-- however, I realize he explains the historical contexts that show these are symptoms of longstanding decisions our previous administrations have made, and not the only problem we face.
The way I look at Greenwald and Hedges, they have too different of backgrounds to see the world similarly, except in a couple of ways. Hedges' is journalism, religion and political history; Greenwald's is law, writing and his self admitted background spent in acting and thinking in oppositional defiance. To me, Hedges shows how our particular problem reflects the problems of current societies who've experienced the same thing.
Hedges gets asked very hard questions here. And he offers his book as a sharpener of our awareness about information, our leaders' political decisions' ramifications, and our vigilance for ways to transform in spite of them, rather than because of them. Greenwald doesn't bother with any of that. He confronts. He makes war. This week's r New Yorker article on Greenwald does little to change our seeing him as an asshole; it just helps us understand why.
Hedges asks hard questions back. Our political views have a narrow rightness. We have to be careful to not believe we are always right because we have gotten some things right. When we miss the historical, political decisions that force us into these corners of a political ring, as a party, we unnecessarily hobble our ability to "see" vanguards and new ways forward that might break the momentum of this nation's drift.
It can't just be one election or major investigation, though those will open up possibilities. We can't be zero sum, binary or knee-jerk oppositional out of habit, and this framing might help us to "see" better when we get disjointed, minimized and/or amplified topics in the news. Otherwise, how will our party be part of the solution?
I'm also not happy about his mentioning Hillary, but Bill tainted her.