Last Word on Gideon Rose

I don't really know what to say about Gideon Rose's attempt to respond to his blogospheric critics.

Instead, let me observe this. During a week long guest-blogging stint for The Economist Rose seems to have written five blog posts. Two of them -- forty percent of the total -- were dedicated to how left-wing critics of the foreign policy establishment go too far and, in fact, are just as bad as those dastardly neocons. Zero percent of his posts concerned the current neoconservative effort to gin up a war with Iran. National Review's editorial proclaiming that we "will never be safe" until we change the ideology of the government in power in Iraq? Not mentioned. Anything in The Weekly Standard or Charles Krauthammer column or Bill Kristol's many TV appearances worth criticizing? No.

Okay, so maybe liberal bloggers are both more pernicious and more influential than every single conservative opinion journalist in the country. Maybe rebutting Duncan Black is really more important than tackling the right-wing noise machine. But how about Rudy Giuliani? His senior foreign policy advisor Norm Podhoretz published a long article making "the case for bombing Iran" earlier this year. Podhoretz says he thinks Giuliani shares his views on this matter. Giuliani himself penned a foreign policy manifesto for Foreign Affairs (where Rose himself works so surely he's read it) in which he came out of the closet as a raving lunatic whose idea of peace is to plunge the country into an endless series of wars.

Rose didn't see fit to mention that, either.

This is why even someone like me who thinks Glenn Greenwald's views are a bit too far to the left can heartily share his concerns about the nature of the foreign policy establishment. Given that Rose deploys "anti-war bloggers are like neocons" as an insult, I suppose he doesn't admire the neoconservative worldview. And yet he can't seem to muster the energy to actually oppose it, even at the very time it's being espoused more loudly than ever by a leading presidential candidate, and the Bush administration itself is once again taking steps to lay a legal predicate for war with Iran.

Something is wrong here.

Comments

Isn't Glenn Greenwald, who I appreciate immensely, a self-described conservative?

Posted by jerry | August 20, 2007 11:50 PM

Why would you think that Greenwald's views are too far to the left? Basically everything he writes in public is about how far to the right and/or crazy and/or dishonest the current administration/conservative machine/centrist-journalistic establishment is. None of it (that I have read) is an affirmative case for his own ideal society, which is perfectly fine as that's not his beat. I just don't see where you gather the grounds to find that he's further to the left than you.

Posted by Marshall | August 21, 2007 10:09 AM

"Something is wrong here."

I'd say it was the opening sentence of your fifth paragraph. WTF?

Posted by milo | August 21, 2007 10:12 AM

After all these years, we're still in the shadow of the 1960's antiwar movement as it was portrayed by the then-powers-that-be.

Posted by Brian Ulrich | August 21, 2007 10:14 AM

So Matt, what's your substantive disagreement with Greenwald?

Posted by lemuel pitkin | August 21, 2007 10:28 AM

Greenwald of Teh Left? LOL.

Posted by Marginal Max | August 21, 2007 10:28 AM

Exactly what does Glenn Greenwald advocate which is "a bit too far to the left"?

Posted by Eric Jaffa | August 21, 2007 10:42 AM

Same thing here as has been said to many traditional media reporters and pundits who have cried out in agony over blogs: your readers have ALWAYS thought this way about you and your work. They just haven't have a venue to express their complaints that wasn't controlled by the same entities that generated those same complaints.

Now they do. And you don't like it.

Cranky

Posted by Cranky Observer | August 21, 2007 10:45 AM

I suppose neocon lunacy isn't regarded as news. In any case, the 'left and right should get equal time' argument is ineffective and in the short term, leaves things as they are. I think it's much more important to, e.g., stay on the Giuliani/Podhoretz case and make sure that its astonishing looniness is kept front and center.

Posted by MattF | August 21, 2007 10:49 AM

So you Mainstream Media corporate whores don't like bloggers?

Well guess what? We don't like you either.

You're a bunch of liars with no ethics.

You're the reason we got stuck with Chimpy for eight years and the Iraq quagmire for six.

Screw you.

Posted by Tom3 | August 21, 2007 10:50 AM

Yeah, triangulating against Greenwald is rather nonsensical since he judiciously documents the outrageousness of the current administration in a way that crosses left-right boundaries. If you care about the constitution, it's an issue whether you're liberal or conservative.

I haven't seen Greenwald advocate that the US convert to market socialism or the nationalization of the energy industry, so I'm not sure what is particularly ultra-left about him.

What's too far left about supporting habeas corpus, warrants for wiretapping, and actual separation of powers with checks and balances?

Posted by a b | August 21, 2007 10:50 AM

I suspect Matt may not be ready to sign on yet to Greenwald's description of American foreign policy as "imperialistic."

Of course, this doesn't necessarily mean that Greenwald's views on this are to the left of Matt's; it's just a disagreement on the definition of imperialism and whether America's foreign policy meets that criteria -- it doesn't necessarily have anything to do with a left/right divide. I believe Greenwald is or was more of a libertarian and actually is not more to the left than Matt; he just perceives the current environment somewhat differently than Matt.

Posted by Ben Brackley | August 21, 2007 10:54 AM

Greenwald's being too "left" is just a euphemism for his being too angry and thus unserious.

Posted by lowellfield | August 21, 2007 10:57 AM

I supposing posting yourself to the right of that loopy Greenwald helps bone up your bonafides to offer serious criticism.

What makes Greenwald seem like a lefty is that his logic is relentless and he is himself relentless. He doesn't play pattycake with the establishment and try to position himself, Heather-fashion, to the right of anybody in order to beef up his "reasonable" credentials.

