Maybe it says something about the news and your perceptions that someone who entirely agrees with the progressive social and political agenda is so critical of what is currently passing for progressive ideas and champions these days.
To your point, his tweets seem to be entirely criticizing liberals; I don't see him criticizing conservatives. I'm not saying criticizing liberals is bad or that he should be criticizing conservatives. I'm saying that someone who spends all their time criticizing liberals and repeating right-leaning talking points is right leaning.
Aaron Maté's skepticism of the Russia narrative is not out of any support for Trump whatsoever - he's been highly critical of Trump - but is part of a track record of earnest investigative reporting about Russia that few other western journalists can match. One should never forget that as recently as 2012, to consider Russia any kind of threat to the US, which the Romney Republican campaign did back then, attracted mockery and derision from Democrats, and it was only in early 2017, just 4 years ago, that it suddenly flipped such that expressing skepticism about the influence of Russia in US politics suddenly became part of "right-leaning talking points".
All Maté is doing is remaining consistent with what has been the accepted Democrat/left-wing position for many years, right up until Clinton lost the unlosable election.
When Maté and Greenwald spend their time "criticizing liberals", their criticisms are always focused on the modern-day Democrats' track record of becoming too entangled with the big-corporate and military/intelligence establishment, and in doing so, abandoning their supposed left-wing ideals.
Just because some right-wingers criticise the Democrats/liberals for the same reason, does not make Maté and Greenwald right-leaning; they are simply staying true to the left-wing values they've held for decades.
Also I can't take anyone seriously who claims to criticise mainstream media (almost always the more Liberal slanted one), but goes regularly on Tucker Carlsson without ever seriously criticising them. To see how to properly criticise Fox and Tucker search for the leaked interview with rudger bergman.
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 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.
> 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?
>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.
- Those words about immigration were written in 2005. At worst they were unkind, hardly “hard right”, but he has since specifically disavowed those words [1][2]. Besides, your initial claim was that he was anti-immigration, which he has never been, just concerned about uncontrolled immigration, which is not inconsistent with being of the left, given that even Marx and other communists have wrestled with the pros and cons of immigration and issues around assimilation and solidarity [3][4][5].
- Greenwald has a long record of support for civil liberties, opposing wars and US militarism/interventionism, opposing Israel’s conduct towards the Palestinians, campaigning for animal rights, supporting workers’ rights and unions, opposing “neoliberal” economics and corporate power, supporting universal health care and welfare. Which of these positions are not consistent with the left? And what actual policies has he supported in the past 15 years that are right wing?
- He criticizes NYT and other mainstream media outlets for posturing in support of token liberal issues but ultimately promoting the interests of the corporate and military/intelligence establishments, which it can be reasonably argued, results in far greater real-world negative consequences than anything Tucker Carlson does. I expect you’ll disagree with that, which you’re entitled to do, but simply going on a conservative commentator’s show does not make you “right wing” when you have an at-least 15-year record of advocating for many clear-cut left wing positions and zero clear-cut right wing positions.
[1] http://www.twitlonger.com/show/a2av5p
[2] https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2014/01/would-you-feel...
[3] https://monthlyreview.org/2017/02/01/marx-on-immigration/
[4] https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/08883254145660...
[5] https://www.greenleft.org.au/content/1907-birth-socialisms-g...
He (they) did not blame the immigrants for coming and in fact did not see anti-immigration laws as the solution (arguably having illegal immigrants leads to even more exploitation), but instead saw international organisation of workers as the solution. Your reference [3] says that and there are quite a few more writings from the time along similar lines (I will try to find the references later).
That "hordes" phrasing is unfortunate, but it's a little bit like comparing Marx to Nazis because of his phrasing : "The Irish question".
In [3] :
> Marx did not elaborate on his reasons for writing that Irish immigration reduced English workers’ wages. He implied that the cause was an oversupply of manual laborers, but his other statements indicate that he considered English xenophobia and the resulting antagonism among workers an even greater problem.
[...]
> In his 1870 letter, Marx described what he then considered the overriding priority for labor organizing in England: “to make the English workers realize that for them the national emancipation of Ireland is not a question of abstract justice or humanitarian sentiment but the first condition of their own social emancipation.”
If positions are rooted in hatred based on race or class, of course that's different, but Greenwald has said nothing of the sort, and all the positions he's expressed in the past 15 years make it clear he doesn't think anything like that.
Were they "hard-right" too ?
The first international was about uniting international workers, there are in fact several writings who say that the bourgeoisie use nationalism and anti-immigrant sentiments to divide the working class.
> They discussed the need for an international organisation, which would amongst other things prevent the import of foreign workers to break strikes.
(Technically, at that point, other factions than communists were involved too.)
now the citation you give is they _amongst other things_ wanted to prevent the import of foreign workers to break strikes.
Apart from "amongst other things" does not make it "the main thing", it also was very much not anti-immigration. The international workingmen association formation was about forming an international organisation to prevent "capitalists" from playing the workers in different countries against each other. In other words they realised that unless workers organise internationally, they would always be on the back foot.