more inclined to use them to further partisan goals.

Generally speaking, I've found that Republicans (ostensibly, the Party of conservatives) were at least in the past, far more likely to be supportive of foreign wars, of squelching democratic governments that didn't toe the Empire's line, etc.; and are still more ready to embrace restrictions on voting, are more tolerant of private cash's control over elections and policy.... which I see as the fundamental impediment to any form of democracy. This is not to say that some conservatives don't agree, nor that plenty of Democrats are equally undemocratic.

Expand full comment

Both parties are responsible for using the culture war to further a partisan agenda. I just can't think of a time when the operatives of one party was so willing to cast voters on the other side as the villains. And in some cases, they are being prosecuted as such. The culture war is more like character assassination.

The treatment of Capitol rioters and activists are an example for this. After it happened, I remember thinking that the best way they could handle it is to take the same hands off approach that they used for the rioters from last summer. Instead, they decided to make an example out of them.

If Trump incited them to violence, then why are they the ones who are being held without bail in solitary confinement? Why are DNC representatives calling them traitors, insurrectionists and murderers? None of it is true but it persists.

In the hundreds of riots from last summer, I didn't hear about anyone being shot and killed by the police. If it had, it would have blown up. But when it happened to Ashli Babbitt, we are told that she deserved it because she was trying to crawl through a window.

They are now using that single event to expand domestic security and surveillance laws against US citizens. They are using it to suggest that the GOP and their voters are a threat to our, "democracy". They are using phone and bank records without warrants to find these people.

That definitely feels like a bit of an escalation to me. It kind of makes the culture war look tame. Throughout history, both parties have gone out of their way to fuck up and they have both contributed to make our country the greatest in human history.

But in the current state of affairs, left wing establishment operatives are acting like authoritarians who are drunk on power. They aren't even embarrassed about Russiagate. I've never seen anything like it.

Those two events show that equal justice under the law is hilarious bullshit. It is 100% partisan and it should raise alarm bells for all Americans.

At this point, I'm working on the assumption that widespread surveillance is inevitable and that I may end up on a list. It didn't take much to be on the list of suspects from the Capitol riot. If you flew to DC around 1/6 and you purchased something from an FFL, you were a suspect. That is pretty remarkable.

I could care less about what someone calls themselves. Authoritarianism and government interference that violates civil liberties are bad for all of us. If you can agree with that, then I would say that we have enough in common to say that we are fellow Americans. That is enough for me.

Expand full comment

"The dominant strain of American liberalism is not economic socialism but political authoritarianism." - Glenn Greenwald.

The current "DNC left" has lost its freaking mind. I used to be a default liberal before but now am more of a black pilled liberal / right leaning liberal. There's 5 things I am unwilling to compromise - free speech absolutist, pro gun rights, anti-critical race theory/identity politics, anti corporate sponsored mass immigration and anti war. The current "left"/democrats are against all 5 of those and the current "trumpian" right leaning folks are all pro all 5 of those. I am not talking about Liz Cheney/Bush/Rick Snyder/Lincoln Project type "right" - those all supported Biden in the elections anyway. The "supportive of foreign wars, of squelching democratic governments that didn't toe the Empire's line" all supported Biden. That's why more right wingers were supportive of Tulsi Gabbard than the "DNC democrats". Somehow Tucker Carlson was the one who gave voice to Tulsi, Glenn Greenwald, Jimmy Dore, Aaron Mate as compared to CNN/MSNPC.

Here's another example of how the democrats have lost their minds. Bernie Sanders used to be very against illegal immigration. In fact, in 2015, he gave this interview to VOX (as left as they come) where he used to be completely against illegal immigration, used to call it a right wing proposal, illegals coming in and taking away jobs for a dollar or two and so on. But then he did a complete 180 flip when Trump came out against it. Now he's an open border dude. Dude abandoned his principles just because of orange man. That's another sign of the left completely losing their mind and abandoning their principles:

https://youtu.be/vf-k6qOfXz0

Some data:

https://news.gallup.com/poll/321116/americans-remain-distrustful-mass-media.aspx

Media trust by Democrats is at an all time high of 73-76%. Independents is at 35% and Republicans is at the lowest 10%. Aka Democrats are buying whatever propaganda media is selling. That's one of the reasons why vast majority of the Democrats (75%) believe the Russiagate nonsense, Russian bounty hoax, believe Trump told them to drink bleach, believe officer Sicknick was killed by some right winger bashing his head with a fire extinguisher and so on. They believed for last 1.5 year that the China lab leak was just a "right wing conspiracy theory by racists". They claimed to "trust the science" but ended up falling on the wrong side of basically everything. They worship Fauci despite him being wrong on every single thing. They claim to be against "corporations" and the "rich" meanwhile their movement is being literally sponsored by the Wall Street and big tech.