Posted by Minion | August 21, 2007 10:58 AM

Matt was an advocate for the invasion of Iraq. Maybe he thinks Greenwald's objection to the idea that the U.S. has a right to invade countries that haven't attacked us is leftist.

Posted by cervantes | August 21, 2007 11:00 AM

I'm going to pile on here.

Greenwald writes, in my opinion, one of the most completely coherent blogs about our withering civil liberties. I've yet to see him stake out any broad policy positions.

Please cite examples. Glenn would.

Posted by Drew | August 21, 2007 11:01 AM

Matthew, are you perchance reacting to Greenwald's repeated references to the U.S. as an imperial power in designating him a leftist?

Greenwald aside, good points, especially regarding the silence about Rudy.

Posted by weldon berger | August 21, 2007 11:06 AM

This "too far to the left" thing is particularly stupid here. Although, I'd bet it is about 90% of the time when I see this expression used. It's a red flag. Never any details, just say they are left & the dirty f*cking hippies are to be dismissed.

Not anymore. New day my dear.

Peace!

Posted by Thomas Jefferson | August 21, 2007 11:06 AM

"his logic is relentless and he is himself relentless"

Rather, over-relentless - I frequently follow his links and find they don't show what he claims. He's a partisan commentator. There's nothing wrong with that, of course. From the above comments you'd think there was something wrong with MY slightly disagreeing with him.

Posted by rilkefan | August 21, 2007 11:07 AM

In the Yglesias world view, if you were right about Iraq (or at least did a 180% turn against it early on), then you have 100% credibility on every foreign policy issue until the end of time and and if you were wrong then you have zero foreign policy credibility until the end of time. Rose's post challenges the Yglesias world view that Iraq is the final word on wisdom.

Posted by Dave | August 21, 2007 11:12 AM

"This is why even someone like me who thinks Glenn Greenwald's views are a bit too far to the left "

you seem to know more about glenn politics than i do - please share... which of his views do you think "are a bit too far to the left?"

Posted by selise | August 21, 2007 11:12 AM

'Too far to the left' really is another case of mistaking volume for pitch.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | August 21, 2007 11:12 AM

I must agree with previous comments. Your triangulation vis-a-vis Greenwald seems nonsensical. Mr. Greenwald's espousal of the primacy of the Constitution seems to be a very conservative position. His description of the United States as an imperial power seems spot on.

Posted by filchyboy | August 21, 2007 11:13 AM

God, this thread has turned out to be annoying. Matt obviously intends "too far to the left" to mean "to the left of me". By definition, you think anyone who is to the left or right of you is too far to the left or right, since you think your own opinions are right.

Now can we please discuss the important topic: the incredible toolishness of Gideon Rose?

Posted by Walt | August 21, 2007 11:14 AM

Matt obviously intends "too far to the left" to mean "to the left of me".

That doesn't really answer the question, though, which is why MY regards GG as being to his left.

Frankly, if GG is too far left for you, you are not of the left, plain and simple.

Posted by JG | August 21, 2007 11:16 AM

Walt-

Yeah, but that still invites the question of "to the left of me" how? It's not obvious to most of us that Glenn is to the left of Matt at all on substantive policy; he's just more, well, shrill.

Confusing differences of tone with difference of substance is one of the media errors that blogs are most often victims of, so it's no surprise that people are puzzled and disappointed when Matt seems to be guilty of it himself.

Posted by lemuel pitkin | August 21, 2007 11:19 AM

Please cite with examples why you think Greenwald is too far left?

Is it because he is bringing up topics (e.g. U.S. Imperialism)that are taboo to the Washington establishment?

I agree with Somerby's thesis that many of our best and brightest bloggers on the left are fearful of rocking the boat too much because they have their eyes on the prize of future punditry in the swamp by the Potomac.

Posted by Hank | August 21, 2007 11:20 AM

I've always thought of Greenwald as a conservative. I don't remember him taking any obvious left positions. I guess, in a few cases, he might come off as libertarian--he does generally advocate for a free market and a free market of ideas--but for the most part, he seems old skool conservative, IMO. The evidence is a little skimpy but I'd place him slightly to the right of Josh Marshall and somewhat to the left of, say, Eugene Volokh.

I'm left to assume you mean:

...being too "left" is just a euphemism for his being too angry and thus unserious...

Or, you mean, he's left because he's gay and not so happy with Bush?

Posted by sc | August 21, 2007 11:20 AM

"Greenwald's being too "left" is just a euphemism for his being too angry and thus unserious."

"I supposing posting yourself to the right of that loopy Greenwald helps bone up your bonafides to offer serious criticism."

Yup.

This strikes me as reflexive triangulation by an upwardly mobile young writer. Matt's a bright guy and I'm generally a fan, but there it is...

Posted by Eric | August 21, 2007 11:26 AM

Maybe making Matt's criticisms while being Matt is a sober position, but making them while being just some other blogger out there and assuming you have the same right to say them is going a bit far to the left. . . . No, I don't think Matt's that bad. Explanations are always nice though.

Posted by sniflheim | August 21, 2007 11:33 AM

I frequently follow his links and find they don't show what he claims. He's a partisan commentator. There's nothing wrong with that, of course. From the above comments you'd think there was something wrong with MY slightly disagreeing with him.

You're right, there's nothing wrong with MY disagreeing with Greenwald -- providing he actually says what he disagrees with. But note that "left" is not synonymous with "partisan", "tendentious", or "claims that people said things that they didn't."

