Strikingly, but predictably, NRS does not denote lack of fact checking, stonewalling, or feckless after-the-fact lying about the reasons for having published lies. Instead, it encompasses a failure to be “liberal” enough:
The number one problem facing the Democratic Party is that, as events of the last week demonstrate, it continues to be plagued by The New Republic Syndrome, one of the most fatal political afflictions that exist. In 2002 and 2003, The New Republic was one of the leading crusaders for an attack on Iraq, railing against what it called “the intellectual incoherence of the liberal war critics.” In a February 2003 Editorial, they decreed that “the United States must disarm Iraq by force” and declared war opponents guilty of “abject pacifism.”
As it happens, TNR was right on this occasion, but guilty, guilty, guilty of disagreeing with Greenwald. It seems that another of the things a proper “liberalism” exonerates one of is subject-verb agreement, as well.
“The number one problem facing the Democratic Party is that, as events of the last week demonstrate, it continues to be plagued by”
The Circle Jerk Syndrome.
Ooh, M.Night Shamoolyean (or whatever) ought to turn that into a movie.
How does Greenwald know this, his being a conservative libertarian who’s written for Pat Buchanan’s rag and all?
More, why does he care?
[the Democratic Party] continues to be plagued by The New Republic Syndrome, one of the most fatal political afflictions that exist
I get so drowsy reading The Glenns, I can never do much than skim his posts. Still, I was wondering, were there any statistics, records, stories, anecdotes, or even just apocrypha to back up this claim?
I mean, honestly, what does fatal mean in this context?
um, let’s ask Ned Lamont.
That’s not the problem, with TNR. The real problem is having staked out a position on Vietnam, or Central America
or more recently Iraq; it doesn’t stick to it; and tries a ‘too cute by half’ retreat. Replacing Lawrence Kaplan with a fantasist like Scott Beauchamp; putting an economic
illiterate like Jon “I hate George Bush” which would lead to the coining of a term like ‘chaitred”,
commissioning the snarky slash n burn
of Johann Hari, against Andrew Roberts, any argument about the legitimacy of the ‘new crop of White
House dissenters. Sullivan, is kind of the extreme form of this style, as he
has drifted into endorsing ‘pseudo-trutherism, from the likes of Alex Jones. Beinart, the other major editor, had this supercilious air, that
made me understand how the South African Liberals got beat out by the Boers Nationalist; for forty years straight.
Dan,
I think you mean M. Night Shamalamdingdong. And before someone tries to make that racial, my contempt is mostly for his career trajectory.
And when I say “mostly,” I mean the rest is for his egotism (read the book on him).
It never takes long for the racists to come out of hiding. Now if you were talking about about Malkin, that is quite alright. Racism is accepted on the Left.
#9 JD
As far as the Left is concerned, when it comes to “race-, class- and gender-traitors” like Michelle Malkin, or Condi Rice, any dusty epithet they can dig up is acceptable, even encouraged.
The phrase Greenwald repeatedly uses to describe his faction is those who want our country to have a real opposition party.
Usually we do not use the term “opposition party” to describe the party that controls Congress, especially during the waning months of a lame-duck Presidency.
In this one post alone Greenwald alludes to the paramount importance of an “opposition party” so many times that, in order to be logically consistent, he will have to side with the Republicans if Obama wins in November.
Glenn Greenwald: Ideological Sword and Shield of International Moonbattery.
Glenn’s internal seething about being born 50 years too late is seeping out in a big way. I’m sure his ideological advice columns would have been a big hit at Pravda back in the 1930’s:
“Dear Glenn: Is it polite to kiss a girl before her first arrest?”–Puzzled in Perm.
“Dear Glenn: I’m from an Old Bolshevik family and my fiance is a kulak. My parents don’t approve of ‘mixed marriages,’ and would sooner see her starve to death, but I’m crazy about this girl. What should I do?”–In Love in Lviv.
“Dear Glenn: I’m scheduled for a show trial and want to make a good impression on the judges before they sentence me to death. The trial is after May Day, so should I wear a summer suit and white shoes or is that a socialist fashion faux-pas?–Troubled in Tblisi.
I caught Gleen(s) dog and donkey act down in Copa last month, and it was a lot more ideologically consistent than you might expect.
But, you know, *messy*!
In this one post alone Greenwald alludes to the paramount importance of an “opposition party†so many times that, in order to be logically consistent, he will have to side with the Republicans if Obama wins in November.
Unless the opponent he is referring to is not the Republican Party. And yes, I am questioning his patriotism.
Fatal?
Does he even live in the US anymore?
New Republic Syndrome fatalities: Greenwald’s mind, what was left of it. No bodies.
Maoism: ~60 million; exact numbers unknown.
Marxism/Leninism: untold millions.
Methinks Greenwald has become afflicted with some syndrome, name to be determined by some lucky contestant, that has completely erased any of that precision of thought he’s known for, by those of the left-of-center (AKA former staunch Republican) persuasion.
Unless the opponent he is referring to is not the Republican Party. And yes, I am questioning his patriotism.
I’m not ready to go quite that far, but there is a certain type of civil libertarian absolutism that fetishizes process above all else. Greenwald seems to suggest that opposition, for its own sake, is the ultimate political value.
Maybe Greenwald hasn’t noticed that the party he flacks for already controls Congress with a lame-duck President, is favored to win the Presidency, and enjoys the ideological support of the press, academia and Hollywood.