The Paradoxical Viewpoints of Glenn Greenwald: Or, How the 2016 Presidential Election Made Strange Bedfellows
Like many people my
age, I suspect most associate the name Glenn Greenwald with Edward
Snowden. If not,
they might have learned of him in connection to Wikileaks
or Chelsea
(previously Bradley) Manning.
This article is an attempt to understand how someone I trusted on a
number of issues, has diverged so sharply, made strange distinctions,
and seems to view two similar events with such dissimilar opinions.
Greenwald
met Snowden in Hong Kong to report on the NSA's
surveillance of United States citizens. He'd always been
critical of the national surveillance apparatus, whether it was NSA,
CIA, or FBI. He distrusted the military just as much, and publicly
supported, though never worked for, Julian Assange and Wikileaks.
And he believed in Manning's
mission to reveal America's secret atrocities. These positions
caused an immediate and strong reaction in the public. Readers
either loved or reviled Greenwald.
As
a reader, Greenwald wrote in support of transparency, freedom, and
peace. Against corruption and war. Against the surveillance state
and the authoritarian state. He wrote for Salon,
but gained fame at Guardian, before becoming founder and editor at
The Intercept. He is an
American citizen who lives in Brazil. Greenwald claims he lives in
exile because of the Defense of Marriage Act (enacted: 1996, struck
down: 2013) no longer upheld). One suspects that he also fears
retribution by the United States for the secrets he has exposed. His
partner
was detained for an absurd amount of time in Great Britain,
because of Greenwald's work.
Greenwald, while strongly aligning with liberal politics, has never
feared to criticize the Democratic party, especially when they
espoused moderate positions. In particular he remained dedicated to
uncovering corruption, ending secrecy, and revealing the atrocities
of war. In spite of his criticism for Democratic politicians, most
left leaning readers seemed happy, or at least willing to tolerate
Glenn's skirmishes.
That all changed with the 2016 primaries.
Perhaps because Glenn had only had a Democratic President to rail
against for the last
eight years (and President Obama implemented many
atrocious policies) he'd forgotten what a Republican was capable
of, or perhaps because of the severity of Clinton's past mistakes, he
repeatedly condemned Hillary Clinton during the Democratic Primaries,
with barely a word against Donald Trump.
He
condemned Clinton
for being a leader of
bipartisanship consensus, which he had criticized as far back as
2008.
By bipartisan consensus, Greenwald meant the elite consensus for
surveillance, for war, for American Empire. A failure to reduce
inequality and promote civil liberties.
During
the Democratic Primary for the 2016 election, Greenwald heartily
supported Bernie
Sanders. When Hillary Clinton criticized Sanders for praising
Castro (in the '80s) and South American governments targeted by
Ronald Reagan's illegal covert wars, Greenwald retorted with this
article,
condemning Clinton for supporting a whole list of brutal regimes and
war criminals. After Clinton won the primary, he spoke about the
article, now mixing in a mild defense of candidate Donald Trump. His
argument was:
Donald Trump's foreign policy is unknown, because he has no foreign
policy experience, while Clinton has a history of supporting brutal
foreign wars and callous, authoritarian dictators.
Though
Greenwald has criticized Trump, it has been so rare, as to draw the
attention of people confused by his silence. His criticisms of Trump
are so quiet,
they almost don't register. His silence is even more deafening,
because of how loudly he opposes the Russian Investigation. As
someone who believes the FBI, CIA, and NSA have committed
many crimes in the past, it is important to employ a healthy dose
of skepticism toward any action they take. But with public
evidence piling up against the Trump Administration, it's
becoming more difficult to believe there is nothing there. In
February of 2018, Glenn Greenwald debated
fellow Pulitzer Prize wining journalist, Obama critic, and Intercept
writer James Risen. While Greenwald had been the premiere
Russia-gate skeptic, Risen was writing a series for The Intercept,
titled, Is
Donald Trump A Traitor?
With
these muted criticisms Greenwald has demonstrated his dislike for
Donald Trump, but registers more as a bane
of the the #Resistance. Here he seems to fear a collection of
deep state actors, grifters ingratiating themselves as a means for
profit, and most dangerously, military hawks and right leaning
centrists who have left the Republican party. If these people enter
the Democratic party they will shift it rightward, counter balancing
the current leftward, progressive, movement.