Posted by lemuel pitkin | August 21, 2007 11:33 AM

Wow. Greenwald labeled by Matt as too far to the left (of him)? WTF indeed! Matt's analytical skills are awesome at times, but they are no match for Greenwald's.

Will we see some follow up with examples explaining how GG is a bit too far to the left, or will Matt leave his description of Glenn here like a badly parked Hummer at the mall?

Posted by kennethp | August 21, 2007 11:33 AM

Who cares if Greenwald is "right" or "left"?

Matt's point here is an important one; if Rose and his colleagues are really so concerned about the Neocon agenda why aren't they out there questioning it instead of taking every opportunity to attack the pro-peace bloggers? Where are the Very Serious Critiques of all those anti-peace activists I keep seeing on the TeeVee?

Posted by A Hermit | August 21, 2007 11:36 AM

Hermit-

It matters because this looks like Matt Y. doing exactly what he rightly criticizes Gideon rose for -- pretending to be making an argument about substance while actually objecting to people who express their views too loudly or angrily or who don't have the appropriate credentials. And it's far more disturbing coming from MY than from Rose, because we expect more of him.

Posted by lemuel pitkin | August 21, 2007 11:40 AM

Matt's just saying Greenwald's too far to the left so he can put the mack on Megan.

Posted by darrelplant | August 21, 2007 11:43 AM

Matt starts getting a pay check and he becomes David "Fn" Broder!!!!!!

Posted by Jerry | August 21, 2007 11:48 AM

Matt's point about Rose's fixation on anti-war bloggers is quite interesting and deserves some further analysis and speculation. Why does Rose seem so much more annoyed by anti-war bloggers than by neocon war mongers?

1. Neocon war mongers are in the establishment tent and pissing on them carries too high a professional and personal cost; Rose believes pissing outside the tent at "unserious and shrill" antiwar bloggers carries almost no cost and will increase his standing as a "high Broderist" member of the "serious foreign policy establishment." (See also Ivo Daadler's recent op-ed in the Post which he co-wrote with Kagan -- it was relatively unobjectionable in content, but this co-authorship is another example of such high-Broderism that reaches from the center to the right, but almost never the other way.)

2. Rose feels guilty and defensive about his conduct (his lack of courage and/or judgment about the war) as editor of F.A. and a member of the "serious foreign policy establishment" and thus is far more annoyed by criticisms from those who were right ("for the wrong reasons, of course"). The criticisms of Atrios, Greenwald, Yglesias, Krugman, etc. may be harder to dismiss than critics to the right because there is too much an element of truth in their criticisms that even Rose can recognize (even as he dismisses other criticisms "for excessive shrillness and unseriousness") -- these critics come to close to the truth for Rose's comfort.

3. Rose and his compatriots on the "moderate" side of the foreign policy establishment were unable to keep the neocons out of "their community", and fear that that they will become even more marginalized and less relevant if the "serious foreign policy community" were expanded even modestly to the left.

4. The "left blogosphere" has enough influence at least in the Democratic Party to at least take its views into account (at least a bit) when O'Hanlon, Pollack and others are considered for appointments in a Democratic Administration. Widespread criticism of the obvious disingenuousness of O'Hanlon's and Pollack's recent op-ed may in fact affect their future (in the view of the "serious foreign policy establishment", disingenuousness in a public relations campaign for the "unserious rubes" on behalf of a policy one supports is no sin). Rose is annoyed that his colleagues might suffer any such indignity and is lashing out in his and their defense.

Posted by Ben Brackley | August 21, 2007 11:50 AM

Greenwald makes a good moral case for returning to what was not too long ago the standard version of what foreign policy was about: avoiding war. That the foreign policy establishment has become a factory for casuistical justifications of any war any time is a premise that Rose doesn't even deal with.

However, on another level, Rose fails to deal with the obvious flaw in the consensus going into the invasion of Iraq. The obvious flaw was that not one member of the consensus group grasped that the invasion and the occupation were parts of one whole process, and that the process, to have any chance of success, must be resourced. There were two good estimates before the war about what that meant: Glenn Hubbard's estimate that the war would cost 200 billion dollars, and Shinseki's estimate that the occupation would have to involve 400,000 or more soldiers. Of course, Hubbard was off by a considerable sum upwards - and Shinseki's estimate was never of a guarantee of success. Still, to make the serious case for the war, you had to make the serious case using these parameters. Meaning that you had to make the serious case that the U.S. would support those parameters. Meaning that you would have decried, publicly, with all your might, such things as the testimony of Wolfowitz that the operation would cost 10 billion dollars, tops, and probably be paid for by the Iraqis.

Not a single hawk did. Not a single hawk renounced support for the war when it became evident that the administration had no intention of resourcing it for success. To continue to support it, then, was as criminal as, say, the support given by an engineer to a dam project which he knows is being under-built with substandard materials. Rose, by making his defense of the clerisy depend entirely on his sense that his critics 'on the left' are intolerant (in other words, the those people are mean to me defense) shows that he doesn't really have the intellectual acumen to make policy arguments. He fails the elementary intellectual standard of trying to reply to the best arguments with one's own best arguments, rather than trying to give a deceitful color to the arguments against one. If he or any hawk can give an honest answer to simple practical questions (why did you not protest the public support for Chalabi in the face of his criminal record and evident unpopularity in Iraq? Why did you not protest the Wolfowitz testimony? Why did you not protest the immediate award of economic reconstruction projects to American companies, knowing the uber-depression era level of unemployed in Iraq? Why did you not support a much greater level of coalition support, up to and including allowing coalition partners to actually have a say in governing Iraq, thus blocking uni-lateral American governance?), I've not seen it. There were no protests or analyses going into the disaster or while it was ongoing.