"You know how to tell you're the good guys? When all the massive multi-national corporations that have questionable hiring, firing, healthcare, worker's rights, and safety track records, when celebrities with a huge problem of pedophilia and sexual misconduct promote and sponsor your cause and your Revolution has corporate sponsorship. At least this revolution has dope corporate sponsors!" - from a Tim Pool tweet.

96% of the media are registered democrats, vast majority of Hollywood, Big Tech, social media, wall street and so on support the Democrats. Even punk rock bands are now supporting Democrats and Fauci. Meanwhile claiming to be the "resistance" and "counter culture" LOL. Even Walmart, Amazon, Jeff Bezos is supporting the "raising the minimum wage" and "raising taxes" because they know that's an easy way for them to get rid of small business competition who can't afford it and can't find loopholes in the taxes or hire expensive lobbyists to lobby politicians.

Basically instead of helping the American people and investigating the lab leak, they wasted time on hoaxes after hoaxes. In this article itself, Glenn mentions how this stuff is being pushed by none other than Russiagate king Adam Schiff who has zero credibility left.

Among the conservative voters only ~4% have positive thoughts about Qanon. 31.4 percent found the movement “unfavorable,” 43.3 percent said they had “never heard” of QAnon, and 21.3 percent were undecided.

How about the BlueAnon crowd? How big is it? What percent of the Dem voters are aware of getting brainwashed daily and being in a cult?

https://www.westernjournal.com/new-poll-shatters-lefts-qanon-narrative-4-trump-supporters-believe/

https://www.suffolk.edu/-/media/suffolk/documents/academics/research-at-suffolk/suprc/polls/issues-polls/2021/2_22_2021_marginals_pdftxt.pdf?la=en&hash=90BD0E21168399E259262CD994978737F5D7F929

And these data are from left leaning sources like USAToday. I would say vast majority of the Democrats have turned into BlueAnon while very few right wingers have turned into Qanon.

The definition of liberalism used to be "willingness to respect or accept behaviour or opinions different from one's own; openness to new ideas.

A political and social philosophy that promotes individual rights, civil liberties, democracy, and free enterprise." I don't see anything in common with this and the current Democrats. If you support this old definition, then hate to break it to you that both you and me are in the same boat and actually considered "right" by the current "DNC democrats".

Expand full comment

It's true that Eisenhower used the CIA (created by Truman) to murder a lot of people and that G.W. Bush invaded Iraq for no reason; but the neo-cons are an aberration. JFK got us into Vietnam. LBJ lied about a "Tonkin Gulf Incident". Clinton bombed Serbia. Obama promoted and armed Islamists to overthrow Assad and he was part of the NATO gang that destroyed Libya and destabilized Europe. So, it really can't be said definitively that the GOP is more bloodthirsty than the offspring of the KKK. Please explain how Republicans are restricting voting. Most of the Democrat's lies about voter suppression assume that blacks are either born at home with no birth certificates or that they are too stupid to figure out how to get photo identification. It is not wise to promulgate disproven lies, Jack.

Expand full comment

I cannot help but comment on your belief that Republicans are (were) more supportive of foreign wars. Wilson and FDR were presidents when the USA joined the wars against Germany. JFK and LBJ got America into Vietnam. Bill Clinton joined NATO in bombing Serbia. Obama used mercenaries and Islamic radicals to unsuccessfully unseat Assad. During his administration, the USA once again engaged with NATO to destroy Libya and destabilize Europe. George W. Bush, the globalist, with his globalist allies in both parties, was the exception to the rule. How far back must we go to find the war-crazy Republicans? Now that Cheney and McCain are dead, the GOP is very different than you imagine.

Expand full comment

exactly -- and it's this "fear environment" so incredibly embraced by the President's entourage, that causes a new sense of separatism and division. A "White Supremacy" brings images of white hoods, horses and torches to burn... Maybe the Dems use focus groups to select their talking points!

Expand full comment

EVERYTHING you name (including science) is valued by the RIGHT in the U.S. today.

