[hire_charts]

Except this exact same argument, nearly verbatim, was one of the alt-right anti-Obama talking points! It's a solid criticism too - don't get me wrong.

But it's a single argument, reused over and over, to do more than simply criticize the actions of an administration - rather, to construct a grand conspiracy about how modern Democrats and progressives are secretly authoritarians. Nothing Greenwald writes these days goes beyond this tired trope. (Which, I suppose, would make perfect sense to anyone who has similarly bought into this conspiracy.)

[zepto]

“to construct a grand conspiracy about how modern Democrats and progressives are secretly authoritarians“

Can you explain where the idea that there is a conspiracy, or a secret comes from?

I don’t see Greenwald or the other repeaters of this ‘tired’ argument actually claiming there is a conspiracy.

The argument seems to be that people who say they are liberals are behaving like authoritarians when you actually look at their actions, rather than their words.

I don’t see why a conspiracy is needed for that to be true.

[hire_charts]

My use of the words secret and conspiracy was, at least in part, in response to the parent comment:

> everyone else is loosing their minds and ushering an authoritarian pseudo-communist state in the United States. Glenn sees it, and is trying desperately to warn us.

This is conspiratorial thinking. The whole "wake up, sheeple" mode of political argument is based in the paranoid belief that clandestine groups and powerful actors have a certain degree of control and agency over the world, and that there are those in possession of awareness or knowledge who can "reveal" the truth to the masses.

Rather than making more political-sounding quips, and in the interest of providing something more substantial to this forum, I will recommend a web series called "This is Not a Conspiracy Theory," which is a great overview of the history of conspiracy theories through to the modern day, and how the best conspiracy theories are often rooted in the kinds of facts, uncertainty, and paranoia that resonate with the zeitgeist of their respective eras.

http://www.thisisnotaconspiracytheory.com/series

[zepto]

“ This is conspiratorial thinking. The whole "wake up, sheeple" mode of political argument is based in the paranoid belief that clandestine groups and powerful actors have a certain degree of control and agency over the world, and that there are those in possession of awareness or knowledge who can "reveal" the truth to the masses.”

Except nothing in the quote says anything about clandestine actors.

You are adding that.

Also nothing about warning people has anything to do with paranoia or ‘wake up sheeple’.

Again you are adding something out of whole cloth that simply isn’t present in what he is saying.

There is nothing ‘paranoid’ about saying that a liberal democracy can become authoritarian if it adopts certain priorities and practices, or warning of this when those practices are being adopted.

Commenting on an observable trend is not the same as claiming that there is a conspiracy behind it.

On the other hand, dismissing ideas as ‘conspiracy theories’ can be a way of simply discrediting one’s political opponents, so we need to be careful not to do it casually.

[disgruntledphd2]

Greenwald has been writing about what an terrible enabler of the survellience state Nancy Pelosi was for almost 15 years. She hasn't changed her opinions much in that time.

And to be fair, the Democratic Party, while mostly still tethered to consensus reality, would be a center-right party in pretty much every country in Europe.

[zepto]

I’d say your first paragraph is facts, and the second is an opinion that is often cited but only partially true because what left-right means in ‘Europe’ is different from what it means in the US.

However...

It’s unclear what these two points have to do with either the original piece or my comment to which you replied.

Can you relate them in some way?

How do they shed light on the idea that Greenwald is not claiming there is a conspiracy?

[disgruntledphd2]

The relationship is that Greenwald is a progressive, and would likely be more supportive of the democratic party if they were an actual left-wing party.

I'm sure he'd still be as upset by the survellience, but he'd probably cut them more slack if he liked their policies more.

Also, it's naive to expect the Dems to be better on survellience when we have years of evidence that this is not the case.

[zepto]

I agree that it’s ‘naive’ to expect the Dems to be better on surveillance, but it’s not clear how this relates to what Greenwald wrote. He is writing about what he sees happening, not his expectations.

Can you explain where the idea that there is a conspiracy, or a secret comes from?

[disgruntledphd2]

So, I've been following US politics for most of my adult life, since Bush 2.

In that time, the ratcheting up of survellience has only gone one way regardless of who's in power.

I believe that Greenwald sees things similarly.