Walz mentioned the letter to the editor to Emanuel on the floor and was stunned by his response.

“You mean the one about how you should caucus with the Republicans?” Emanuel shot back. “That’s a good letter. Makes you look bipartisan.”

To this day, Walz is still amazed. “He had read the letter.”

There are three ways in which this is offensive: 1) Emanuel and Walz both stood with the Republicans and against the Constitution. 2) Emanuel clearly feels happier being in a politically-acceptable position than a morally-consistent one. 3) The mainstream "serious" journalist writing the piece takes points 1 and 2 and portrays them as strengths by ignoring any meaningful analysis of the topic at hand. From the journalist's perspective, the FISA bill could just as easily been an argument over what to have for lunch.

Fascinating catch, Mr. Greenwald.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2008-437

I thought the point of the letter in question was criticizing Walz (a Democrat) for voting in favor of the FISA bill to give telecom executives immunity (in other words, accusing him of "caucusing with the Republicans" on surveillance, and thus looking "bipartisan").

But by the link above, Walz voted "nay" on H.R. 6304: FISA Amendments Act of 2008. Am I mixing that vote up with a different one? Was it the earlier 2007 filibuster vote they were discussing? Can anyone clarify the details here?

I don't want to bash Walz for "siding against the constitution" if he actually voted against Telecom immunity. Got to be fair to the man, after all.

He voted in favor of the Protect America Act. I linked to the roll call vote. The article doesn't specify exactly what vote they were discussing, but that's the only vote that makes sense based on what the article described.

Ah, ok. I feel safe bashing him again. Thanks for clarifying.

This may have been touched on somewhere; I've only yet read the first two pages of comments. But I might as well chime in.

...one's ideological view on these questions -- such as: when does a country have the right to use military force against another country, regardless of pragmatic benefits? -- seems to go a long way towards defining "right" and "left" in the foreign policy context.

I agree with most of Mr. Greenwald's points in this column, specifically when he discusses the difference between ideology (or principle) and pragmatism (cost/benefit analysis). But his claim that one's answer to the question "when does a country use military force" goes a long way toward defining "left" and "right" seems totally wrong to me.

Who were the strongest supporters of these wars? Many self-identified neoconservatives have a Trotskyist background. Are they "left" or "right"? Hillary Clinton and John McCain were both centrists in their parties, and I'll be darned if I can find a dime's worth of difference on their avowed war views.

The most antiwar candidates from EITHER party, Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul, were also without question the farthest left and right ideologically in their respective parties. Yet their antiwar views were virtually identical (with some differences, perhaps, on questions of reparations).

Centrism, it seems to me, is the pro-war part of the spectrum. Left wing (socialist/radical) and right wing (anarchistic/conservative) ideologies don't inherently define one's position on war, and in fact, if we were to use this most recent election as an example, seem to converge AGAINST war.

That's how come Mr. Greenwald can go on a Lew Rockwell podcast and not come to blows, and in fact never reach a point of substantial disagreement with his HIGHLY conservative interviewer.

Ok, I'll go read the voluminous remainder of the comments now. Probably this point has already come up.

I know it's imprecise, but this is the definition I gave for the "Left" the other day:

"In this post generally, by "Left" I really mean those who are dissatisfied with the bipartisan Beltway establishment and Democratic Party leadership -- prevailing Beltway orthodoxies -- rather than merely opposed to Republicans and supportive of anyone with a "D" after their name."

I think especially in foreign policy and civil liberties, that definition could encompass what was once considered to be factions on both the left and right.

I haven't heard the word "left" used like this elsewhere, but if that's how you mean it, so be it. Perhaps people should go back to using the word "liberal". I'm probably far right of you on economic questions, but I consider myself, with pride, a "classical liberal." It's a shame the concept of "liberal thought" has been semantically tarnished by the blunt-instrument bile of Limbaugh and his ilk, who have successfully tied it (through their etymological legerdemain) to tweed-coat wearing Marxists and barefoot war protesters.

Liberalism used to mean "prioritizing freedom and personal liberty" which could, depending on one's chain of thought, be consistent with regulating or deregulating a coal power plant (for example), but would almost automatically be opposed to secret surveillance, war, and torture.

The term "leftist", in contrast, may have too much ideological baggage to fill that role without frequent clarifications.