Expand full comment

I just don't see the evidence for much of that. To the extent that it's true, however, count me happy. In any case, further to this, what then, do you think distinguishes the Left and Right?

Expand full comment

The left has embraced illiberalism, interventionist foreign policy and globalism. They are the new incompetent war hawks. They are still in favor of Keynesian economic policy with a focus on wealth redistribution and selective equitable outcomes. They continue to focus on diminishing State power in an effort to consolidate it through the federal government.

The right has embraced liberalism, non-interventionist foreign policy and national sovereignty. Many conservatives seem to have largely shifted away from supply side economics to a hybrid that inudes Keynesian principles. Wealth redistribution is not a core tenant but equal opportunity still is. Corporate power and oligarchy is considered to be antithetical to a healthy society. Federalism with less centralized power is still a core tenant. Many conservatives want the never ending wars to stop. National security agencies are definitely not in favor after the last four years of Russiagate.

In some ways, the parties have swapped some underlying principles while they retained others. That aligns with a shift in voting demographics and changing attitudes for the voting populace. That is my take anyway. The shift in the last twenty years has been monumental.

Expand full comment

Re-reading that, it occurs to me that I didn't say anything nice about the left. That is largely because the only good thing that they had going for them was at least some sense of protecting some civil liberties. Now that they have abandoned that, they have lost any redeeming qualities that they once had.

Expand full comment

It isn't any "left" that has embraced interventionism, imperialism and war. Again, the problem of using labels- they have now become so subjective (as evidenced by your first statement) that they're meaningless.

It's also a mistake to make sweeping assertions such as about consolidation of federal power. As one some might call "lefty", I don't buy it. Indeed, I believe power should rest as closely to the people as possible... i.e. even at the municipal level, in some matters, in the states on others, and for some, in the federal , all per the Constitution.

But governance doesn't work well when it is not representative at ANY level; i.e. when private capital (corporate & other concentrated cash) determines who is elected and how policy is written into law. THAT is the fundamental problem. And both parties operate within that framework, which means that their representatives can not break from the status quo- the stranglehold held by private interests who have benefited from that status quo.

Expand full comment

For some reason, the institutional left has embraced old GOP warhawks. That is baffling to me. But it is at least notable that right-wing voters no longer want them. The GOP owes the world an apology for Dick Cheney.

Expand full comment

It was not opposed back then by Rand Paul, so there are some conservatives who always got it. Rand was my choice for those very reasons.

Expand full comment

Good point.

Expand full comment

Only if he opposes *all* government violations of rights

Civil libertarian + socialism is such an obvious contradiction - in practice and in theory it’s hard to believe it can exist within one person. But hey, there it is.

Expand full comment

I don't think GG is a Socialist. I think he is a Classical Liberal.

Expand full comment

I believe he would call himself a “progressive”

It’s a euphemism. Progressives want an interventionist government that redistributes wealth and is involved in how productive enterprises conduct themselves.

Chomsky is the same. Claims to be classic liberal or anarcho-syndicalist but his actual arguments are garden variety marxist arguments. Has no problem with enslaving the productive for the benefit of the not so productive

Lots of talk about “ democracy”. This obscures the real issue which is that of liberties. 51% of people voting away my property is not a validation of the theft. It’s still theft.

Democracy is where people who cannot conduct their own lives take control over the people who can.

Expand full comment

Check out the pictures on your money. Hint…it ain't your picture.

Expand full comment

So the government forcibly takes over the monetary system and by virtue of that act whatever you produce becomes theirs?

Dude you would be better off saying nothing than something this brain dead

Expand full comment

Actually Pete I take that back. Keep going, it is testament to everyone why governments in one year are expanding power at an alarming pace and will get away with it

Expand full comment

Who do you think creates the monetary system…the tooth fairy?

Expand full comment
Comment deleted
Expand full comment

“I disagree on democracy”

Which part? If 51% of the people vote to eliminate the First Amendment is that legitimate? If not…why not?

No, Milton Friedman did not argue that. What he did say is that there is danger in government being involved in the economy because they create a coalition with business and that is what creates the potentially “feudal” outcomes.

Without the force of government, a business has zero means of being coercive. None.

Expand full comment

“ Without the force of government, a business has zero means of being coercive. None.”

Errr…private security goons?

Expand full comment

If you don't know whether he is left or right of the spectrum, that means he is doing his job.

