The Antipoliticals

Everyone's already raked David Ignatius over the coals for his inability to understand that political controversy exists because disagreement is a real phenomenon of American life (see Benen in particular). To merely extend the analysis a bit, there's also the point that there are actual conflicts of interest existing in society -- some people would benefit from things being done one way, others would benefit from them happening a different way.

This, I think, is at the root of elite distaste for argument and democracy. There's an enormous desire on the part of the people near the top of the political-media pyramid to believe that they are participants in some kind of ethereal realm of Pure Ideas. The idea that politics is a clash of interests is disturbing to their self-image. It's disturbing, but also undeniable, which leads to a desire to somehow purge and purify things. The ideal would be something like the court of Frederick the Great, where the country is ruled by an absolute monarch who likes to gather the leading intellectuals (but none who are too radical) around his table to debate the issues and then the winner gets his way -- never mind what the peasants think.

Comments

Well, there's a lot here. But I'd say that the court of Frederick the Great with leading intellectuals who should debate a 'reasonable compromise' never mind what the peasants think is more Brussels, the European Commission and its unaffiliated-but-Europeanist intellectual hangers-on than Washington DC. It's Brussels where there is a widespread pretence (pretence only) that conflicts of interest don't exist.

In Washington on the other hand, the leading elite journalists - and the other elites too - are pretty directly and nakedly affilitated with one intensely organised interest group or partisan persuasion - Ajami, Novak, Amity Schales, Krugman, you add your favourites - and everyone involved at the top level knows that's how it works. Because they are so affiliated, they are in fact always more connected to the peasants (in their form as voters) than one might expect. Then there are a few like Broder or Ignatius who apply we-must-unify pabulum on the top - but they aren't very representative of DC elites. The anti politicals are in fact quite thin on the ground.

Posted by otto | July 6, 2007 6:18 PM

And the other problem is that Frederick the Great tends to be followed by Frederick W. the not-so-Great.

Posted by MattF | July 6, 2007 6:20 PM

Don't understand otto's comment at all.

How many of the "DC elites" are "on the ground"? They all have lifelong tenure at their think tanks no matter how bizarre their statements or writings, or are multi-millionaire media stars how little sign of knowing much. Where do they alight? In the Hamptons or at Davos? They are worse than Paris Hilton, who has far fewer illusions about her real-world skills, and actually did some time for her sins.

Posted by anon | July 6, 2007 6:29 PM

otto, of course the bureaucrats in brussels realize only too well that there is such a thing as a conflict of interest: whatever makes you think otherwise?

as for the likes of ajami, novak, and schales, yes, they are part and parcel of a political movement, but on whatever basis are you lumping krugman in there?

but actually, i wanted to post because one aspect of this that matthew missed is that elite opinion-makers want to believe that they have their jobs because their opinions are just so danged special, not that they might be useful idiots....

Posted by howard | July 6, 2007 6:31 PM

Interests rule, ideas drool.

Posted by bob mcmanus | July 6, 2007 6:53 PM

elite opinion-makers want to believe that they have their jobs because their opinions are just so danged special, not that they might be useful idiots....

um, so, where does that put Yglesias, Sullivan, Douthat, Ambinder and Fallows with their paid jobs at Atlantic Online? Not to mention someone like that Atrios guy with the big adoring fan club which chases away any not suitably adoring and provides for income from ratings?

Shouldn't you be over at Kos Diaries reading the essays of the masses rather than here reading elite product? Sorry, but your comment strikes me as ridiculous given that it's to a salaried blogger with an ivy league & Manhattan private school education who shares a house with a bunch of other writers in D.C. What the heck takes being called elite for you?

