BuzzMachine

The media pundit's pundit. Written by NYC insider Jeff Jarvis, BuzzMachine covers news, media, journalism, and politics.

Metropolitical

36 comments on Metropolitical

Metropolitical

: John Robb complains about the Republican Party:

Isn’t it funny (maybe not) how the roles of Republicans and Democrats have shifted over the past 30 years. The aspects of the Republican party that attracted me to them years ago are gone, and they have subsumed by the Dems. For example:

Fiscal responsibility.

A non-interventionist foreign policy.

Personal rights.

Republicans have failed on all of these counts. They are profligate spenders, able to send troops to all corners of the world on a whim, and ready to turn us into a police state. There is nothing left of the Republican party.

Meanwhile, there are Democrats like me, Totten, and Simon, to name a few, complaining that the Democratic party has lost its focus and resolve in important areas, including, for me:

Humanitarianism and human rights

An interventionist foreign policy

Individual rights.

This doesn’t mean that everybody just switched place; Republicans are not Democrats and Democrats are not Republicans.

But the old definitions are worthless.

And that is why America looks divided, red v. blue.

We’re not really divided, all of us living on the edges, facing each other over the new Mason-Dixon Red-Blue line.

Quite to the contrary, we’re all living in the middle, able to switch back and forth depending on who is saying what that’s worthwhile.

We’re not dogmatic.

We’re flexible.

We are metropolitical.

I frustrate some political dogmatists when I don’t fit their definition of the left: Many have yelled that I can’t possibly be a liberal if I support the war in Iraq when I argue, to the contrary, that my support for the human rights of Iraqis and opposition to the tyrant Saddam is, in fact, a just liberal cause.

Well, arguing about what the Democratic Party should and should not stand for is certainly nothing new; that’s why we have primaries (and used to have platforms), eh?

But what is new for me is that 9/11 and the explosion of new voices in media (yes, there is an explosion, not a contracting) and especially blogging have not made me more conservative or less liberal.

They have made me more open-minded.

I disagree with a helluva lot of what Bush said last night but I also agreed with a lot of what he said. I admire a lot of what Dean has done in his campaign online but I also hope he does not become President. Like the huge proportion of Iowa voters who waited until the last week to decide whom to support in the caucus, I am still learning more about the rest of the candidates before I decide.

There is no such thing as a pure Democrat and so I’m not one. There is no such thing anymore as a pure Republican and Robb’s not one.

The parties play both sides of every street and so we, the voters, have to do the same thing.

It makes us all biparty.

It makes us all flexible.

We are metropolitical.

: UPDATE: Roger Simon reacts:

But the problem for us “Metropoliticals” these days is that we have nowhere to go at election time. What if you’re one of these people who thinks that Gay Marriage is a natural outgrowth of the human rights movement and that the War on Terror is protecting those same rights? That’s not a contradiction in my mind. In fact, it’s almost evident. But neither political party seems prepared to accept this. That leaves me… and other “Metropoliticals”… making compromises (and not just about that issue).

36 responses to “Metropolitical”

  1. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “that my support for the human rights of Iraqis and opposition to the tyrant Saddam is, in fact, a just liberal cause.” We can all agree on that. Q is – Do we send troops when we see violations of human rights and a tyrant? My answer is no.

  2. MattS Avatar
    MattS

    Thanks Jeff for your view.
    The opposition to the war in Iraq is not liberal or conservative, it is simply an issue of methods. I have a great deal of respect for conservative principles, and for liberal ideals. What this administration represents, though, is aggregated organized money and dishonest methodology.
    To be technocratic about it, is the $120 billion we spent in Iraq the most efficient way of saving lives? Absolutely not. We could save more lives and prevent more human rights violations by investing that money in AIDS in Africa and other problems of the developing world.
    Many of us were not against a war in Iraq, we were against THIS war in Iraq. The flip side of the invasion is that by doing it in such a ham-handed dishonest way, by changing the rationale and arrogantly excluding people that wanted to help us and asserting an irrational American supra-sovereignty, we raised the costs and dramatically reduced our ability to affect human rights violations around the rest of the world. Our capacity to handle N. Korea is dramatically reduced, so is our capacity to handle Iran.
    Additionally, now we’re going to the UN, which is to say that the Bushies know that the unilateralism didn’t work, they just won’t admit it.
    Scream all you want about France and Russia; they are petty. But the point of multilateralism is that you can get a general international consensus, like in Kosovo, with specific actors objecting, and the UN conferring partial legitimacy. International law is messy. But you can’t point to support of countries like Togo as an international coalition, which it’s not.
    The problem here is not one of liberalism or Blue State/Red State-ism. The Democrats are in a lot of ways political hacks. But the problem is that the Republicans are a political cancer; they don’t do what they say, and they tend to hide their real agenda under a blanket of personal attacks and impugning of motives.

