Mything In Action--An Interview With Glenn Greenwald

by: Paul Rosenberg

Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 14:54


Republished From Random Lengths News

Mything In Action
An Interview with Glenn Greenwald About His Forthcoming Book,
Great American Hypocrites: Toppling The Big Myths of Republican Politics
By Paul Rosenberg, Senior Editor

Great American Hypocrites: Toppling The Big Myths of Republican Politics.
By Glenn Greenwald, Crown Publishing
320 pages, $24.95


Glenn Greenwald, a former constitutional lawyer, began blogging in October 2005, shortly before the New York Times revealed the program of illegal NSA wiretaps begun shortly after 9/11.  He wrote about the program and the lawless philosophy behind it in his first book, the Times bestseller, How Would A Patriot Act.  Shocked as he was at the Bush lawlessness, he became increasingly shocked at the media's indifference, and seeming inability to even grasp either significant details or the profound moral and political issues at stake. His ongoing analysis of Republican misrule and the complicity of the media in either ignoring or misreporting it has grown deeper, and drawn increasingly more attention, particularly since his blog moved to Salon in February 2007.

His focus in Great American Hypocrites is the national scene, where an adoring press lionizes one would-be conservative moral giant after another, following the template created by John Wayne--a thrice-married, alcoholic, drug-addicted draft-dodger, considered a heroic figure because of the roles he played, particularly during WWII when bigger stars than he were fighting overseas.  In California, we have our own John Wayne knock-off as governor, and equally ga-ga press that never seems to notice the enormous plot-holes in his script, such as his continued alliances with polluting industries against the health and environmental welfare of harbor area communities. By illuminating the larger, national pattern, Greenwald's new book illuminates a great deal about state and local politics as well.

By Paul Rosenberg

Paul Rosenberg :: Mything In Action--An Interview With Glenn Greenwald
RLN:You begin your analysis with the example of John Wayne as a prototype of the hypocritical would-be hero of the right. What, specifically drew you to him, and why does he stand out?

GG:To this day, John Wayne is the prototype of the uber-patriotic, uber-masculine, uber-courageous Moral Republican Warrior.  His imagery is the template that pioneered the brand and that the Right uses to this day to build up their political leaders.

In 1995 -- 18 years after his death -- he remained the most admired film actor in America.  The Los Angeles Times said that, even years after his death, his image "exmplified the ideal American fighting man."  After 9/11 Peggy Noonan wrote a column hailing the return of "the Duke" -- of real men who bellow:  "Yer in a whole lotta trouble now, Osama-boy."

Yet John Wayne was one of America's biggest and most repugnant frauds -- in exactly the way that modern Right-wing leaders are.  At a time when virtually nobody avoided combat, Wayne did exactly that, using the most dishonorable means imaginable, throughout all of World War II.  Because the most successful male actors, including older ones, went to fight, he was able to stay in Hollywood and become extremely rich playing war heroes.  He spent the rest of his life glorifying every American war and accusing war opponents of being cowards, Communists and traitors.  He crusaded for traditional American morality, attacking others whom he perceived to deviate, while he engaged in compulsive womanizing and adultery, repeatedly breaking up his own family, and wallowing in pill addictions.

Before there was Rush Limbaugh, Dick Cheney, Newt Gingrich, George Bush, Bill Kristol, David Vitter and even John McCain  -- there was John Wayne. One finds key parts of Wayne in each of them.  To this day, he's the role model for how the Right conducts itself and the methods they use to swindle the American public.

RLN: You point to Rush Limbaugh and Matt Drudge as prominent examples of depraved moral scolds who started out as fringe figures but have become dominant fixtures at the center of Republican politics.  You later talk about Ann Coulter and how the conservative movement cannot live without her. She, too, followed a similar trajectory. She got her start as a bit player in the Clinton dramas.  How did this happen?

GG:What Limbaugh, Drudge and Coulter do is easy, shallow and cheap.  The methods they use are those of the low-life gossip -- wallowing in the most depraved and twisted controversies as a means of attracting attention. People like them, and other figures on the Right -- such as Laura Ingraham and Jonah Goldberg -- were spawned by a filthy, titillating sex scandal involving public discussions of cigar sex and distinctive spots on Bill Clinton's penis.  That's when they entered the public arena, and that's who they are to this day - bottom-feeding sleaze merchants.

What happened is that the establishment press saw that there was great benefit in replicating their methods and joining them in the sewer.  The establishment press did more than anyone to elevate the Clinton sex witch hunts to a matter of grave national importance, and formed enduring alliances with the Right's prime movers of those scandals.  They joined forces with the lowest elements on the Right.  And they haven't stopped since, so that now, Drudge Rules their World.

RLN: One way you talked about this dynamic was in terms of high-school social pecking orders.  Indeed, you even offer some quotes in which media figures explicitly use such language themselves.  What does this tell us about how the media are functioning?

GG:The establishment media, and particularly the traveling press corps which covers the presidential candidates, are adolescent from start to finish. They travel around in incestuous packs, chattering with nobody other than themselves and they create their own mores and social codes designed to reinforce orthodoxies.  All sorts of people have written about that dynamic for quite some time, from Hunter Thompson to Matt Taibbi.  Most importantly of all, most of these journalists admit this, continuously writing about our national politics using the most stunted junior high archetypes.