Incidentally, this is being mirrored now. The discussion about withdrawal is so compartmentalized from events happening in Iraq as to seem unreal. Instead of taking the real coordinates we have to deal with - a withdrawal period of at least a year, a state of play of the economy and social welfare structure in Iraq that is bordering on the catastrophic, and directing policy to operate on those two things in tandem, we have a freeze frame view of Iraq in which the bloodbath will come after we withdraw (a laughable caricature of the present day peaceableness in Iraq) and a complete unwillingness to look back and see what once worked in Iraq economically (hint: has to do with a vastly more expanded state sector than we have in the U.S.), leading to a completely unreal debate about Iraq that, once again, treats Iraq as a D.C. fantasy object. So nobody is going to deal with the refugees, the health care disaster, the unemployment, but we will hear the outrage entrepreneurs tell us all about Darfur.

Posted by roger | August 21, 2007 11:53 AM

Well, Matt, after reading the comments here about GG, I do believe either an explanation or an apology is in order.

Probably both. I have every confidence that you are man enough to do that.

Posted by Morris Sheppard | August 21, 2007 11:53 AM

Are you going to tell us which of Glenn's views are to the left of you?

Is it the view that we shouldn't attack unarmed third world countries that pose no threat to us?

Is it the view that Bush should not be treated like a king?

Is it his constant defense of the Constitution?

I follow his blog pretty closely and I have yet to read a leftist view.

So what is it?

Posted by rkrider | August 21, 2007 11:54 AM

I'm a little unclear as to what's so left wing about Glenn Greenwald. Could you explain Matt?

Posted by roberto | August 21, 2007 11:57 AM

This focus on Matt saying Greenwald is to his left is a bit of a temptest in a teapot. Matt is clearly talking about foreign policy, since this is the topic being discussed. While it's true that Greenwald doesn't offer his views on "domestic politics" all that much, Glenn has been writing an awful lot about foreign policy of late. This writing has focused primarily on the views of the Foreign Policy Community...but the sheer volume of words allows us to get a pretty good idea of what Glenn's own foreign policy views are. Foreign policy also happens to be one of Matt's favorite topics.

Basically, Greenwald has been fleshing out a foreign policy position in recent weeks in which he (more or less) advocates for broad reduction in American military and political interference around the world. He doesn't say: "this is what I believe," but it's impossible to read his criticisms of the Very Serious Foreign Policy Community without getting some idea of where Glenn stands on the subjects discussed. Given that Glenn has spent so much time criticizing the foreign policy establishment, is it so shocking that Matt might disagree with one or more of Glenn's criticisms? Matt is finishing up a book on foreign policy, after all. (And I certainly describe Matt as a screaming liberal on foreign policy. Would you?)

This is just a guess, but I imagine that Matt is bit more of an interventionalist (or imperialist, if you like) than Greenwald. This should shock absolutely no one. The whole "left/right" spectrum is often misleading, but I'm pretty confident this is all that Matt meant.

Posted by owenz | August 21, 2007 11:59 AM

Did you people just meet Matt? He is self admitted to being towards the utilitarian side of thinking leading to large conflicts with democratic rulings and individual rights. Greenwald is a civil rights absolutist. Left and right are somewhat vague to describe the difference, but to pretend the Matt has to go out of his way to show that he philosophically disagrees with Greenwald when their writings pretty much show that is kind of foolish.

Posted by Rob | August 21, 2007 12:03 PM

I think it's pretty obvious that "too far to the left" refers to Greenwald's opinion regarding the right to use force and, implicitly, America's right to hegemony.

Lost in all of this is the understanding that the Atlantic is ideologically part and parcel of the FC community Greenwald is excoriating. And the Atlantic *will not hire* (or in Matt's case, rehire) a writer fundamentally opposed to the magazine's most basic ideology.

Posted by Mark | August 21, 2007 12:05 PM

Someone better tell the editors at the American Conservative that they keep on inviting a member of Teh Left to write stuff for their magazine:

http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4SUNA_en___US217&q=%22glenn+greenwald%22+site%3aamconmag%2ecom

Posted by roberto | August 21, 2007 12:07 PM

Just a note...the above isn't a defense of Matt's foreign policy views. Just my interpretation of Matt's words.

In all honesty, I'm a little surprised that people are so shocked that Matt sees himself as being to the right of Glenn Greenwald. Matt supported the war in Iraq. He's no neocon, but I think it's fair to call him a liberal hawk who has been thoroughly chastized by the American experience in Iraq. Once Bush is gone, I'd be willing to bet that Matt advocates for military intervention somewhere in the world within 5 years. I think that puts him to the right of Greenwald.

Matt can obviously speak for himself on this subject, however.

Posted by owenz | August 21, 2007 12:07 PM

Gratuitous swipe at Glenn Greenwald aside (and really, it does seem gratuitous), I think this is an interesting topic: Why do the lefty bloggers seem to piss people off so?

I can see why Established Media might dislike, and even fear, the rightwing blogosphere. The rightwing bloggers seem to truly hate them for doing their job. Take Dan Rather, for instance. His report about Bush and the Guard wasn't wrong; it just pissed the rightwing nutters off, and they attacked. Same with this soldier whose name I cannot remember (Scott Beauchamp or something). The rightwing bloggers went on full assault against the reporting of his story. Not because it was wrong; but because it pissed them off.