  3. Lola Avatar
    Lola

    Erm . . . where did that go?

  4. Lola Avatar
    Lola

    Umm – the BOLD closing tag seems to be missing . ..

  5. craig henry Avatar
    craig henry

    In a two party system we will always have loose coalitions instead ideologically pure groupings. The same thing was true in 1940 or 1970.

  6. Eric Deamer Avatar
    Eric Deamer

    Yes, the bold thing again. I don’t the know fancy web-jargony way to say it, but sometimes the site shows up on my browser (IE, version whatever is a normal/new one) with all the post text in bold. I don’t know if it’s just some browsers or what, or if it’s anything you can fix.

  7. Shamus Avatar
    Shamus

    This is a great post, and I’d hate for the main point of this to be derailed by Yet Another Debate About The War. The key points in this post, about us becoming more flexible as (arguably) the parties become ever more rigid is an important one.
    Blogs have opened up an entire spectrum of thought I never would have found in the pre-blog would. Before blogs, liberalisim (as I understood it) was whatever the Dems thought, and that came from the likes of Krugman and Daschle. The party line. I too am finding myself much more willing to embrace other parties and ideas, and am willing to vote for whatever works.
    I’m sure lots of conservatives would point at me and say I’m no longer one of them (because I like a lot of what Clinton accomplished, and think the endless investigation was an injustice, and a waste of time & money). But I’m not a liberal – I’m just flexible.
    I’m shopping for Ideas That Work, and the blogosphere has lots of ideas for me to choose from. I doubt anyone could wade in here wiuth an open mind and remain a party-line hack.

  8. scootran Avatar
    scootran

    “I’m sick of you people, your nothing but a bunch of fickle mush heads.”
    –Mayor Quimby

  9. EB Avatar
    EB

    That is why we need MORE political parties, not just 2 parties filled with people who could belong to either party equally comfortably. Face it, a career politician is a career politician, a pro at staying in office.
    Since raising money is their primary vital force in their life, until we take the enormous money machine out of it, it won’t change. Even if the “big idea” is to use the internet to raise money to spend on political ads, it is still all about the money. Same meat, different gravy.
    I don’t have an answer to the problem though, I just know I don’t like it.

  10. Marcel Perez Avatar
    Marcel Perez

    Radicalism hasn’t had real political power in our nation for some time now.
    The reason is simple and quite logical. Radicalism doesn’t work in a nation of educated, employed and well fed people.
    We have witnessed the drawing up of the liberal/conservative line of political distinction to one of overlapping similarity.
    The metropolitical man knows that inflexibility leads directly to political extinction.

  11. Swopa Avatar
    Swopa

    Amen, and amen again, to the comment by MattS.
    I don’t see how it’s part of the “war on terror” to sacrifice 500+ lives, thousands of limbs, and billions of dollars so some guy whose first name is Ayatollah could decide which laws are OK and which aren’t. Which, when it’s all said and done, will be what we’ve accomplished in Iraq.

  12. Jeremy Avatar
    Jeremy

    Hrrrrmph. I don’t really see that there is much a difference over past parties. Especially among the the Democratic party.
    Yes, they opposed the war, but if there had a been a democratic president, they would have been in favor. Clinton bombed Afghanistan and Iraq, the latter on several occasions. Any outcry? No. He bombed a whole lot of other countries, and sent troops all over. Outcry? No. He also tried to export democracy to places like Haiti and Bosnia.
    But because a Republican, especially the hated Bush, they have to ascribe all sorts of weird conspiracy theories about the war. (This happened to lesser extent with Clinton, too)
    The Republicans have changed somewhat, but really, the current Bush is an awful lot like Reagan. Tax less, spend more, talk big, carry a big stick.
    The thing is, society has changed on things. Like gays. 20-30 years ago, being gay was a lot different than it is today. Heck, even 10 years ago.
    Gay marriage is almost certainly going to happen in the future, probably 10-20 years down the road at the most. Most younger people (say 35 or under) have no problems with it. But why the big rush? It will happen
    Anyway, it is funny that liberals seem to expect more liberalism out of Bush than Clinton. Clinton was president for 8 years, yet he never did anything for gays or the enviroment.