Expand full comment

You might be right but I not think you are

Expand full comment

I appreciate your point. Very much. I note, however, that it can be a big ask for folks committed to leftist governance to see the contradictions. They don't believe in voluntary exchange ("free markets"). That's what makes them lefty. But otherwise believe in individualism and "freedom".

George Orwell was an obvious proponent of liberal democracy, but even he stuck to "democratic socialism" to the end of his life. Even he couldn't see the contradictions. Maybe he would have gotten there had he not succumbed to tuberculosis (?) at age 49 (?).

Expand full comment

Since production and exchange are primary aspects of human existence on planet earth, especially in a civilized society, saying that one cannot freely exchange with others without the permission of so ruling class, yet simultaneously claiming to be an advocate of liberty, is such an obvious contradiction and incoherent philosophically, I cannot take it seriously

Expand full comment

What "free markets"? Perhaps if there had never been a need for people to organize governments to protect individual rights (incl. property) and provide collective defense, to efficiently/effectively create infrastructure, emergency services, public health protections, etc., and everything was either done or not purely as a function of whether "the market" had produced it, then perhaps we'd still have a "free market". It would be a very different world than the one we're in.

But as it is, that isn't the case. So it is that even the first ripples of 'interference' in the otherwise "free market" skewed it. For example, government creation of the federal highway system more or less set the tone for auto-dominated transportation, and along with its placement of water and sewer and other utilities shaped how cities were built, which land was more valuable / usable, which companies (people) would profit and which would go under, etc. etc. etc.

The "free market" , except in very limited usage, is a complete myth.

Expand full comment

You leave the dreadful impression you’ve never read anything about the philosophy behind a constitutional republic.

The ONLY proper role of government is the DEFENSE of individual rights. That’s it.

Since I haven’t argued for the elimination of such a government, either you are hearing voices in your head or maybe you are arguing with someone else.

Expand full comment

'Now Glenn opposes over-reach and sacrifice of civil liberties in DWOT (domestic war on terror), a position shared by (almost all) conservatives...' Huh? Since when have conservatives ever opposed the expansion of the surveillance state, or the powers of law enforcement?

Expand full comment

There were always conservatives who opposed it like Rand Paul or Mike Lee, but establishment war mongering Republicans were for it at the time. Most are not now.

Expand full comment

The same shitlord RNC lifer-types we now see all over the DNC like rats on a carcass.

These people dont want to serve the people they want to empire build. They aren't even for the parties they are for themselves.

Expand full comment

Yes, I cannot believe the hubris of some of these elitist pro establishment Republicans. Just like the Democrats, they like them vs. us and know more than we do how we should live.

Expand full comment

Yes, there were corporate Republicans like Duncan Hunter, corrupt to the core, who stabbed conservatives in the back. I am sick of them.

Expand full comment

One or two more election cycles will destroy the old guard Republican establishment, I am convinced. The Republican establishment has been warmongering since WWII. It would stand to reason that it will take a few new voter drubbings to destroy the Statist rot.

Expand full comment

GOP establishment was full of corrupt warmonger. But Republicans have always been junior partners in the growing oligarchy in this country. The Dems are the senior partners.

Expand full comment

You could be right! I hope so. They are still causing a lot of damage.

Expand full comment

As if it was a natural act of the reflexes, most conservatives supported (and continue to support) the whistle-blowing of Edward Snowden and every Democrat I know believes he should be hanged by the neck until dead for exposing the lies and treachery of the Obama administration.

Expand full comment

You probably know too few D's. I used to be one... and along with many others I know, applaud Snowden. But it's a mistake (IMO) to cast Snowden in partisan terms. The abuses he uncovered have been going on for a long time under many administrations. But in a way you're right... far too many D's / liberals will hate or at least abandon Snowden (and particularly Assange) because their releases made some D's look very bad.

Expand full comment

I dont agree with pardoning Snowden for a variety of reasons (chief among them that I havent seen all the evidence).

I also struggle with how that was handled and more and more it seems like it was done to win elections, just like everything is in the USA.

Expand full comment

Most conservatives support pardoning Snowden? Name one in congress that has.

Expand full comment

But libertarians own the "conservative" party now (or are at least ascendant), and libertarians to a person support pardoning Snowden. The politicians of the "conservative" party will follow their voters sooner rather than later.