I have to say I have not seen the leftwing bloggers behave this way. The lefty blogs I read go after the Established Media for NOT doing its job. These blogs are also amazingly self-correcting: If they get something wrong, they admit it and fix it. Yet it seems to be the leftwing bloggers that come in for the most criticism.

In fact, Established Media seems to embrace people like Michelle Malkin and Drudge, and fear Daily Kos and Firedoglake.

It is truly bizarre. And, I think, a more important topic than whether or not Matt thinks Glenn is a bit too far to the left, whatever the hell that means.

Posted by lisa | August 21, 2007 12:10 PM

"Zero percent of his posts concerned the current neoconservative effort to gin up a war with Iran. National Review's editorial proclaiming that we "will never be safe" until we change the ideology of the government in power in Iraq?"

It should read "... the government in power in Iran?"

Posted by Everyman | August 21, 2007 12:10 PM

"Greenwald is a civil rights absolutist. Left and right are somewhat vague to describe the difference ..."

Not really, they are in this case a particularly bad way to describe the difference, especially given the all-too common posturing, properly derided above as 'triangulating', when a writer tries to gain cred by positioning toward a supposed golden middle.

Not your finest moment.

Posted by drinkof | August 21, 2007 12:16 PM

It should read "... the government in power in Iran?"

Well, both, really, what with the soon to become conventional wisdom that Maliki has to go ...

Posted by weldon berger | August 21, 2007 12:16 PM

To the poster Owenz: You said "...I imagine that Matt is bit more of an interventionalist (or imperialist, if you like) than Greenwald. This should shock absolutely no one. The whole 'left/right' spectrum is often misleading, but I'm pretty confident this is all that Matt meant."

If, and I emphasize "if", Greenwald is less of an "intervention[ist]" than Matt, I think that would put him to the right of Matt, not the left.

Posted by roberto | August 21, 2007 12:17 PM

As to why it is important to call out Matthew's little shot against Glen Greenwald's supposed leftism, commenter Dan K over at TPMCafe hit very close to the mark in a discussion over a similar form of argumentation:

Dan K said:

The truth is simply that I'm not a pacifist and wanted to make that clear because I'm not anti-Iran War out of pacifist principles. I'm anti-Iran War from a mostly realist assessment of the situation and the costs and benefits embedded in a hot military action against Iran.

Fair enough, Steve, but consider some parallel constructions:
"I'm not celibate, but I think the police should arrest that rapist."
"I'm not a Satanist, but I don't think we should be teaching creation science in the schools."
"I'm not a Luddite, but I don't thing you should put your head inside that wood chipper."
"I'm not a genocidal serial killer, but I believe you should probably shoot your gun at the armed soldier who is charging you."
"I'm not Jewish, but I think I'll pass on the pork loin tonight."
"I'm not a prohibitionist, but I don't think you should fly that jetliner if you're fall-down hammered."
"I'm not a woman, but I still don't think we should eat newborn babies."
Every time a statement of opposition to a military action is framed with one of these caveats, the war party wins a small moral victory. It's like raising a little surrender flag of insecurity, a kind of pre-emptive apology for something for which you have no need to apologize.
If we have reached a situation where there is a general presupposition that pacifism is the only likely motive for not attacking a country that has not attacked us, and for not killing people who are not killing us, then our culture is in a sick condition indeed.

Once you start with nonsense phrases (based on Republican attack memes) at the beginning of your paragraph, you can "prove" anything you want no matter how nonsensical. Not to mention reinforcing the "libs" and "far left" attack memes themselves.

Cranky

Posted by Cranky Observer | August 21, 2007 12:17 PM

> Yet it seems to be the leftwing bloggers that
> come in for the most criticism.
>
> In fact, Established Media seems to embrace people
> like Michelle Malkin and Drudge, and fear Daily
> Kos and Firedoglake.
>
> It is truly bizarre.

You see the same thing with software suppliers, especially the large ones. It is their _best_ customers who generate the most complaints, open the most trouble logs, demand the most modifications, and speak up loudest at the user group meetings. Which gets them labeled "disgruntled" and "dirty laundry airers", and eventually leads the vendor to start treating them like crap. Whereas if the vendor _listened_ to their best customers they would be able to improve their product for the benefit of all involved. But because listening to honest, informed criticism involves discomfort and cognitive dissonance, they won't do it. Seen more than one software company (including some fairly big ones) die this way.

Cranky

Posted by Cranky Observer | August 21, 2007 12:23 PM

And what's so bad about being "left" anyway? Not that I think Greenwald exhibits that much-- he's nothing like a hippie, after all, being very controlled and precise.

But we buy right into the Bushian arguments when we assume that being leftist is something we should avoid, something we should say we're not.

Since the US governance tends to be overweighted to the right, what's "left" here would be considered centrist at best in Europe. Sarkozy, a rightwinger in France, would probably be a flaming liberal in some respects here. You don't see him saying completely mainstream (in American) things like health care should be left to the free market.

We need MORE leftists, not fewer, as pundits and especially as leaders. Not that I'd necessarily want a government dominated by leftists... but we've had a government dominated by far-rightists for too long.

Posted by left and proud | August 21, 2007 12:40 PM

Glenn Reynolds perfected this sleight of hand, I think. He starts by saying he is against something, like torture. But every torture-related post he makes is about how the anti-torture people are "shrill" and how they need to stop talking. He links to other people, staunchly pro-torture people, when they write articles about how shrill the anti-torture people are. He never criticizes the Administration's stance on torture, and he never approvingly links to an anti-torture article. But every time someone questions him he says he is staunchly anti-torture and links to his one comment when he said that two years prior.