Like all adolescent cliques, personality and popularity dominates everything they do, how they think, what their goals are.  They worshipped George Bush, the towel-snapping Frat Boy and the rest of his faux-high-school-star-quarterback comrades, while detesting and mercilessly ridiculing a whole string of nerdy, overly earnest Democratic nominees, from Mike Dukakis to Al Gore to John Kerry.

And John McCain, the Bad Boy Fighter Pilot, is the ultimate icon who generates this sort of love and reverence among adolescents looking to re-live and improve upon their high school standing.  Hence, the coverage of McCain is more blindly reverent than anything we've seen since George Bush pranced around in his fighter pilot costume on Mission Accomplished Day.

RLN:You point out a strange disconnect on "moral issues" where gay marriage is elevated to a high obsession as a threat to the traditional family, while those who crusade against it routinely have records of dysfunctional family life, with multiple marriages and divorces as well as adulterous affairs. Why is this such a contradiction, and why does it go almost unnoticed?

GG:Opposition among "values voters" to gay marriage is based in the claim that gay marriage violates Christian doctrine, but serial divorces, adultery, out-of-wedlock sex and cohabitation, and "second and third wives" are at least as un-Christian as gay marriage is.  One finds explicit and numerous injunctions in Scripture against those.  Beyond that, those heterosexual sins are far more common, and have far more of an impact, than homosexuality, for obvious reasons.  Worse, while homosexuality in most cases does not involve children, these un-Christian heterosexual behaviors typically impact the lives of children.

Yet the pious leaders of the "values voters movement" have little interest in having the law ban such un-Christian institutions as multiple marriages and no-fault divorces. The reason is obvious.  Many, if not most, of their flock -- and they themselves -- take advantage of these un-Christian institutions and want to continue to be able to do so.  If the values voters movement was focused on condemning those far more common heterosexual behaviors, they would be condemning a huge portion of the voting public -- and demanding of them sacrifices.  So instead, they feel pure and elevated by preaching against something -- homosexuality -- that requires no sacrifice or cost.  It's cost-free moralizing, the most worthless and exploitative kind.

One of the most amazing spectacles is watching politicians with extremely untraditional and un-Christian relationships -- such as John McCain, Rush Limbaugh, Newt Gingrich, etc. -- talk about the importance of preserving "traditional marriage," all while demanding that the law recognize their own extremely untraditional relationships as valid marriage.  They give a speech on how critical it is that the law only recognize "traditional marriages" and then they return home to their second and third wives (former mistresses), step-children, half-siblings, and the latest girlfriend.

RLN:In the last chapter, you point out a number of parallels between Bush and McCain-both as individuals, and in terms of how the media covers for them.  This is, potentially, particularly damaging, since the American people have grown sick and tired of Bush, and many seem to think that McCain somehow represents a change from him.  Could you quickly highlight the similarities?

GG:Just as was true for Bush in 2000, McCain is running at a time when the Republican brand is sullied (in 2000 because of the ugly Gingrich/impeachment crusades and in 2008 because of the destructive Bush years). Thus, McCain is being politically marketed in exactly the same way that Bush the presidential candidate was (he's a uniter not divider; a new kind of Republican; you always know where he stands; he's a conservative who deviates from dogma and appeals to Democrats; he transcends partisanship; we're going to be a more humble nation, etc. etc.). It's exactly the same wrapping. And the media believed all of that about Bush and they now believe it all about McCain.

RLN:What's the most important take-away from your book?  What do Democratic politicians need to do?  What do journalists need to do? And what do ordinary Americans need to do to take our country back?

GG: Democrats have been extremely poor at engaging these "character" and personality-based electoral tactics.  Many liberals are squeamish about using these lowly and ignoble tactics and think they should be ignored, so that they'll "rise above" them.  

That's an understandable sentiment, but it has to stop, because it's fatal.  Until it does, the Right in this country will wield a huge electoral advantage, and will be able to win elections completely irrespective of the fact that their policies and positions are despised by majorities, even large majorities of Americans.

The point isn't to start lowering oneself to that level and copying the worst parts of the Right's behavior.  The point is to neutralize what they do so that it's no longer one-sided.  If one country possesses nuclear weapons, a rival country wants to obtain them not to use them, but to render their use irrational, impossible.  That's what Democrats and liberals must start doing with these election rituals.

Like most right-wing leaders, the life of John McCain is chock full of dishonorable, ugly behavior.  Huge numbers of female voters would be disgusted by the details of how and why he dumped his first wife, after she was in a disfiguring car accident that caused her to gain much weight and lose several inches of height, in order to marry his much younger, prettier and extremely rich mistress with whom he had been committing adultery while his first wife raised his three children.  His public life is filled with corruption, deceit, lobbyist dependency, and a complete lack of principle.  He holds himself out as a principled torture opponent but is, in fact, the single greatest enabler of legalizing torture in this country, from his 2005 bill which exempted the CIA from torture prohibitions to his 2006 leadership in enacting the Military Commissions Act to his opposition this year to the waterboard ban.