Expand full comment

I mostly agree. I might phrase it this way: the neo-cons are clearly heading towards oblivion (Bill Kristol, anyone?). I think that does result in the GOP trending more libertarian.

Expand full comment

I don't know what it means to be a 'conservative' or a 'libertarian' anyway. Their positions have morphed into a jumble of hypocritical and contradictory talking points.

Expand full comment

I'm no political scientist, but, in 2021, a 'conservative' seems to be someone who believes in the constitution of the United States, small government, and who is an enemy of public schools' programming children to hate the country. A libertarian, has always been, and always will be, someone who believes in liberty and freedom. Someone opposed to the war on drugs most likely could be considered a libertarian. Someone who believes that parents should have a voice in how their children are raised and educated would most likely be considered libertarian. A libertarian and/or a conservative is certain to be disgusted by the power of the teachers unions to keep children from being educated and both libertarians and conservatives most certainly are disturbed by the "cancel culture" and how only leftist, racist, and radical views are allowed to be voiced on social media and in most of the media. It is only the term "liberal" that has changed. A classical liberal was a free-thinking individual capable and willing to consider new ideas. Liberals have been lost and ignored in modern politics. They have been co-opted by progressives, communists, and anarchists. They no longer have a voice in either of the major political parties.

Expand full comment

Rand Paul was personally requesting Snowden and Assange pardons:

https://thefederalist.com/2020/12/17/rand-paul-president-trump-should-pardon-edward-snowden/

Expand full comment

I notice that Trump did nothing. He could have owned the Dems by doing that…but he’s just a blowhard and a fake.

Expand full comment

Him not pardoning them was a major disappointment to me. While the buck stops with him, blame also goes to Mitch for threatening him with impeachment if we went further with it which was reported on January 19th.

How’s he a fake though? He never promised pardons of Assange Snowden. So it’s not like he didn’t “deliver” on it.

Expand full comment

I need an editor. I should have said that all the conservatives I personally know support Snowden.

Expand full comment

pretty select sample - giving you credit for good taste in people.

Expand full comment

Rand Paul was personally requesting Snowden and Assange pardons:

https://thefederalist.com/2020/12/17/rand-paul-president-trump-should-pardon-edward-snowden/

I know a lot of people from the_donald who wanted them pardoned too.

Expand full comment

Why do you think war criminals like Bush, Liz Cheney, Lincoln Project neocons etc all supported Biden?

Expand full comment

Real conservatives have always opposed it just like Friedman opposed Vietnam, and Norquist opposed Bush spying in 2006.

SEE BELOW

------------

"Public hearings on this issue are essential to addressing the serious concerns raised by alarming revelations of NSA electronic eavesdropping." -- Grover Norquist, president, Americans for Tax Reform

Expand full comment

Funny how these conservatives you speak of are never the ones elected to office. And what a courageous statement from the great Norquist.

Expand full comment

Its not funny, its sad.

But what does that have to do with anything?

This is why I specified "TRUE CONSERVATIVES" instead of "SHITLORD BUSH LIFER CRIME FAMILY".

Its incredible how one or two powerful families like the Bushs/Clintons/Kennedys can shape entire generations of thought.

Expand full comment

And how entrenched their support becomes among hangers-on.

Expand full comment

I am friends with Grover. But then I was the bug on the wall at the vast right wing conspiracy.

Expand full comment

They oppose surveillance state targeting them and oppose Democratic politicians encouraging social media platforms to censure statements made by conservatives.

Expand full comment

Ron Paul and Pat Buchanan come prominently to mind.

Expand full comment

Since never. They turned a blind eye to everything in the Patriot Act and the massive increase in government power pushed through by Darth Vader (Cheney)

Expand full comment

As soon as their own ox started to be gored. “Law and Order”conservatives indeed.

Expand full comment

Yes we should. He has paid dearly for his stance on all this. They are out to get him particularly since the #Snowden papers were given to him. They want to have him pay for that with his life. But he has become too VISIBLE to assassinate. For now anyway. Many have gone under the earth before him for less.

Expand full comment

Actually, the "liberals" in Congress at the time said they opposed the GWOT, sometimes, but then would vote for Bush's anti-terror measures lest they be accused of "aiding the terrorists." Both R's and D's vote to strengthen their election changes and enlarge their donors' coffers.

Expand full comment
Comment deleted
Expand full comment

(Except 1 (one), of course.)

Expand full comment
Comment deleted
Expand full comment

(I was referring to GG's Brazilian solon spouse. Sorry my humor wasn't clear.)