Posted by Joshua | August 21, 2007 12:50 PM

...Matt is clearly talking about foreign policy...

Okay, fine, I more or less buy that. And, yeah, it's a tempest in a teablog or whatever but...but...

while Greenwald is pretty clearly in favor of asking serious questions about the extent and purpose of the American Empire and, yeah, he does throw around the word "imperial" like a DFH, I'm not at all sure why that makes him a lefty at all. In fact, if anything, I'd say in the context of US politics, that makes him a pretty mainstream old skool conservative.

Posted by sc | August 21, 2007 12:50 PM

Sorry Matt, I think eveyone has you dead to rights here: it is hard to tell what Greenwald's political orientation is beyond a devotion to the constitution and the bill of rights and we don't see "left wing" bloggers in the media, but we see lots of those on the right.

Many of us have known from word go that the Bush Administration was bad news but we've been painted as irrational and "haters." We continue to criticize, not because we hate this administration but because we love our country and we see the same mistakes that got us into so much trouble (and we can all agree we're in trouble now) being made yet again.

Those that refuse to learn from history and all that...

The traditional media is run by a few, fairly conservative companies and they have agendas that do not really dovetail with those of many americans. Thankfully the Net has created a bazillion little fact checkers and that is Democracy in action. Labeling folks "disgruntled" and dangerous is just laying the groundwork to one day curtail this ability.

Posted by The Dude | August 21, 2007 12:56 PM

Rose is annoyed that his colleagues might suffer any such indignity and is lashing out in his and their defense.

This is a lot of what I am seeing. Much of the current wave of criticism of bloggers and blogging is really not as much about politics and policy as it is about defending friends from personal attacks or unaccustomedly blunt criticism. A once pleasantly collegial and socially insulated network is now facing fierce criticism and the stiff winds of public accountability. Some of the members of the network are moved to come to the aid of their beleaguered friends, politics aside.

One thing that has been instructive to me about these defenses is that it just never seems to have occurred to many people in the policy network that if one of their colleagues publicly advocates policies that require, say, killing substantial numbers of people, others might later attempt to hold them morally culpable for ... killing people.

Posted by Dan Kervick | August 21, 2007 12:57 PM

That Rose rebuttal was boring and very SAFE (aside from taking a few more cheap shots at bloggers), and basically misses and/or avoids the deeper points raised in all of this (the unfortunate bias towards militarism of the foreign policy community, the lack of accountability for being wildly and publicly wrong, and why that is the case in terms of power politics and media structure).

Who's paying this guy?

Posted by Jimm | August 21, 2007 12:57 PM

While Matt's writing and thinking are a bit too sloppy, I share his concern about the disproportionate criticim aimed at bloggers. For people like Rose, being shrill is a far worse sin then launching disastrous wars.

Posted by blah | August 21, 2007 12:58 PM

>someone like me who thinks Glenn Greenwald's views are a bit too far to the left

Mr. Yglesias,
Please leave the concern trollerism to Mssrs. Broder and Klein, it is unbecoming on you.

Posted by bartkid | August 21, 2007 12:59 PM

I'm among those who think that when Matt said "left" he actually meant "more consistently antiwar".

This is unfortunate because being against war is not necessarily a leftist position and people who do conflate the two viewpoints do a disservice to both.

Posted by Paul Dirks | August 21, 2007 1:06 PM

Piling on: the only evidence that could be used to establish Greenwald as "left" is the fact that he thinks this administration, which calls itself "conservative" and finds its only support among "the right", is bad for the country. That overly simplistic formulation has got to go. As has been noted here a bajillion times, Greenwald's critiques are grounded in respect for the Constitution, not love of the left (at least that I can see); if anything, his document trail suggests conservativism.

Also:
I frequently follow his links and find they don't show what he claims

I've not run into that. I have seen posts where Greenwald has read into polls and which he has subsequently corrected based on reader comments and email, but other than that, I have never found a link didn't support his general thesis. Example?

Posted by Adam McGahan | August 21, 2007 1:18 PM

I think SC had it right. "Left" is code-speak for "too gay."

Posted by Kiva Oraibi | August 21, 2007 1:30 PM

I find it hilarious that you guys are chewing the carpet and urinating uncontrollably over Matt's
casual remark but let Gideon Rose's bullshit flow over you like a cool summer breeze.

Here's a comment I posted over on Gideon's site.
-------------
1)Mr Rose's posts consist largely of rhetorical tricks to defend the "foreign policy professionals" rather than an evenhanded assessment of past events.

2) He started out with a convoluted ad hominem: that if the netroots issue criticism then the netroots are just as bad as the neocons since the neocons issue criticism. This logic discredits Mr Rose more than it discredits the netroots.

3) Mr Rose ends with a homily which I found hilarious:
"even the best ones can get big things wrong. But bear in mind that while it can happen to them, it happens to non-professionals even more often, and with fewer mechanisms
for self-correction. Professionals, you might say, are the worst people to listen to on foreign policy except for all the others."

Well, no. "Professionals", by definition, do it for the money. The concern over the Iraq war in not that professionals made a mistake, but that they deliberately led the country into a disaster because they were paid to do so. Bush misled us greatly re the Iraqi threat but , in my opinion, he had a lot of help.