  13. Doctor Slack Avatar
    Doctor Slack

    I think it’s fair and obvious to say the political landscape in the US is changing. But it’s changing in response to, and in the context of, a specific debate. Former “liberals” and “conservatives” crossed the old borders in droves and started talking, organizing, and marching together on either side of a specific debate (though the hardcore of either side of that debate remained fairly true to its traditional colours).
    That debate was, of course, the war — and in the broader sense the conduct of the “War on Terror.” In the degree to which people have become “metropolitical,” I’d say most of it is attributable to national security, IMO probably the single issue that has kept the Bush Administration alive.
    Prior to that, of course, there has been the age-old phenomenon of “running to the centre;” the “centrist” and the “moderate” is supposed to be the vote politicians are ideally courting. But there’s only so much ideological plasticity between “liberal” and “conservative” moderates. People who are willing to shake hands and talk about the war won’t necessarily come to share each others’ views on same-sex marriage, or separation of church and state, or labour rights or the welfare state. So I don’t think we can do away with the old terminology just yet.
    Yes, they opposed the war, but if there had a been a democratic president, they would have been in favor.
    Similarly, a lot more Republicans would have come out against the war (perhaps even most) if it hadn’t been Bush doing it. But Bush has also revealed that partisanship has a breaking point — that there really are Republicans who won’t swallow everything they’re told just because it comes from “their” team. Many of whom have been vocal critics of Bush. I’d expect the same to happen to any similarly-inclined Democratic President, assuming there was one to be had.

  14. Dann Avatar
    Dann

    Jeff-
    I’m still looking for a candidate that is looking to cut non-DoD spending, cut wasteful DoD spending, cut taxes, end our failed War on Drugs, and prosecute our War on Terrorism with as much confidence as Mr. Bush. Looks like this will be a long year for me. [sigh]
    Dr. Slack –
    Noting the situational support of Dems and Repubs for Bosnia and Iraq in light of Mr. Clinton’s and Mr. Bush’s presidencies, perhaps we could agree that both men were in the right place at the right time to do the right job without disavowing our right to have other complaints about either men?
    -Regards

  15. Doctor Slack Avatar
    Doctor Slack

    Noting the situational support of Dems and Repubs for Bosnia and Iraq in light of Mr. Clinton’s and Mr. Bush’s presidencies, perhaps we could agree that both men were in the right place at the right time to do the right job without disavowing our right to have other complaints about either men?
    I think the lesson there is that partisan support isn’t very useful as an indicator of the genuine merits of action or the degree to which people are informed about it. In fact, one of the distinguishing features of the Iraq War, as I noted above, was that it jolted some people out of partisan mindsets and into looking at the genuine merits of the case for war. That’s a good thing which needs to be nourished; it didn’t happen to anywhere near the same extent with Clinton’s actions in Bosnia and Sudan.
    To answer your question: no, in fact, I don’t think either President’s military actions are indicators of “the right men in the right place at the right time.”
    Clinton’s attack on Sudan, for instance, seemed then (and seems now) like classic “wag the dog.” Bosnia was less clear-cut, but it’s hard for me to see in it the unblemished model of humane internationalism that Clinton did.
    Though I wan’t convinced it was the right approach, I was sympathetic to Bush’s action against Afghanistan. But to put it mildly, the outcome has yet to vindicate the invasion — a spectacle which didn’t give me much trust in the Administration’s sincerity or effectiveness. Iraq, for me, has largely borne out that suspicion.

  16. Reid Avatar
    Reid

    Oh, great. He’s referencing John Pilger now.

  17. Charlie Avatar
    Charlie

    Dr Slack, the issue of vindicating the invasion seems to me to have been settled, once and for all, by the discovery of the mass graves (which, contrary to common suggestions, don’t all predate the war to liberate Kuwait), the massive caches of essential medical supplies and food in Ba’athist homes while Shi’ites starved and died (and dead Shi’a babies were paraded as gruesome political poker chips), and the discovery of billions (BILLIONS!) of dollars (US DOLLARS, not dinar) stashed away against a rainy day.
    Go look at one of the counts of lives saved since the war. If you have the moral or ethical sense of a cephalopod, you’ll see an awfully strong argument that the biggest problem with the war to remove Saddam was that it took so long to do it.

  18. MattS Avatar
    MattS

    Go look at one of the counts of lives saved since the war. If you have the moral or ethical sense of a cephalopod, you’ll see an awfully strong argument that the biggest problem with the war to remove Saddam was that it took so long to do it.
    But Charlie, how can you then justify the paltry foreign aid appropriations of the US, since so many lives could be saved by increased resources put into AIDS, malaria, starvation, etc?

