This is a great review of Glenn Greenwald’s latest book “Great American Hypocrites.” Dean Barnett writes that, unlike most of his fellow conservatives, he’s actually something of a fan of Greenwald. Sure, Greenwald often uses personal attacks, and distortions to make his case, but he also often says some very reasonable things, and knows how to express his thoughts rather well.

The review is called “The Good, The Bad and the Greenwald.” Why this title? Well, because that’s how Barnett sees Greenwald:

Like most things that spring from Glenn Greenwald’s keyboard, Great American Hypocrites is a combination of literate insights, occasional distortions, and forays into ugliness that are difficult to understand given Greenwald’s obvious intelligence. In other words, the book is filled with the Good, the Bad, and the distinctly Greenwald.

“The Good” comes during Greenwald’s discussion of how hypocrisy characterizes the modern GOP. Greenwald posits John Wayne as the archetypal Republican - a guy who acted tough and noble but whose personal life was ignoble and at times pathetic. Greenwald acidly notes, “John Wayne flamboyantly paraded around as the embodiment of courage, masculinity, patriotism, wholesomeness and warrior virtues” when in fact he was a Lothario who went to great lengths to avoid military service during World War II. (Worse still, Wayne inflicted “The Green Berets” on the movie-going nation in the 1960s, a cinematic crime that can never be fully forgiven.)…

Greenwald’s larger point about hypocrisy among conservative ranks is worth considering. I can’t claim to be as bothered by hypocrisy as Greenwald is; I certainly wouldn’t write a book on the subject. We all fail to live up to our expressed values on occasion, and thus slip into hypocrisy. (In fairness to Greenwald, he makes this precise point in his book.)

But it’s worth pondering whether the hypocrisy among Republican politicians has reached a tipping point the past few years. We’ve seen purported family values champions looking for love in bordellos, airport restrooms, and instant message chats with teens. The concern isn’t that these men are merely hypocrites, but that their rhetoric is nothing but a hollow means to gaining office.

On this, I agree with Barnett, and thus with Greenwald. Too many Republicans talk the talk, but do not walk the walk. Not only that, they give me - and many others I am sure - the profound impression that they do not actually believe what they say, nor support it; they say what they say because it helps them get elected.

So, Greenwald most certainly has a point in this regard.

But then:

That’s it for “the good,” on to “the bad.” One of the problems with Great American Hypocrites is that the terrain it covers isn’t particularly fresh. Although Greenwald makes the chicken hawk argument with more creativity than you’ll find anywhere at the Daily Kos, we’re not exactly breaking new ground here. Nevertheless, Greenwald loves the chicken hawk stuff and makes his point with needless length, a trait familiar to critics of his blog.

Also striking a familiar chord will be a certain slippery disingenuousness that sometimes creeps into Greenwald’s writing when he tries to make a point…
The sad fact is that Greenwald often opts for personal attacks rather than reasoned argument.

Even if every reader of Great American Hypocrites walked away from the several pages that attack Norman Podhoretz (to take just one of the many conservative thinkers that Greenwald assails) convinced that Podhoretz is just about the most awful person to ever walk the face of the Earth, Podhoretz’s ideas would remain unscathed. Podhoretz has never argued that a reader should agree with his ideas because he is such a wonderful guy. Instead, the ideas have a life of their own.

Greenwald’s own success makes his personal attacks particularly ironic. There was nothing in Glenn Greenwald’s background that suggested he should have been one of the kings of the progressive blogosphere. And Russ Feingold didn’t read passages from Greenwald’s first book from the Senate floor because Greenwald is such a fine human being. Greenwald gained prominence because of the power of his ideas and his writing. Whatever prominence he retains will also result exclusively from the quality of his work. It’s a mystery why he doesn’t realize that it operates the same way at all spots on the ideological spectrum.

 In short:

 Barnett at Weekly Standard reviews Glenn Greenwald’s right-bashing “Great American Hypocrites,” professes to like him, pronounces his book’s argument worthy of consideration, and goes on to enumerate point by point why it is a big fat piece of crap and a waste of time.

In all seriousness, I think that Barnett perfectly explains what the problem with Greenwald is these days. I own a copy of his first book, and enjoyed it tremendously, even wrote a review in which I praised it. But Greenwald’s contemporary style, that of personally attacking his opponents, encourages me and most people like me to… stop visiting his blog. People can disagree, but why the personal attacks? Why the distortions?

In response to the review, Greenwald answers the questions raised above: because Republicans do so as well, and if Democrats want to beat them they have to become better at the ad hominem game. From his perspective that probably makes a whole lot of sense, but he does not seem to realize that he is in the very real danger of being ignored by everyone who do not already agree with him. In other words; he’s constantly preaching to the choir.

That doesn’t help one win elections either.

Not only that, it’s also intellectually dishonest. Just because your enemy is evil, doesn’t mean you have to become evil to beat him (pretending to agree with Greenwald on how evil Republicans are).

Interestingly enough; isn’t that the exact same ground Greenwald often attacks Republicans on, who say that the US should be allowed to use enhanced interrogation techniques in the war on terror?

Karl:

However, PW regulars will love this part of Barnett’s review, starting with Ellensburg’s attack on John Wayne:

You’ll want to take special note of Greenwald’s none-too-subtle code language that has the Duke “flamboyantly parading.” Throughout “Great American Hypocrites,” neocons and other Republicans are reliably “prancing” or perambulating in some less than manful way.

One wonders whether Ellensburg was writing these passages at the same time he was having a hissy fit going ballistic over Peggy Noonan’s use of the word “poof” as a verb.  Because I think there is a word for that.

Heh.