4) Kenneth Pollack and Martin Indyk put out a famous LA Times Op-Ed in Dec 2002 calling for an attack on Iraq because "As former U.S. government officials who had access to the most sensitive U.S. intelligence on Iraq, we are well aware
of Iraq's continued efforts to retain and enhance its weapons capabilities"
Ref: http://www.brook.edu/views/op-ed/indyk/20021219.htm

Kenneth Pollack also put out a bestselling book in 2002 "The Threatening Storm" warning us about Saddam's nuclear program and the likelihood that Saddam would soon have the Bomb.

5) What no "professional", including Mr Rose, seems to want to address is that Martin Indyk and Kenneth Pollack get their paychecks from the Saban Center for Middle East Policy -- a "think tank" set up with financing by Israeli billionaire Haim Saban.

Haim Saban, in a Dec 2006 interview with Haaretz, clearly stated his fanatical devotion to Israel, his belief that American support is essential for Israel's security, and his belief that it is his duty to see that nothing interferes with that support. See http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/798292.html .

6) Iraq was not a threat to the US -- but Saddam was a problem for Israel. As Ariel Sharon explained to Democratic Senators in 2002, taking out Saddam Hussein would
greatly weaken the Palestinians. The Democratic Senators listened because Haim Saban was the largest financier of the Democratic Party in 2000-2002, giving almost $14 MILLION.
That is just ONE member of the Lobby described by Professors Mearsheimer and Walt -- although they had to go overseas to a British journal to do so.

7) Haim Saban's billions was the carrot. More recently, we saw the stick: the picture of billionaire S Daniel Abraham destroying Howard Dean's Presidential campaign in the Iowa Primary with $200,000 in TV attack ads, after Howard Dean merely told Joe Lieberman during a debate that the US needed to be evenhanded in the Israeli-Palestinian issue.
See http://www.publicintegrity.org/report.aspx?aid=194&sid=200

8) Another comment by Mr Rose which put me in stitches was his claim that "The best available retrospective look at the prewar intelligence question by a major scholar who strongly opposed the war concludes that, Despite the many errors, most of the I[ntelligence] C[ommunity]’s general conclusions,
although wrong, were reasonable."

Even the whitewashing Iraq Commission blasted the lack of real evidence to support the public claims made about Iraqi WMDs in the runup to war. (Ex)Senator Bob Graham, chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, gave even more blistering accounts of how the intelligence process was manipulated in his book "Intelligence Matters".

9) I worked on national intelligence programs in the 1990s and had 4 SCI clearances. Independent oversight was destroyed by Porter Goss when he passed his Orwellian-named "Intelligence Whistleblower's Protection Act of 1998" -- which requires whistleblowers to inform the Executive Branch that they are going to snitch 30 days BEFORE they can approach the Congressional Intelligence Committees. Any fool who does that,of course, destroys his career and condemns his family to poverty.

Those who contacted the House Intelligence committee (HPSCI) in 2002 would have found the Ranking Democratic Member to be Jane Harman. In Feb 2006, Jane Harman
explained her approach to oversight of intelligence:

"When the [Haim] Saban Center talks, I listen," Harman said at a Saban Center briefing in February on U.S. strategy in Iraq. Harman quipped that, in order to attend the session at Brookings, she had to "blow off" a senior intelligence official's
appearance before a House committee. "

Ref: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1549069-1,00.html , Page 3

Which comment does raise a defense for foreign policy "professionals": It is not fair to expect them to be less craven than their potential employers in the US Congress.

10) What's interesting is how Mr Rose's bland review of the foreign policy establishment seems to mimick the pre-war Iraqi WMD discussion. His apologias rather undermine his closing comment re the foreign policy establishment's "mechanisms for self-correction".

Or should I say "make comical"?

Posted by Don Williams | August 21, 2007 1:39 PM

Dude, GG too far to the left is like saying Keith Olbermann is too far to the left. Neither is true, they simply document the atrocities of a far right constitution trampling administration. Messed this one up, Matt. Good post overall, though.

Posted by Israel | August 21, 2007 1:43 PM

I have yet to see Glenn Greenwald post anything that would be traditionally called "leftist". Matt, you need to read some history books or talk to principled, small-government conservatives. Almost all of Greenwald's commentary is focused on
- reducing the power of the Executive Branch
- preventing lawbreaking by the Executive Branch
- opposing unfettered and unprincipled imperialism
- upholding the rule of law
- upholding the checks and balances of the Constitutional system.

It's not just that these positions are not liberal. These are positions that have been traditionally identified with conservatives.

It is not "leftist" to think that the United States should refuse to spend liberally to engage in an unfettered foreign policy. Indeed, most of the criticisms of Clinton's foreign policy by Republicans during the 90s would apply equally well (if not better) to bush during the 00s.

What Glenn does is point out just how transparently hypocritical many leaders of the Republican party are. Fact-checking, consistency-checking and honesty-checking are not inherently "leftist" activitis.

Once again, Matt demonstrates he's a better writer than thinker.

Posted by Whispers | August 21, 2007 1:43 PM

Goodness, what's wrong with being to the left of MY and thus, in his estimation, being too far to the left. I know plenty of people who are to the left (and to the right) of me and thus in my view are going too far. That doesn't mean that they aren't to be taken seriously or that they're foaming at the mouth radicals. I think you're all just afraid of the boogeyman usage of the word "left".

Posted by novakant | August 21, 2007 2:09 PM

Your comment about GG is divisive.

Personally, I don't care how far left Glenn is. I read him every day, and I don't know his personal views on many defining issues. His tireless defense of civil liberties, humanitarian concerns, the Constitution and Bill of Rights is priceless. His analyses and writing are clear. His deconstruction of the bloviating vapidity of the MSM is deadly. His tenacity and persistence are unmatched. His energy is frightening. Neither his tone nor his spelling has changed since entering the Salon.