Posted by artappraiser | July 6, 2007 6:57 PM

artappraiser, calm down! matthew was talking about "elite distaste for argument and democracy;" i was augmenting his remark by suggesting that david broder (for example) almost certainly believes that high broderism is his very special contribution to american political discourse, not something that fred hiatt and donald graham want to have filling limited op-ed space so that they don't need to find a range of real opinions (sorta, in short, what bob mcmanus succinctly summed up).

but that said, no, for heaven's sakes: surely you don't think that matthew is part of the opinion-making elite? do you really not see any difference between a 26-year-old recent harvard grad who never appears on sunday talk shows and whose only platform is a blog in the atlantic and david broder? you honestly think they are the same because they both draw a salary?

i have no idea what matthew's salary is, or his wealth, or his family's wealth, and it's certainly not impossible that in economic class terms matthew (or his family) are "elite" but in opinion-making terms? surely you jest....

Posted by howard | July 6, 2007 7:16 PM

Who are you people?! But seriously, these are some strange comments. I wish I could agree with Otto's claim that most pundits are "pretty directly and nakedly affiliated with one intensely organised interest group or partisan persuasion." But I think Krugman is the only one who fits the bill, and that's only the case if you delete "intensely organized" and you define partisanship as a good kind of political engagement. By that definition, one would expect every pundit to have a "partisan persuasion." My problem with many pundits is that they are too lazy to have a political persuasion, or they try to mask hackishly partisan leanings with reasonable murmuring about bipartisanship. Or they try to win arguments by way of deliberately misleading factoids and completely unsubstantiated claims. Or, if they are Maureen Dowd, they spend their days thinking up snarky things to say.

Posted by mary | July 6, 2007 7:25 PM

I think most of the media pundits who are not politically partisan directly because of personal beliefs belong to the interest group of the rich corporate media, because they benefit so much from the wealth and prestige it channels to them. Interest groups are not necessarily politically partisan out of ideological belief. They can be, or become, partisan in the pursuit of wealth and power if they think one political party or another will be more likely to do them favors in the long run.

Posted by anon | July 6, 2007 7:35 PM

A friend defined power in modern America as the ability to define some ideas as simply beyond the pale, over-the-top, and off-the-wall. He cited cynicism over America's foreign policy history of the Chomsky-Vidal mode and opposition to immigration as the two most obvious examples.

Posted by Steve Sailer | July 6, 2007 7:40 PM

This makes a lot of sense. To extend the logic, once you get defined as "an interest" you are at a disadvantage in this discourse. Unions were totally on the short end of this particular stick (ie "an interest group" as opposed to "democratic institutions of people who work" from the 1970s on, and there are only signs in the last couple of years. Republicans always understood this. But it is only in the last couple of years that anything approaching a critical mass of Democrats have gotten that this led to them and to unions both getting played.

Posted by benton | July 6, 2007 9:03 PM

howard: You are correct, but Matthew, "that Atrios guy", JMM and many others are catching up pretty damn fast. Note the US Atty beatdown on Jay Carney at Time a while back.

And that is why the 90's "he trashed the place" Broder almost looks quaint compared to the current, frightened, "Bush poised for a comeback" Broder.

Their town isn't just being trashed; they're being evicted.

Posted by Andruw | July 6, 2007 9:14 PM

well, andruw, now you're onto something different than artappraiser, and let me say that i agree completely. indeed, if i've typed it in a blog comment section once, i've typed it 100 times: i'm no blogging triumphalist, but if there is one thing that political blogging demonstrates, it's the economic inefficiency of the op-ed pundit as we largely know him (with the occasional her).

they're by and large lazy and ill-informed; i can't for the life of me figure out what the david broders do all day. i could write a typical david broder column in an hour, and i don't have four decades practice about doing it.

this is, in my estimation, entirely for the good.

and so to go back to the original notion here, you won't find matthew and that "atrios guy" and JMM bemoaning the absence of a national kumbaya session on every issue, which is part of why the changing of the guard will be so salutary.

as for when the guard will change, i'd say that if punch sulzberger and katherine graham hadn't been so dumb as to leave pinch and donald in charge, it might already have started. all it will take is one publisher smart enough to stop wasting his or her money on op-ed pundits and the rest of the newspaper industry (which will be in cost-cutting mode for decades to come) will join in.

and without the launching pad of the op-ed page, i think some of the clowns who have made it to tv punditry will also fade, to be replaced by informed people with something to say (admittedly, that will take longer, since the economic logic is so much clearer for newspapers).

