>> Greenwald has been posting some antimigration articles messages using language that skims very close to hard-right wording
>That’s an inflammatory claim, that needs direct quotes/links to be taken seriously. But lest it be forgotten that there has long been an acceptance among traditional left-wingers (including Bernie until it became unacceptable to too many of his followers) of the need for some immigration controls in order to protect the most vulnerable workers, and historically the loudest voices for open borders are Laissez-faire/social-Darwinist libertarians, most notably the Kochs.
Maybe in the context of what counts as left in the US. But the socialist left movement was always an international movement (I give you three guesses what the anthem is called).
Regarding some of the Greenwalds words:
"Current illegal immigration – whereby unmanageably endless hordes of people pour over the border in numbers far too large to assimilate, and who consequently have no need, motivation or ability to assimilate – renders impossible the preservation of any national identity"
http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2005/12/yelling-racist-as...
Calling immigrants "hordes" is quite definitely language that is what I consider "hard-right". It dehumanises people and tries to instil fear and a violent counter-reaction.
>> Maybe he doesn't neatly fit into the (American) left/right schema
>I think this is quite false: he fits into the traditional left/right spectrum as a bona-fide leftist. It’s the mainstream Democratic Party that has moved towards corporatism and militarism.
The mainstream democratic party was never not corporatist and militaristic. There has not been a change. However, I'm interested what in your eye's qualifies Greenwald as a bona-fide leftist (whatever that means)
>> regularly on Tucker Carlsson without ever seriously criticising them
> What would it change for him to criticize them; to try to impress the people who would still hate him anyway? Carlson gives him airtime and the opportunity to express his position to an audience of people whose minds he might be able to change about a few things. Why waste that opportunity with token criticism?
Funny, he does criticise the NYT and many other media outlets though. But you're not wrong, he can express his position to an audience, but he's not trying to change minds, he actually agrees with much that Tucker Carlson says. That means he agrees with the agenda of a billionaire who has been using his media to clearly push a neocon, hard-right agenda worldwide. Considering that Greenwald is somehow building this persona of a media critic who points out the "agenda" of mainstream media, it is somewhat contradictory to go on those shows without a word of criticism and without blinking an eye.