For me the dialogue between Drezner and GG has been the most interesting piece of the "Monolithic Foreign Policy Community" debate, because each of them articulates a well-reasoned, civil, non-fringe version of their respective points of view. Drezner's primary advocacy is for trade policy orthodoxy. Broader foreign policy orthodoxy is a complementary, but probably a necessary, prerequisite. While I can't dispute his position technically, I think he's (marginally) wrong on both counts.

I find GG's points v. Drezner compellingly satisfying, both substantively and stylistically. And that makes me very happy.

When you, Matt, contribute to the mainstream tactic of "marginalizing the person", particularly from your present perch, you undermine the broad critique of people like Rose. That makes me very sad.

I've noticed that your famous spelling and syntax have improved since coming under the umbrella. Are you receiving other editorial "support"?

Posted by Adams | August 21, 2007 2:09 PM

Greenwald is definitly a conservative. And of all the stuff of his I've read I've never seen anything that could reasonably be described as "leftist". So this leads me to ask: Just how far to the right of center right is this Matthew Yglesias? And is this just an attempt of his to try to push the center further to the right as so many rightwing extremists have been trying for years now?

Posted by Terrible | August 21, 2007 3:40 PM

I suppose Pat Buchanan is a little too far to the left with Greenwald as he has been an Iraq war critic since the start too. I suggest we as a country have no idea what right and left are any more. As soon as Bush's popularity dropped below his IQ, the neocons started complaining he was a lefty all along. And if John Kerry or Hillary Clinton are as far left as you can get as has been claimed, I want to find out how to get to the other side of the wall.

Posted by gnuorder | August 21, 2007 3:45 PM

"As soon as Bush's popularity dropped below his IQ..." When did that happen? I thought his popularity was still in double digits(sorry, I couldn't resist.)

Posted by crazyworld2046 | August 21, 2007 4:37 PM

change the ideology of the government in power in Iraq

Wasn't this about Iran, not Iraq?

Posted by Shelby | August 21, 2007 5:16 PM

re: GG too far to Matt's left at times

Matt is clearly just triangulating for his next pundit gig. Stop trying to be Joe Klein Jr., Matt. It's embarrasing.

Posted by Kathleen | August 21, 2007 5:19 PM

It's generally agreed that reality has a well known left wing bias.....

Posted by Geoff DeWan | August 21, 2007 5:30 PM

having avoided your writings for a long time I had fogotten how much I disliked your insulated, soft-palmed, bougie, world-view.

But, it took only a few sentences to remember. Keep up the good work. Thoughful parents need examples like you to point to their children as warning for kids who eat paste all day.

Is it true that you and Jonah Goldberg have never been seen together at the same time? Just curious.

Posted by kuvasz | August 21, 2007 8:28 PM

The Greenwald (or Eschaton) fan club should mellow out because Matt's opinion of Glenn's political leanings is largely irrelevant to the point he's making here.

That said, I do consider Glenn a bit of a classical liberal myself, though one with clear progressive leanings (a lot like myself and I would probably put Markos in that category too).

Posted by Jimm | August 21, 2007 8:49 PM

Wow! 70-odd comments and not one response from Matt.

Guess he learned how (not) to engage his blog readers from the "experts" over at TPM...who, other than Larry Johnson and MJ Rosenberg, NEVER engage their readers.

Maybe Matt thinks is how you do "Serious Foreign Policy" analysis.

Or he realizes that this stuff will overflow into the "archives" shortly and therefore why get caught up in actually defending an off-the-cuff remark when it's just as easily ignored...

Particularly since by this time tonight, everybody has forgotten it and moved on to the next post...

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | August 22, 2007 2:15 AM

"This is why even someone like me who thinks Glenn Greenwald's views are a bit too far to the left[...]"
This is sloppy. You should have something written like:
"This is why even someone like me who thinks Glenn Greenwald's views are a bit too isolationist..."
or
"This is why even someone like me who thinks Glenn Greenwald's views are a bit too far to the non-interventionist..."
There is a real foreign-policy difference between you two, but you can't describe it on left-right terms.
Yglesias is a liberal interventionist; Grennwald is liberal/libertarian/conservative non-interventionist. (Intervention meaning here the use of military means).

The rest of this article is on the spot, though.

Posted by IM | August 22, 2007 5:41 AM

This is why even someone like me who thinks Glenn Greenwald's views are a bit too far to the left can heartily share his concerns about the nature of the foreign policy establishment....

It's a pity so many Dems feel they get insight and thoughtful opinions from war supporting (before it was cool to be antiwar) writers like Yglesias, a writer that on his best day couldn't hold a candle to Glen Greenwald.A statement asserting Glen is " a bit too far left " is more revealing than Yglesias would want you to know.Wake up people!Yglesias is not a liberal and does not have the best interests of our country at heart.Remember:Yglesias was in favor of invading Iraq...

Posted by Honor | August 22, 2007 7:04 AM

Exactly what does Glenn Greenwald advocate which is "a bit too far to the left"?

Reality.

Posted by Joe Momma | August 22, 2007 9:24 AM

I think "too far left" has become a euphemism for the refusal to sacrifice principal for expediency.

Posted by R Owen | August 22, 2007 10:54 AM

I see Greenwald has some sock puppets visiting, no?

Posted by Steve Smith | August 22, 2007 2:09 PM

Didn't you all know?

Standing up for the constitution and other founding American principles these days makes you a Leftist.

Posted by Plisko | August 22, 2007 7:44 PM