Posted by howard | July 6, 2007 9:33 PM

To reinforce my earlier post, as well as howard's I think, I am struck by the fact that 10 years ago an impeachment supported (in any practical definition of the word) by a large number of the DC elite garnered the support of less than a 1/3 of the US public.

But today, half the country wants to impeach a guy that NO ONE in DC wants to impeach, and at a time when even those terrible liberal bloggers have not actively worked to build such a movement. But they have built the case.

Posted by Andruw | July 6, 2007 10:02 PM

I have no idea about Brussels, and I think Otto's unfair to Krugman, but I think otherwise Otto's substantially right. If by "the people near the top of the political-media pyramid" Matt means to include people like Novak or O'Reilly, he's clearly wrong -- these people know they're carrying water for a particular party; they know they're involved in a naked clash of interests and their only desire is to see their side win, not to transcend politics.

But somehow I don't think they're who Matt had in mind. His observation applies better to the Brookses and the Broders and the Gregorys and the Russerts and the Matthewses and the Ignatii. For these people, acknowledging the existence of legitimate clashes of interest is anathema. Reasons for this are no doubt complicated, but one I wouldn't underestimate is the clash between their awareness of their own obscene wealth and their burning desire to still think of themselves as common men. Fundamentally they don't want to think of America as a class-riven society because doing so would require them to admit that they are very, very distant and different from most people -- the people for whom they claim to speak.

Posted by Ryan | July 6, 2007 10:11 PM

there are actual conflicts of interest existing in society -- some people would benefit from things being done one way, others would benefit from them happening a different way.

And this is the essential distinction between liberals and the Left. Liberals believe that the essential conflicts are over opinion and are resolved through debate. Leftists believe that there are real conflicts of interest that can only be resolved through organization and conflict.

Come over to the Dark Side, young Jedi. The water's fine!

Posted by lemuel pitkin | July 6, 2007 11:10 PM

Also, while I agree with what Howard says, his focus on the media is kind of missing the whole point of Matthew's post.

Dude, politics doesn't happen on the op-ed page of the Washington Post.

Posted by lemuel pitkin | July 6, 2007 11:15 PM

Ah here is Alan Blinder's unusually frank statement of the anitpolitical position:

Those who say big government is the problem have it wrong. The real problem is that government is pushed and pulled by interest groups and partisan politicking, often at the public's expense. Washington could learn from independent agencies like the Federal Reserve. Shift responsibility for things like tax policy from the politicians to the experts; besides knowing more, they work in a politics-free zone.

Posted by lemuel pitkin | July 6, 2007 11:41 PM

It seems to me that Ignatius viatiates his own argument by pointing out how unprepared we are. If Bush and the Republican Congress, who had a stranglehold on power until January, aren't responsible for that, who is?

Plus, the funds that could ameliorate that lack of preparedness are still being wasted in Iraq.

Additionally, we haven't been able to go after the real al Qaeda because of our presence in Iraq.

Bush is responsible for that as well.

Posted by Rich | July 7, 2007 12:06 AM

Lemuel, at risk of making too much of a distinction here (i agree that "politics" is, at a minimum, more than the op-ed page), matthew discussed the "political-media pyramid," which in my humble estimation, does include the op-ed pages of the wapo and the nytimes and the regulars on the sunday morning talk-show circuit....

Posted by howard | July 7, 2007 12:14 AM

"There's an enormous desire on the part of the people near the top of the political-media pyramid to believe that they are participants in some kind of ethereal realm of Pure Ideas."

Things that we agree with are 'Laws of Nature'. Things we don't agree with are examples of unprincipled 'activism'.