Expand full comment

Unfortunately for the Left, there aren't enough back stabbing Mitt Romneys around to support their insane delusions.

They know that they committed election fraud, but they can't understand how they were able to get away with it. That's why they're trying to smear anyone who might oppose them as a right wing extremist or a terrorist. By the way, those Antifa assholes who burned down your building? Those aren't terrorists.

The ballots will be audited and the truth shall be known. That fact scares the hell out of them.

Joe Biden did not receive 12 million more votes than Barack Obama. They got overzealous with their "counting".

Expand full comment

Right on!! Audit the votes. Prove the fraud. Nothing else matters til that corrupt election is exposed.

Expand full comment

Just like the covid lab leak stuff now finally becoming main stream, maybe next will be the elections…

Expand full comment

The only way that thug cop Derek Chauvin was even indicted was to burn down a police station.

Expand full comment

Many of those votes were anti-Trump. This argument makes me laugh.

Expand full comment

Many of those votes were dead too.

Expand full comment
Comment deleted
Expand full comment

I voted for Trump twice and couldn't agree with you more. If he runs again, the Democrats will win.

Tulsi wouldn't run as a Republican. She's an actual principled and real liberal like Greenwald. Both of them favor leftwing policy that doesn't have a home in the GOP tent, but both are highly respected by millions of conservatives for their commitment to the principles of liberalism.

Expand full comment

Gabbard is nothing more than another lapdog. If she had any guts she wouldnt have endorsed Quid Pro Joe a few months after her own party pulled McCarthyism on her.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/mar/19/tulsi-gabbard-ends-presidential-campaign-backs-bid/

Expand full comment
Comment deleted
Expand full comment

I literally linked her endorsing Biden on Mar 19, 2020.

This was a mere three months after she sued the other party elite for McCarthyism.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/tulsi-gabbard-sues-hillary-clinton-defamation-over-russian-asset-remark-n1120176

Expand full comment

Unfortunately, the Democrats also don't have room in their neoliberal tent for Tulsi Gabbard.

Expand full comment

We're all neoliberals in the US. I would call it an authoritarian tent, except it's not really a tent anymore - it's more of a "this is the party line" hyper conformity thing. It's fraying, I hope. I like the lefties on this sub stack except for the occasional actual Leninist I encounter (like earlier today) and am hopeful actual liberals (as in people who are committed to liberalism, not the political sense of the word although that, too) will rise up. They are essential to the proper functioning of these United States.

I don't think my party is a hell of a lot better, frankly. Some 40% now think I'm basically a communist and perhaps part of a child sex trafficking ring due to not having a tattoo of God Emperor Trump on my right butt cheek. I was almost beat up in a bar in Savannah after the election for not agreeing that "The election was stolen!" Thankfully, there are actual authoritarianism is slightly less fashionable in the GOP, although traitors like Mike Flynn suggesting martial law are definitely authoritarians, and Trump should have been impeached for entertaining those ideas in my view. I voted for him twice, but despise him after that. Disgusting.

These are troubling times. God help us.

Expand full comment

A "real liberal" is not what people call liberals today. A "real liberal" stands for freedom for all, and that means not supporting leftists.

Expand full comment

All the real liberal hippies from the 60s in Berkeley that I know seem amazingly close to conservative libertarian views but with the change that defense spending should be done on social spending.

Expand full comment
Comment deleted
Expand full comment

Well... Trump has always had the same ideas, and they're far outside of the contemporary Democratic Party. He may have been registered as a Dem at various times in hyper Democrat NYC, but that doesn't mean that he ever fit that well in with that party. Tulsi actually favors a lot of leftwing policy ideas. She isn't a conservative at all. She could potentially end up being a successful third party candidate. Definitely she is far too outside of contemporary progressive thought to successfully win a Democratic primary.

Expand full comment

No independent voter would ever vote for Gabbard after how she caved to the DNC in 2020.

Expand full comment

"No independent voter that is tired of the tired two party system of bullshit they have been selling us." is what I should have said.

Feel free to vote for the DNC lifer though who toed the party line, I am sure she will really upset the apple cart.

NOT

Expand full comment
Comment deleted
Expand full comment

Trump is far from a Saint, but he was probably pissed at all the payoffs he had to make to liberal New York politicians. Now they are turning on him.

