For
libertarians Glenn Greenwald is an interesting and important journalist,
despite the fact that he is decidedly not libertarian on numerous issues. What
probably attracts us to him is that he spends most of his time fighting the
same battles that we fight, and he does so very well.
In
this post I will highlight what supporters of liberty will find most
interesting from Greenwald’s answers to a recent Q&A with his readers. (Unfortunately,
I didn't get a chance to submit a question; maybe next time).
On Changing the World:
I would say this: one indisputable lesson that
history teaches is that any structures built by human beings - no matter how
formidable or invulnerable they may seem - can be radically altered, or even
torn down and replaced, by other human beings who tap into passions and find
the right strategy. So resignation - defeatism - is always irrational and
baseless, even when it's tempting.
I think the power of ideas is often underrated.
Convincing fellow citizens to see and care about the problems you see and
finding ways to persuade them to act is crucial. So is a willingness to
sacrifice. And to create new ways of activism, even ones that people look
askance at, rather than being wedded to the approved conventional means of
political change (the ballot box).
On Ideological Labels:
I won't say they have no meaning: they can be useful
in some limited sense. But for me, they obfuscate far more than clarify. It
could just be my own personal experience - people have tried to apply almost
every political label to me since I began writing, and it's clearly just a
shorthand means of trying to dismiss my arguments without having to engage them
on the merits - so I just generally dislike them.
On Obama and the
Inauguration:
I found the reactions to that Inaugural ritual
creepy and depressing for two reasons:
(1) I can't believe how reflexively and reliably
many progressives cheer for Obama's speeches and pretend that they signify
anything substantive given how many times he's said things that had no bearing
on what he does. I do agree speeches on their own can be important - that's the
power of ideas I referenced above - but viewing one of Obama's speeches as
reflective of his actual intent is the consummate case of Lucy and the
football.
(2) This has been the case for a couple decades now,
but everything about the inaugural festivities reeks of empire and royalty.
It's pure Versailles - so gaudy and overwrought. It's particularly gross when
the country is suffering so much financially. But that's precisely when people
love their monarchs and royal families - it gives them a fantastical escape.
But the police state created in DC, and the marching
and dancing troupes that parade before the waving Leader, and the ecstasy over
his presence, are really unhealthy. The one exception was the 2008 inauguration
- electing the first black president was something really worth celebrating
given the country's history with race - but everything else is wretched. I had
to ignore it.
Political leaders really aren't meant to be revered.
It's unhealthy and dangerous.
On Politicians: Do they
really believe what they are saying?
One of the things every good litigator will tell you
they have to learn to do is first themselves believe what they want to convince
others of. So yes, I think most of these government officials believe in their
own virtue and that of the government they serve, even in the face of
overwhelming evidence (and their own bad acts).
Most people don't want to believe that they are evil
- they want to believe they're good - and so that desire can easily trump truth
when it comes to shaping perceptions.
Her husband's secretary of state is on record as
having said that the slaughter of a million Iraqi children as a result of US
policy was "worth it" in terms of US objectives in the region.
The administration she serves in has its own abundant
record of horrible acts. But they believe they are Good people, and therefore
their acts are for the Good.
On Gun Control:
Like most policies, gun control can be motivated by
some noble sentiments and some ignominious ones. I do think there is an
authoritarian faction that wants to restrict guns for the same reason they want
to have government control the lives of people in so many other realms, and I'd
definitely include Feinstein and Lieberman in that group.
But the fact that some people support Policy X with
bad motives doesn't mean Policy X is wrong.
[Reader
Question] Glenn what is your view on the current gun debate in the US. I
know from previous blogs that you were in favor of gun ownership in Brazil,
does that hold for the US? – gregmcinerney
I wasn't exactly against gun control in Brazil. That
was a post I wrote really early on after I began blogging, and I was really
writing because of how impressed I was with the quality of the public debate
that took place over that public referendum.
When it began, large majorities favored gun control.
After they were told that the police were failing to protect them (which they
already knew) and that their banning guns would leave them defenseless, huge
numbers changed their mind. I was just writing to comment the rationality and
substantive nature of that debate.
I don't write about or opine on every issue because
I'm often ambivalent, or I don't feel I know enough to take up readers' time by
writing about it, or because I think others have more valuable things to say.
Gun control is one of those issues for me. I definitely see the reasons for
wanting to ban especially the most menacing firearms, but it's a bit like the
War on Drugs to me: I just can't imagine the government successfully taking
guns out of the hands of criminals or even deranged people without very, very
invasive and abusive measures, and even then, I'm not so sure it could work.
On Nuclear Weapons Proliferation:
I'm not sure it can be managed. Efforts to stop the
spread of technology and knowledge are notoriously difficult. It's very hard to
detect, and even harder to stop - and that will only get worse as the
technology becomes more accessible. I also don't believe that countries will
voluntarily give up their nuclear arsenals. Ultimately, efforts are more
important to manage a world with nuclear weapons.
On Supporting Military
Interventionism:
For me, this is a bit like the "ticking time
bomb" torture question (though much more reasonable). There are
interventions I'd support in the abstract: if the humanitarian suffering were
truly extreme and widespread; there was widespread international support and
involvement; the authorization was extremely limited (to end the acute
humanitarian suffering); the harms could be minimized; the benefits of the
intervention outweighed both the short-and long-term harms; and there was no
reason to doubt that humanitarianism was the goal of the intervening actors.
I just don't think those circumstances prevail often
at all. Very, very rarely, in fact. Add to that the unanticipated consequences
- such as how the Libyan intervention worsened instability and suffering in Mali - and
that usually tips the scales for me.
I am typically skeptical or opposed myself, however,
I note the Mali intervention (for example) is small-scale, is supported by
numerous authorities (not just the Western usual suspects, but Russia, China,
the African Union, neighboring countries) and aims at regime stability rather
than subversion as in Iraq or Libya.
The problem with interventions is they rarely stayed
confined to their original structure or goal. Remember that Obama swore Libya
would only be about a no-fly zone over Benghazi and wouldn't be about regime
change. None of that was true.
On Fixing American Media:
That's not going to happen. That's not their
business model. I gave up on that goal a long time ago. Developing alternatives
to that - using the internet and other forms of developing new media - is the
only real way that will happen.
Of course some isolated journalists even at
establishment venues do this already. And it's sometimes possible to infiltrate
those venues and do it. But as a general proposition, establishment media
exists to support the establishment, not to challenge it.
I’d definitely
quibble with and disagree with a few points he made here, but overall it’s
pretty good stuff. Once again his original post is here.
No comments:
Post a Comment