Letters to the Editor

The Democrats' responsibility in the wake of Gonzales' resignation Senate Democrats must commit themselves to blocking any and all nominees until Bush nominates someone whose independence and integrity are beyond reproach. Glenn Greenwald [2007-08-27]

• I_Ween

  I really don't think it is about the money, Glenn. It was a snide remark I made. Unfortunately, it diverted you and me and others that were reading this thread from reading the substance of my posts.

  That tends to happen - when you accuse someone of believing something because they're financially interested in believing it, not because they really believe it, it tends to prevent them from wanting to listen to the substance of your aargument. I appreciate and accept the apology.

  Know that -- not just for me, but for virtually all bloggers -- it would be very easy to make a lot more money doing many other things. To come to the computer every day and work 12-15 hours per day, one has to be driven by passion -- it may be misguided or confused at times, but it is always authentic.

  None of this, however, will stop me from asking you "how many more times will it take?" whenever you criticize the Dems for their complicity in the degradation of our Constitution. . . .

  Honestly, you are really very good at what you do. That is why I and others like me show up to ask you why you still support the Dems. You take them down so well. You point out the evidence that those of us supporting third party culture have been aware of for many many years. You are very good at it. So, as long as you place a well-reasoned argument against the Dems will be as long as I and others like me will ask you, "why?"

  First of all, I don't know when I "support Dems" - I can't remember the last good thing I said about them. I don't raise money for them or "endorse" Democratic candidates and, while I encourage them when they do good things, that happens quite rarely.

  Secondly, I understand and sometimes share your frustration. Go read the posts I wrote for a full week after the FISA capitulation -- they were suffuse with anger, cynicism, and even some resignation. I understand the sentiment. I battle the temptation. But I think it's important not to succumb to it because, as I said above, any group of human beings can always change or destroy a system built by other human beings - it's just a matter of figuring out how and then doing it.

  Finally, I honestly don't know of any "progressive bloggers" who blindly support Democrats. I think the strategy of the blogosphere has always been two-pronged -- (1) remove the hideous right-wing beast from power and (2) change the Democratic Party in order to make step (1) worth doing. Those are EQUALLY IMPORTANT goals.

  Bloggers target bad Democrats. They do more than anyone else to remove Joe Lieberman from the party. They are now targeting other bad Democrats - "Bush Dogs" and the like. They try to find good Democrats who would make a difference to support. There is no blind attachment to the Democratic Party.

  Fine - you disagree that reforming the democratic party is wise. You think the solution lies in third-party support. But that is just a tactical disagreement. Nobody has any illusions about Democrats - at least I don't. I spend at least as much time criticizing them as I do anyone else. But I just don't see how trying to build a whole separate party infrastructure and identity could possibly succeed in time to stem the crisis we have in our country. I think our problems are too acute for that and we don't have that luxury.

  Purely as a tactical matter, I think it's more efficient to pressure and change the existing party than start a new one. But that doesn't mean I don't recognize the profound and fundamental flaws of Democrats. I do - and I point them out whenever I see them.

  -- GlennGreenwald
  [Read GlennGreenwald's other letters]
  Permalink Flag Monday, August 27, 2007 05:45 PM
  Click "Submit Flag" if you feel this post is inappropriate. Explain why below if you wish.

  Cancel