Expand full comment

This is my problem. He complained about the swamp which was dead on but hes just as fucking swamp and just as much of a RINO.

https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/local/detroit-city/2021/01/20/trump-pardons-ex-detroit-mayor-kwame-kilpatrick/3955404001/

Why the fuck else would he pardon a crooked fucking lifer DNC politican on his way out of office.

Expand full comment

"Definitely she is far too outside of contemporary progressive thought to successfully win a Democratic primary."

I am skeptical of this claim. Lay Dem voters are ready, imo, to cast off the Dem establishment just like the Rep voters who came through in 2016.

Expand full comment

I would love to see that happen, but I think the progressives' dominance of the Democratic Party will continue unabated for some time. They're incredibly powerful and wealthy, and also dominate the entire news media, academia and the education industry, and basically all government bureaucracy except for law enforcement. Increasingly, their dominance even stretches into the military. They are by far the most powerful and dominant force in American politics, but their ideas tend to turn most voters off.

Expand full comment

She'd have my vote regardless of the letter after her name. Despite her 2A stance.

Expand full comment

She is ant 2A plus she endorsed Biden and voted present to impeach Trump. Typical democrat.

Expand full comment

All true - and troubling. But I can overlook most of that for her having most publicly called out the witch - which is far from typical for a pol of any stripe (DJT did it, but he really wasn't a politician, although it's most interesting how well he fit into today's politics). That really was a big deal that was quickly bomb holed.

She's far from perfect, but I'd settle for good over perfect. I certainly understand mileage may vary.

Expand full comment

Agreed, Trump needs to sit this next election out. Too much of a lightening rod and that will overwhelm any message.

Plus he's too old.

Expand full comment

Trump wont kiss the party's asses. That alone makes him a better candidate than any of the others.

We want our elected officials to work for US not the fucking parties.

Expand full comment

You think that Trump worked for you? That’s adorable.

Expand full comment

Inadvertently. Anything that pisses off the uniparty is a step in the right direction.

Expand full comment

You just made up a quote that I didn't make and then flippantly attacked me for it.

Today in you might be a moron dnc voter

Expand full comment

But we need him and his most diehard followers to back the anti-State party, so libertarians need to treat him with respect, and not pull a Hillary-deplorables-mistake.

Expand full comment

I find that it is usually sufficient to make it clear that I support his supporters and fair treatment even if not necessarily Trump himself. I have been quite honest from the primary on that I do not and have never liked Trump the man. Part of the reason I took that middle ground position in the 2016 convention process where his supporters were NOT always treated fairly was exactly the reason you state: someday we would have to work with these folks again.

*Most* Trump supporters I deal with get that, and frankly, the ones that do not will be of very limited use going forward.

Expand full comment

Very well said, as usual. (I am comfortable in Trumpian circles, and around those that feel as you do.)

Expand full comment

You are 100% correct - Donald Trump is too damn old. I'm a few months older than he is and I have a hard time just getting around. He's done his bit. Unfortunately, he lost his second term (or it was stolen.) I'm not sure who the Republicans have (Ted Cruz is constitutionally NOT eligible, not to mention he's an asshole) but then Democrats don't have anybody either. By the way, Bernie Sanders is an old man too. So is Pelosi - damn, they're ALL old!!!

Expand full comment

How is Ted Cruz not constitutionally eligible?

Expand full comment

"How is Ted Cruz...?" An old discussion and one I still believe is incorrect. Since I have said it all before, I'll just link to an old article ;-) https://radishsaltant.blogspot.com/2016/04/citizenship-constitution-and-morality.html

Expand full comment

That was a dumb argument on the birther side.

Expand full comment

I 100% disagree even if I cannot stand Trump.

The one and only thing Trump has going for him that no other politician does is that he isnt a lifer piece of shit politician.

Hes brand new to this.

Expand full comment

Trump is, however, a lifer piece-of-shit human being.

Expand full comment

I love him for being so in love with himself that he was willing to throw himself out there into politics and thereby make my dreams of fucking over the uniparty, even in a little way, a reality.

Expand full comment

One of the greatest summaries of DJT politically that I have ever heard.

Expand full comment

Yeah. Credit where it’s due!

Expand full comment

Fuck I wish I could unlike your post and like it again.

Expand full comment

Guess you just have lousy taste in men.

Expand full comment

The thing you said and the thing HBI said are both true.

Expand full comment

I think you just have lousy reading skills.