  19. Doctor Slack Avatar
    Doctor Slack

    Go look at one of the counts of lives saved since the war.
    See, I think there were serious arguments for the war, and tendentious ones. This is one of the latter. Vague, non-disprovable claims about “lives saved” by the war (or latterly about Baghdad’s supposedly favourable murder rate) are going to matter very little to people who are losing their lives or those of family members to occupation. Nor should they. Pointing and screaming about Saddam’s mass graves and surreal atrocities and golden toilet seats is not going to impress people who remember the Americans as Saddam’s fellow criminals. Nor should it. Overcoming those perceptions with real, solid progress on the ground will be what judges the war in Iraq. The longer the chaos goes, the less it’s likely to happen.
    I would like to see something good come out of the invasion of Iraq. I would like to see real, meaningful progress toward the democracy that was supposed to have been its goal. I don’t see it happening, though, and I was (and am) dubious about how feasible it is — especially with Bush at the helm, but with or without him at this point.
    Oh, great. He’s referencing John Pilger now.
    Who is on The List of Banned and Degenerate Journalists along with Robert Fisk and the entire roster of the BBC, I’m sure. So what of it? The kinds of people who feel comfortable dismissing Pilger are often the same ones who believe in Transnational Progressivist conspiracies. Doesn’t exactly move me, you know?

  20. Tom Grey Avatar
    Tom Grey

    The problem, MattS, is that foreign aid goes to local rich elite kleptocrats more than to poor people who need it. Always has.
    By and large functioning bi-party democracies don’t need so much aid — poor countries are poorly run by rich dictators. Whose support has been the 60 year Cold War mistake of the US and the West.
    For years, ‘liberals (Dems)’ favored big gov’t/ higher taxes in econ, and more civil rights (less gov’t in social matters); ‘conservatives (Reps)’ favored continued gov’t control of society, but lower taxes and more econ freedom. Of 4 general possibilities, 2 main big/small and small/big gov’t positions. (With Libertarians small/small and getting very few votes, like big/big commie-socialist-fascist types)
    The war has added a third dimension, pro-war (Iraqi freedom) or anti-war (keep Saddam), upping the possibilities from 4 to 9. Looking at gov’t size/control, in Econ, Civil, and War/ democracy, I have become small, small, big. With, for the upcoming election, the war on terror the MOST important.
    But even without the war, there was PC speech control, alternative action, and abortion; and rich folk subsidies, crony capitalism, corporate welfare; so that the civil liberty was already being decreased by PC Dems, and gov’t spending & control was already being increased by Reps.
    Under cover of the dot.com get-rich quick bubble, both parties were drunk in an orgy of excess that didn’t seem to matter so much as long as amazon.com was worth more than GM and Ford combined. Pop! And before we can really admit we’re in hangover mode, 9/11 … a new world, brave or otherwise.
    So, how about looking at individual accounts for individual benefits, so that “middle class” means taking care of yourself, instead of begging the gov’t for other people’s money? (See my Tax Loan proposal http://tomgrey.motime.com/1066623081#160449 )

  21. mary Avatar
    mary

    Doctor Slack – you mention “The kinds of people who feel comfortable dismissing Pilger are often the same ones who believe in Transnational Progressivist conspiracies.”
    What are these mythical “Transnational Progressivist conspiracies”?

  22. Doctor Slack Avatar
    Doctor Slack

    The meme originated with John Fonte and has been picked up by Den Beste (to whom Atrios mistakenly attributed it) among others. Thanks for asking, Mary!

  23. The Atlantic Avatar
    The Atlantic

    Republicans vs. Democrats
    The Party of the Church vs. the Party of The Chieftains
    An intellectual audit of the Democrats and the Republicans:
    http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2004/01/halstead.htm

  24. mary Avatar
    mary

    Doctor Slack – Fonte points out that people who call themselves

  25. Doctor Slack Avatar
    Doctor Slack

    Yeah, Fonte thinks “progressives” are the statist fifth column of an anti-democratic movement for one world government, but he’s not a conspiracy theorist. Riiiight…

  26. mary Avatar
    mary

    This is a conflict of philosphies, not a ‘fifth column’ or a cabal. Progressives are in favor of a more powerful UN, they are in favor of international laws taking precedence over national laws. They’re in favor of centralized forms of government. That’s a simple fact, demonstrated by their words and their actions.

  27. Doctor Slack Avatar
    Doctor Slack

    Actually, Fonte goes out of his way to argue that “post-national elites” and “human rights activists” amount to a single movement pushing the strawman philosophy of “transnationalism.” It’s recognizably a replacement for the “international Communism” bogeyman — source of so many conspiracy theories, anti-Semitic and otherwise — to the point where Fonte ties its supposed emergence to the end of the Cold War.

