Ok, enough stupid pissing matches, it's time for a little analysis. Eschaton highlighted a press release from the Cato instutute about how the new investigatory powers are "no big deal". An obvious question would seem to arise: how exactly is it in the cause of individual liberty and freedom for the state to be able to investigate someone's activities, without warning, at any time, even in the current security environment? The answer, of course, is pretty simple: Bush and Ashcroft are on "their side" and therefore should be defended.

Well, ok, it's a little more complex than that. The problem with the libertarianism in the United States right now is that they're caught in the grip of a conflict between two of the foundations of their belief structure: their friendliness with conservatives and wholehearted support of the United States as the closest thing they have to a libertarian society, and their deep distrust of the federal government. There are, of course, nuances to the whole thing; too often, however, nuances are the servants of conflicts between simpler emotional drives rather than an attempt to moderate the same. As the Cato institute is in effect a libertarian advocacy organization with Ph.Ds and footnotes, it isn't surprising that they'd behave similarly.

This is a symptom of a growing "axis" of political affiliation. Most categorization of political ideology usually goes along two axes: egalitarianism vs. elitism, and an individualist perception of society vs. an organic perception of same. In the United States, however, there is a new axis growing that, while more simplistic, is incredibly important to understand the new three-dimensional political structure. It is one's opinion of America and its action- in other words, nationalism. It's the foundation of the "litmus tests" I mentioned earlier; those that fall towards the "anti-American" side of this new axis are the ones who fail the litmus test, and those who move towards the "pro-American" side are the ones who pass it. The growing number of liberals online who wholeheartedly support the United States and bitterly hate Islam are, from what I've seen, staking out a position along this new axis, whereas the leftist critics who criticize the United States and its allies and/or support their opponents (which is much rarer, but does exist) are staking out a much different position. The problem right now is that this axis is at least partially geographical (why exactly should a Frenchman or German support the United States if he thinks the actions of the U.S. are by-and-large odious?) and its presence as a litmus test has eliminated any reasoned debate over whether U.S. actions are justified or not. It has descended into mere namecalling on the pro side and proxy warfare (anti-Americanism posing as anti-Israelism) on the left.

That's also why I am uncomfortable with the notion that critics of Israel are necessarily anti-Semitic; the important part is the connection with the United States, not the particular racial or religious identity of the Israelis. (Notice how nobody remembers that Israel and the United States had extremely strained relations for a while after Israel was created? They're too closely associated, nowadays). Indeed, some right wing critics of extremist Palestinian supporters may well have it neatly backwards: instead of anti-Americanism being anti-semitism in disguise, anti-Semitic propaganda may have more to do with whipping up support against the "real enemy", which would be the United States. (the blood libel on those posters at SFSU is a good example; very few university students are going to seriously believe what those posters said is true, but what a way of shocking people! Morally odious, but perhaps not for the reasons some believe.)

So why does this matter? It matters not only because it colours how people look at the issues, but because of where we are (the Internet) and where most of its users live (the United States). It's bad enough that the Internet and it's newest medium, the "blogosphere" is very libertarian/conservative; since it's also largely American, it is extremely unlikely if not impossible for a debate to ever arise between anti- and pro-Americans that doesn't descend into the pro-American majority engaging in the sort of namecalling and ambush tactics that majorities can employ to drive out "unbelievers" and dismiss them as cranks as advocates of evil, especially after one loony faction of anti-Americans (a subset of fundamentalist Islam) physically attacked the United States last year.

As long as the United States remains the world's only "hyperpower" (in the words of some) and "imperial power" (in the words of others) this axis will remain. It predates 9/11 and will remain long after the current "war on terrorism" is over (whenever that is). The question, in the end, is how it will change politics both online and in real life.