What Ignatius is trying to do is de-legitimatize points of view that don't agree with his own -- by labelling them 'partisan'.

Posted by leo | July 7, 2007 12:26 AM

Well, that is how policy is sold in Washington, isn't it? Objective, empirical, unbiased, non-partisan, disinterested and just damn good for absolutely everybody. Every tax cut is gonna make everybody a little richer, every tax increase will increase the general welfare. Like, can you sell non Pareto-optimals in Washington? So that is of course the tone and discourse.

For that matter is Matt's analysis of Iraq based on his interests and values, or actually something approaching accurate and good for everyone, God bless us all? What makes him special?

Me I am with labour, and not part of any reality-based community. My interests determine my very perceptions, let alone my analysis.

Posted by bob mcmanus | July 7, 2007 12:32 AM

"Fundamentally they don't want to think of America as a class-riven society because doing so would require them to admit that they are very, very distant and different from most people -- the people for whom they claim to speak."

You put into words something I had been trying to say but couldn't exactly pin down. Cool.

Krugman was an econ advisor to Reagan and tended to be respected on both the left and right of economists for his theories before his time at the NYT let people know more of his beliefs.

Posted by Reality Man | July 7, 2007 1:26 AM

And this is the essential distinction between liberals and the Left. Liberals believe that the essential conflicts are over opinion and are resolved through debate. Leftists believe that there are real conflicts of interest that can only be resolved through organization and conflict.

I think that the realization that Republicans cannot be compromised with and that issues cannot be resolved through debate have made it clear to a lot of Democrats of all ideological stripes that organization and conflict are necessary to defeat firmly and completely Republicans in order to advance necessary policies.

It's not that liberals and "the Left" simply had different aesthetic preferences. It's that the "Left's" agenda was so radical that their agenda couldn't be reached through simple compromise, and the liberals' agenda had a chance of being advanced that way. Over time, the Republicans became more extremist and more radicalized and more abusive, meaning that even mainstream liberals were prevented from advancing their interests through "normal" channels. In this day and age, when it comes to government policy, it's hard to conceive of "essential conflicts are over opinion are resolved through debate" when one side of the "debate" insists that government is evil and that the only requirement for administration authority in government is ideological purity, not competence.

Posted by Tyro | July 7, 2007 2:17 AM

It seems to me that you all are looking at unimportant details and overlooking the major malignancies:

1) We are a nation of 300 MILLION people totally ruled and controlled --without any real constraints -- by roughly 551 politicians in Washington. Those politicians , in turn, keep their livelihood only by obeying the superrich individuals who fund their campaigns.

2) Two percent of our population directly owns much of our national wealth --hence, gets much of our national income. A friend of mine, who works for one of those billionaires, told me that the two percent come close to CONTROLLING 80 percent of our national capital.

3) The only real debate occurs among those billionaires. The billionaires supporting Big Defense, Big Oil, and the Israel Lobby have obviously damaged this country greatly in the past 6 years. Note, however, that the other billionaires --other than George Soros -- have done nothing to oppose them. Whatever George W Bush's faults , his tax cuts ensure that he has the support of two percent of the population --and that two percent is the only one which counts.
Popularity polls are irrelevent.

4) Our national elections are not really any different from those in the totalitarian Soviet Union -- the ruling power puts up two corrupt puppets and lets us vote for whichever of the two we want. We are given a choice because our choice makes no real difference.

5) Any discussion of the "national interest" gets sabotaged because our channels of national discourse are tightly owned/controlled.

6) There's no real difference between Fox News and the New York Times -- between Rush Limbaugh and David Broder. All are in the business of conning of the country -- of emotionally hyperventilating about some matters and of presenting a false and misleading picture of reality.

7) All have agreed that there are some things they do not talk about -- i.e,. the names of the billionaires actually running things, the goals of those billionaires, and the evil effects upon us resulting from the decisions of those billionaires.