What
really allows one a glimpse into Greenwald's universe, is how he has
approached two similar (not identical) events as incredibly
divergent. These events are the 2016 United States Presidential
election, and the 2018 Brazilian Presidential election.
As already cataloged, Glenn strongly criticized Clinton, and withheld
his fire against Trump. But in he 2016 denounced the impeachment of
Workers' Party Dilma
Rousseff, even though it seems like she oversaw an illegal
transfer of money between government budgets. She may also have been
involved in bribes
related to the state oil company Petrobras, a massive corruption
scheme involving the funneling of funds to politicians and operatives
in the Workers' Party. During the 2018 Brazilian Presidential
election, former Workers' Party President Luiz
Inácio Lula da Silva (Lula) was another favorite of Greenwald's.
Yet, Lula had been implicated as a key actor in the Petrobras scheme.
Dilma Rousseff initially tried to shield him from prosecution by
offering him a position as her chief of staff (which in Brazil
apparently confers immunity). After she was impeached he tried to
run in the 2018 election, but was compelled to turn himself in, and
eventually go jail. Glenn Greenwald believes Rousseff's impeachment
and Lula's imprisonment were part of a right-wing coup,
(and one must admit he has more insight than I), but even after
reading his articles on the subject, he has failed to convince.
In
review: Greenwald strongly condemned Hillary Clinton in the 2016
election, and could only offer the most pathetic
defenses of Donald Trump. Yet at the same time he defended
powerful Brazilian politicians in spite of their clear
corruption. He repeatedly claims that Jair Bolsonaro (the right
wing politician who won the Brazilian election) was incredibly
dangerous, but waved away any condemnation against Trump. I prefer to
see it another way. While I preferred the same candidate as
Greenwald, by the election it was clear Clinton was better than
Trump, and Sanders was no longer a viable choice. As for Brazil,
current President
Bolsonaro
sounds
like a monster,
but at the same time, it is difficult to support only one clearly
connected with corruption.
In
September 2016 (only a few months before election day), Vox's
Jeff Stein spoke to Greenwald and tried to understand his motivations
for the anti-Clinton pieces he, and the Intercept, were publishing.
The most insightful question was about the Intercept's coverage of
the 2016 election.
Stein
asked, “Is
that something you wrestle with — the ability to be intellectually
honest among what is, frankly, the Intercept’s overwhelmingly
critical Clinton coverage?”
To
which Greenwald replied, “I
haven't conducted a poll or anything, but my guess would be that 95,
98 percent of people at the Intercept in any capacity would prefer
Hillary Clinton win instead of Donald Trump. So when we're doing
criticism of Hillary Clinton and reporting adversarially on her, are
we only doing this because we're pro-Trump? I know it's not that.”
What
the Vox article, and all of Greenwald's writings (and this Atlantic
article) illustrate, along with his core beliefs of peace,
transparency, and freedom, is a desire to lean toward the contrarian
position, but also his willingness to debate (and arraign) opponents
who are closer in ideology, rather than those whose views differ
immensely. He would rather invest time on converting the
center-left, pulling them leftward, than on distant right-wing
enemies. He seems to feel that these potential allies have
unconscious blinders which he is capable of removing.
In
spite of my disagreements with Greenwald's new direction (or is it my
new direction?), I remain convinced that he is valuable voice in
news, offering an unique perspective in media. Some readers may have
abandoned Greenwald since the 2016 election, but he still contributes
with valuable insight. I find myself
liking Greenwalds comments on Twitter, as much as I support
people
questioning his position. If we listened only to people we
agreed with all the time, we would miss productive opinions. And
while I hope Mueller discovers proof of
corruption/collusion/obstruction and ties it directly to the
President, so that he can be impeached, I also hope I can accept the
truth if there is nothing there.
And
I hope Glenn Greenwald can accept the facts, if the Special Council
makes the case for the Trump campaign's conspiracy with Russia to win
the Presidency.
Either
way, we must continue to oppose the President on policy together.
Recent:
Relevant:
Comments
Post a Comment