I think it's a good profile and a decent way to suggest an alternate worldview, but that view also contains a little (or a lot) too much begging the question for my tastes.
These critics note the irony that many who were critical of national-security abuses during the Bush and Obama years have now, in the name of defending the republic, put their faith in opaque intelligence agencies and retired generals.
I mean, fair enough, but what's the alternative? It's like saying someone who belongs to Black Lives Matter has lost all right to call the police if their house is robbed.
It's also bordering on whatabout-ism. I don't really understand the criticism of liberals' taking the intelligence community seriously when that community is doing what they're supposed to be doing, namely seeing whether a foreign entity interfered in a way we're not happy with. I mean, that's in essence what counter-intelligence is.
“For me, the fundamental question is: How satisfied are you with the prevailing order, with the status quo?” By this, Greenwald does not mean life in the Trump era but the behavior of American elites over the past several generations. “How benevolent do you regard American power and American institutions?” The answer to that question says a lot about how you rate the Trump threat.
Over the past several generations? Can you show me a time when elites in the U.S. or anywhere else didn't throw morality out the window as soon as it lost alignment with some other interest?
The problem with positioning yourself as an iconoclast is that you start attacking whatever narrative is popular without regard for whether it's right.