8) It's too bad that Matthew has a Harvard degree in philosophy yet apparently has not read Plato's Republic. Socrates pointed out 2400 years ago how a republic is poisoned by control of public communications.

That the mass of people are chained prisoners in a cave -- thinking that shadows on the cave wall are reality. Never realizing that shadowry figures back at the campfire behind them are making those shadows.

9) The "liberal" versus "leftist" distinction is hilarious -- given that the Democratic front-runner is Haim Saban's choice.

The Haim Saban whose think tank told us in 2002 that Saddam was working feverishly on making a nuclear bomb --and was getting close to success.

The Haim Saban who recently told Haaretz that it is important that Hillary be President because Bush has no capital left and Hillary is needed to deal with the threat a nuclear-armed Iran poses to Israel.

The Haim Saban who recently bought the fifth largest TV network in the USA -- the Spanish language Univision. At the same time that the Democratic Congress showed that it's highest priority was pandering to the Hispanic Lobby with an immigration bill.

The Haim Saban who's raised $1 Million for Hillary already.

Posted by Don Williams | July 7, 2007 9:10 AM

Big Oil and the Israel Lobby both agreed --for different reasons -- that it was in their best interests to depose Saddam Hussein. So we invaded Iraq.

Now Big Oil is trying to set up a puppet regime in Iraq whereas the Israel Lobby wants us to get out of Iraq so that our military forces are freed up to attack Iran.

It's that simple.

Posted by Don Williams | July 7, 2007 9:16 AM

Tyro, you're wrong on two points.

First, the conflict is between top and bottom, not Democrats and Republicans. Alan Blinder and Robert Rubin are as hostile to the interests of working people as anyone in the Bush administration, just smarter and not personally corrupt.

Second, there's no operational difference between the goals of liberals and leftists. (Maybe in terms of fantasy ideals, but that's irrelevant.) Universal health care? End the Iraq war? Stronger unions? Equal rights for womens, gays, immigrants? Legal abortion? Progressive taxes? Check, check, check, check, check, check, check. The difference isn't in goals, but how to achieve them.

Posted by lemuel pitkin | July 7, 2007 9:30 AM

This post is incredibly wrong headed. Of course there are real conflicts of interest underlying political differences and everybody knows it, even David Broder. But when you abandon debate about what's in the public good so that politics is just about interests, what is to stop the powerful interets from dominating? Politics has to be about VALUES. The only hope for progressive politics is to convince the affluent to adopt progressive policies becuase they are right and just. If politics is just a battle of interests, workers will lose.

Posted by Led | July 7, 2007 10:04 AM

This, I think, is at the root of elite distaste for argument and democracy. There's an enormous desire on the part of the people near the top of the political-media pyramid to believe that they are participants in some kind of ethereal realm of Pure Ideas. The idea that politics is a clash of interests is disturbing to their self-image.

Really? Which party is interested in making America less safe?

I'm hardly a fan of higher Broderism, but this topic in particular is far more an ideological debate than a matter of competing selfish interests. I'm willing to believe many things of the Bush administration, but the idea that they went to war in Iraq because of the oil or because Dick Cheney wanted to funnel money to Haliburton pushes beyond the reach of credibility for me (sorry, Don). These people honestly thought this would make us safer; that if we just projected enough strength no one would mess with us. It's the neocon pipedream. It was absurdly stupid from the first, but it wasn't a matter of conflicting interests, it was a matter of conflicting ideas.

On domestic policy you can more easily see conflicting interests. Clearly the construction and agriculture businesses have a stake in the immigration debate, and the health insurance business wields tremendous influence within the political sphere. But even on those topics, the ideological debate seems fairly crucial. The health insurers can prop up a coalition against a national health system, but they don't have the clout to defend against it alone against all comers. As for the rest of us, no matter how deep our ideological divisions, we all share the same interest: getting good health care at a reasonable cost.

Posted by JB | July 7, 2007 12:52 PM