Expand full comment

People worship war criminals like Bush, Obama, Clintons while calling an open book like orange man a "piece of shit". Amazing. Everyone's a piece of shit to some extent - I prefer those who are open about it which Trump's always been for decades. He's always been a womanizer and a showboater and everyone worshipped him for it, gave him TV shows and Playboy magazine covers for decades until he became a Republican. Then he became worse than Hitler.

Expand full comment

Its kind of crazy but imo both of you are right.

Expand full comment

I dont disagree but also find it odd that he was the least piece of shit among all the other candidates. Crazy times.

Expand full comment

So, you're going to keep voting for Democrats.

Expand full comment

All write in candidates for me lately in national elections.

Expand full comment
Comment deleted
Expand full comment

As much as I like Tim Scotts politics, would the media or you be as gung-ho about him if he was white?

Im tired tired tired of identity being part of the value of the message.

Expand full comment

You're really not very familiar with the conservative world, are you? Perhaps you don't know that the most widely respected conservative intellectual for decades is Thomas Sowell, a black man, and the list goes on. For several years, the most popular Republican was Condi Rice, a black woman whom most people (including Republicans) assume is a lesbian.

Senator Scott is wildly popular in South Carolina and his stature and popularity is growing in the party. Most likely, he'll have a difficult time vaulting into a presidential nomination, but that will be due to the difficulties that almost all politicians have in running for the presidency from the Senate, not his race or ethnicity.

We're really sick of this crap. Get out more, talk to more people, and read more widely.

Expand full comment

I went to school and lived in South Carolina for more than a decade and have family there, I am 100% familiar with Tim, his politics, and conservatives.

Why would you even mention Sowell or Condoleeza when we are discussing Tim Scott? Sowell isn't an elected official and Rice was appointed. Fox News isnt suddenly trotting either of them out on the front page as they are Scott, further proving my point.

Expand full comment

He's simply popular, not being "trotted out."

I mentioned Sowell and Rice due to their popularity. It's relevant.

But of course I'm arguing with someone who thinks conservatives are all racists, so...

Perhaps the guy who refers to Scott as a horse being trotted around has more racist views than we do?

Expand full comment

All I can think of is Sarah Palin when someone brings that up.

Expand full comment

Same theory, different identity :(

Expand full comment
Comment deleted
Expand full comment

Ron DeSantis has been impressing me. Today he signed the bill to ban biological men in competing in women sports. Hard to imagine we need a "law" to ban such nonsense but here we are.

Expand full comment

Anyone who works for the people and not the parties, which sadly means it is a short list.

As an example I thought John Murtha was a piece of shit who I hated his politics but I felt he worked hard for his constituency.

I am sitting here thinking right now and there aren't any candidates at the national level who I truly support.

Expand full comment
Comment deleted
Expand full comment

I was referring to the conservative media suddenly thrusting him to the forefront of their message as a counter to the identity politics of the DNC, Fox News is a great example of this.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/tim-scott-republican-rnc-ad-biden-address

This country has always been about majority rules with minority rights. All of a sudden the DNC wants to change that because a group that makes up 10% of our country votes their way almost exclusively.

IMO, the correct way to fight that isn't to suddenly trot out your own person of color to counter the arguments. It is to counter the arguments with reason and rational thought and remind voters that you support people of all races, all creeds, all sexual orientations and you support them all EQUALLY.

Don't get me wrong, I like a lot of Tim Scott politics, but stuff that was in his bills are just as racist.

https://www.scott.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/JUSTICEActText.pdf

Go check out that link and head down to SEC. 502. COMMISSION ESTABLISHMENT AND MEMBER8 SHIP.

You really think that would be good legislation? You really think we need race-specific commissions in the USA? I thought we defeated segregation with blood and tears in the 1960s.

Why on earth would we want to go back to that? Oh right because the DNC gets to energize their base with and paint the nuts on the "right" as indicative of the entire right so they get even more energization.

The true correction that has to come to politics is a breaking of the two party system. Once we start there, we can begin to see actual organic movements coming together for real change for the people.

Expand full comment

Listen to Richard Baris and Robert Barnes about Tim Scott. Dude was a back stabber who would talk shit about Trump behind his back - despite Trump supporting him on multiple bills and things like opportunity zones. Never trusting him again.

Expand full comment
Comment deleted
Expand full comment

Is there a video or transcript of this? I'd love to see/read it.

Expand full comment