McCain's character is extremely vulnerable to the sort of demonization campaigns that have destroyed one Democrat after the next.  That is true for the right-wing as a whole.  Substantial parts of the book are dedicated to demonstrating that in order to undermine, once and for all, the deceitful though potent marketing packaging which the establishment press uses to glorify and put into power right-wing leaders in this country.    


Tags: , , , , , , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
John Wayne (4.00 / 2)
John Wayne played a more convincing war hero to millions than Audie Murphy who was the real article and comes across in the movie about his own exploits as much more modest and aw shucks than Wayne.  Similarly, Eisenhower would never have pulled the stunt with the flight suit and the carrier.  It cheapened the real heroes of the day.  Charlton Heston said (and he was plenty right wing) that he would rather play a Senator than be one.  I'm not sure that Ronald Reagan or George W. Bush know the difference.

John Wayne was probably a victim of the military-industrial complex.  During the filming of a very bad movie about Genghis Khan ("The Conqueror") nuclear weapons test were held nearby.  Wayne and the majority of the cast and crew ultimately died of cancer.  It's rather ironic.

Oddly, divorce was a major no-no for Republicans as recently as 1964 when Nelson Rockefeller's divorce-remarriage-and quick fatherhood probably cost him the California primary to Barry Goldwater.  Just two years later, conservatives in Californiam saw no problem with the divorced Ronald Reagan.  Of course, the church types fell all over Reagan in 1980 during his run against Jimmy Carter.


Those Were The Good Old Days! (0.00 / 0)
When two years for a total flip-flop on divorce seemed astonishing to some.

Now, two seconds doesn't make anyone blink.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3


[ Parent ]
Divorce (0.00 / 0)
Actually, among evangelicals, divorce was still considered a major barrier (and one of the reasons perhaps, that Reagans first serious attempt to win the Republican nomination in 1976 failed). But during the Ford term the IRS had questioned the tax exempt status of Bob Jones University on the basis of their treatment of people of color. Then Jimmy Carter, despite being an evangelical, didn't reverse this policy. So the evangelicals decided that divorce was no big deal and embraced Reagan. (Recommended: "Thy Kingdom Come, An Evangelical's Lament: How the Religious Right Distorts the Faith and Threatens America" by Randall Balmer.)

Interestingly, during Carter's efforts to get the Senate to ratify the Panama Canal treaties, Reagan was a major opponent. But John Wayne was a crucial ally to Carter. Reagan would say about the Canal, "We bought it. We paid for it. We built it. And we are going to keep it." But Wayne responded with an open letter stating the Reagan was "misinforming the people."  


Wow, even I never thought about the possibility (4.00 / 1)
of not only defeating McCain electorally, by convincing enough voters that Obama would be a better president than McCain, but actually destroying him politically, or at least sufficiently so to make him forever politically impotent (a word whose double meaning I use intentionally), except perhaps in the way that Joe McCarthy has served as the Christ figure on the far right for decades. If it can be done without too much political blowback (and I'm not convinced that it can just now), this would serve not only the more immediate (but still extremely important) goal of putting a Democrat in the White House, but causing huge damage to if not effectively destroying the modern GOP as a viable political power. I believe that this needs to be done. My question is whether it's currently doable, and worth the likely risks.

But man, does the prospect of doing this make me smile. It's not about "hating" the modern GOP, but simply of viewing it as a cancer upon the body politic that MUST be destroyed if that body is to survive for very long. Every decent and thinking person from across the political spectrum--including Republicans and conservatives, and perhaps especially Republicans and conservatives--needs to realize this. This is not the Eisenhower GOP (which, of course, was not exactly angelic). This is Joe McCarthy's GOP. And it must be destroyed, for the country to survive, and a more productive right-wing party to reemerge to take its place. The GOP is at an Whigs in 1854 moment. And if this is how to do it--and if it can be presently done this way--then it must be done. McCain is thoroughly expendable in my book.

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton


Joe McCarthy Type hearings are needed (0.00 / 0)
McCarthy was lying. There was no conspiracy of Communists trying to overthrow the country.

However we are now faced with exactly that scenario. We DO have subversives using all the techniques to invade our institutions from Government to Churches, and even groups like the YMCA and Boy Scouts, and it is destroying the country economically and headed to dictatorship if not stopped.

Without either the Media or the executive branch such an open attack on them would probably fail, but if the law was enforced through a new FCC and a Justice Department RICO investigation, of the entire Vast Right Wing Conspiracy (VRWC)(i.e. the new Reds)could eventually set the few rock falls like Glen and Paul into a major avalanche.

We do not need to manufacture fake stuff like McCarthy or the Swifties. If the average American ever saw the the endless corruption and fraud that is well known by those who have and use the Web access, the revulsion would be universal.

Even now the Web has reached a critical mass that I did not see as late as 2004 when even most Democrats I met did not have such information that I had as common knowledge on the Web.


Donate to Open Left








Friends of the Earth thanks the OpenLeft community for the ideas you generate and your contributions to the progressive movement.

As an anti-spam measure, there is a 24-hour waiting period after registering before new users can comment.
blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search