But, his new low? Well, many Democratic partisans rightly attacked Bush on Iraq. And, they fought back against wingnut bloggers who said, "You can't question the president in a time of war!"
But, Drum's now close to that same territory with Obama.
Here's the nut graf (courtesy Greenwald):
So what should I think about [the war in Libya]? If it had been my call, I wouldn't have gone into Libya. But the reason I voted for Obama in 2008 is because I trust his judgment. And not in any merely abstract way, either: I mean that if he and I were in a room and disagreed about some issue on which I had any doubt at all, I'd literally trust his judgment over my own. I think he's smarter than me, better informed, better able to understand the consequences of his actions, and more farsighted.Of course, I haven't read MoJo in a while, either. And, with crap like that, I doubt I'll resume anytime soon.
Update, April 3: Drum has a follow-up post in response to Greenwald, where he shifts the goalposts a bit:
I think pretty highly of Barack Obama's judgment. But what does it mean to say that? Just this: that I think highly of his judgment even when I disagree with him. How could it be otherwise, after all? If, when you say that you trust somebody's judgment, what you really mean is that you trust their judgment only to the extent that they agree with you, that's hardly any trust at all. Just the opposite, in fact.The first graf? A straw man, of the particular type I call "false polarities." I don't know about Drum, but here's how I operate on partitioning and sharng trust. I can disagree with someone on one issue yet trust their judgment on that issue, but I can also disagree with someone on an issue, even if I respect that person overall, yet NOT trust their judgment on that particular issue.
To make this more concrete, I also think highly of Glenn Greenwald's judgment on issues of civil liberties and the national security state. This means that when he takes a different position than mine, it makes me stop and think. ... This doesn't mean that I've outsourced my brain to Glenn, but it does mean that he influences my judgment, and that's especially true on issues that I'm unsure of.
Ditto for Obama. Unlike Glenn, perhaps, I'm unsure about the wisdom of our Libya intervention, and the fact that I'm unsure makes me more open to giving Obama's judgment a fair amount of weight in this matter. That's what it means to respect another person's judgment. On the other hand, as my post made clear, it doesn't mean that he's persuaded me. As I said twice, I think the Libya intervention was mistake. I wouldn't have done it. But partly because a president I respect disagrees, I'm open to the possibility that I'm wrong. His position has made me stop and think.
Take Greenwald. I agree with him on a lot of issues, and, respect him, but I've busted his chops before here, and will do so again, now, for not speaking out about ACLU Executive Director Anthony Romero teaching the Ford Foundation how to comply with the patriot Act, and the big ACLU board brouhaha and ultimate dissenters' purge that follows. I know Glenn is solid with the ACLU, but I think he's too tight; he doesn't promote alternative groups such as Center for Constitutional Rights on anything close to a regular basis.
Drum then has a second straw man: that one MUST show one's brain has not been co-opted by disagreeing with someone, and making that protest in public. Silence is another way of doing that.
That said, Kevin, in the original post you said:
I mean that if he and I were in a room and disagreed about some issue on which I had any doubt at all, I'd literally trust his judgment over my own.Earth to Kevin: Your brain has been co-opted.
And, as for Greenwald taking an "appallingly hostile" reading of your original post? In his follow-up, he was pretty darn generous. In fact, too generous, in my opinion.
No comments:
Post a Comment