  28. mary Avatar
    mary

    I don’t agree with everything Fonte says – just the points that are already proven with facts.
    Was the idea of’international communism’ a conspiracy theory?

  29. Doctor Slack Avatar
    Doctor Slack

    Was the idea of’international communism’ a conspiracy theory?
    In some of its manifestations, obviously yes. Though those conspiracy theorists had the advantage of actual organizations, like COMINTERN, to point at. Not so poor Fonte.
    Thanks to whoever posted that Atlantic link, incidentally. That’s an interesting analysis.

  30. MattS Avatar
    MattS

    The problem, MattS, is that foreign aid goes to local rich elite kleptocrats more than to poor people who need it. Always has.
    Well, it’s a fair point that foreign aid is often directed to countries with inadequate governance systems. Bill Easterly’s The Elusive Quest for Wealth is wonderful on that subject; it’s too broad to say that all foreign aid is wasted. Certainly, Israel couldn’t have won the Yom Kippur war without massive infusions of aid; the WHO does tremendous work, and billions are going to AIDS in Africa.
    Still, if it is true that foreign aid always goes to rich and screws ‘the real people’, why should this be any different in Iraq? Note that I don’t agree with the premise that underlies this question; I’m just pointing out that your two premises are entirely contradictory.

  31. jeanne a e devoto Avatar
    jeanne a e devoto

    why should this be any different in Iraq?
    This is a rhetorical question, yes? After all, why should direct spending by the people who are currently running the country be any different than handing pots of money to the local dictator and saying “We’re sure you’ll spend this for the benefit of your people”?

  32. Oberon Avatar
    Oberon

    I think we already had a metropolitical president — Bill Clinton.

  33. MattS Avatar
    MattS

    The problem, MattS, is that foreign aid goes to local rich elite kleptocrats more than to poor people who need it. Always has
    So if I understand this right, it sounds like he’s saying we can’t dispense effective foreign aid anywere. Note that I don’t agree with this proposition, and neither would Israel or the millions saved by the WHO and their fight against tropical diseases. I’m just trying to understand it.
    After all, why should direct spending by the people who are currently running the country be any different than handing pots of money to the local dictator and saying “We’re sure you’ll spend this for the benefit of your people”?
    If I understand you, it sounds like you’re saying that foreign aid can succeed if you give it to the right people. But you see, the first statement precluded the very idea of ‘right people’ to give it to. Foreign aid always goes to rich kleptocrats, so he said.
    Again, this Iraq adventure is opening a whole host of humanitarian questions which are not one-sided and which both parties, and a lot of us, have much to answer for.

  34. noam chimpsky Avatar
    noam chimpsky

    Jeff, please explain how our invasion of Iraq was motivated by humanitarian aims. We currently support despotic regimes in countries like Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan. These are small, strategic (oil pipeline) countries that we could force to be democratic in a minute. They are run by dictators that have visited Bush and been feted as close allies, while they torture their own people.
    Its the oil, stupid.

  35. triticale Avatar
    triticale

    So, chimpsky, if it’s all about oil why haven’t we invaded Venezuela?

  36. noam chimpsky Avatar
    noam chimpsky

    triticale, in case you didn’t notice, in 2002 there was an attempted coup in Venezuela in which the democratically elected president Hugo Chavez was overthrown by a small group of elites led by rich businessman Pedro Carmona. There have been reports in the international press that the Bush administration’s cop on the beat Otto Reich and Elliott Abrams was meeting with Carmona before thee coup, and in fact the coup was actively encourating the coup:
    http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,688071,00.html
    http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0807-05.htm
    http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/04/11/world/main505951.shtml
    You may claim the administration didn’t encourage the coup; this is up for debate. However, it WAS openly reported in the NY Times and other US media that the Bush administration openly endorsed the coup when it happened. Anyone who has any knowledge of how the US operates in Latin America should not be surprised if the US was at least indirectly involved, and if Reich, Arbams and other similar people were directly coordinating it. Here is a quote from the CBS News article linked above:
    –begin quote–
    The New York Times reported on Tuesday that senior Bush administration officials met several times in recent months with leaders of the coalition that ousted Chavez and agreed he should be removed from office.
    The officials, however, gave conflicting accounts of the meetings. One unnamed senior official quoted by the newspaper insisted the Venezuelans use constitutional means to remove Chavez while a Defense Department official said the message was less categorical, saying U.S. officials sent “informal, subtle signals” that the Bush administration did not like Chavez
    –end quote–
    Any other questions?