Ideology and Life

An ideologue is someone who doesn't let the facts get in the way of their beliefs and principles.  I have come to believe that most people are actually ideologues, in that they are quite rigid in their political and social views.  Therefore they find it hard to change their basic set of principles in response to the facts of experience and history.  There are strong ideologues, who think and talk about politics alot, and weak ideologues who don't give politics much time or thought at all.  It can be very difficult for a person to break out of their particular ideological cage.  Indeed, most people find it a particularly comfortable place to live.

Like most people, I have been quite ideological in my past.  That was particularly the case during the 80s, after I had become a neo-conservative.  I was, well, almost arrogantly fanatical at times in my views.

Ideologues generally don't discuss honestly with others of differing views but instead talk past each other, mostly uninterested in the other's views.  Instead of listening openly and receptively to the arguments and facts that others present, they are generally seeking strategies to defeat the other's point of view.  It's the conquest of one's worldview over another's that provides the frisson.

It seems to me that ideology has become more prevalent in America during the last few decades, as most things political have become more polarized.  This has been exacerbated by the advent and growth of cable television, talk radio, and networks that have a strong ideological point of view (e.g. Fox News).  In previous times, the media had a political view, but they kept it more hidden and tried to give the appearance of complete neutrality.  Perhaps CNN is the most like this these days.

The larger American political parties during the 20th Century used to be fairly non-ideological, primarily because they were coalitions of groups who didn't always agree in every principle but still had to get along in order to gain and hold power.  The Democratic Party from the time of FDR was a coalition consisting primarily of Southern conservatives and northern liberals.  The Republicans tended to be a coalition of northern moderates and conservatives and big business, free-market advocates, as well as some minorities who still admired Abraham Lincoln. 

These days, the Democrats remain to some extent a diverse coalition of pro-business and hawkish neo-liberals, traditional liberals, environmentalist and peace activists, labor unions, and minorities, with no consistent ideological position.  However, the Republicans have, since Ronald Reagan, become a much more homogenized, ideologized party.  Moderates, let alone liberals, are not particularly welcome these days, and a strong conservative (or neo-conservative) orthodoxy is enforced.

The longer I live, the less ideological I have become.  I have come to realize that no one ideological worldview has the entire truth, and that we need to constantly be listening to those who differ from us in order to see if they are seeing something we don't.  This is a pragmatic approach to some extent, in the sense that it refuses to see things in absolutist terms but prefers to remain open to what experience brings. 

But I'm not a relativist either, in that I continue to believe that basic socio-political principles are important and that there is a better way of doing things and a worse way.  It's just that it can be quite difficult to determine what those principles should be.

I enjoy reading all kinds of intelligent political/social views, from a variety of ideological positions.  I read libertarianism, paleo-conservatism, neo-liberalism, social democracy, environmentalism, and even socialism.  About the only perspectives I find it difficult to stomach these days are neo-conservatism and fundamentalist Christian social/political theory (if you can call it that.)  I find very little of any value in those latter two position, and even find them offensive to my basic sensibilities and not worth my time.  But even then, I will try to at least give them a hearing.

A good example of ideology at work was the recent grilling of Rand Paul by Rachel Maddow on the MSNBC cable network.  This was a classic struggle between two ideologies: Rand's honest libertarianism and Maddow's 'politically correct (pc) liberalism.'  Maddow had the upper hand, of course, as the show's host, and so she controlled everything about the interview.  Her purpose was clearly not to elicit information or exchange honest views with Paul, but rather to trap him in a corner concerning some historical civil rights issue that happened when he was a child.  Not totally irrelevant but mostly so, given the range of other problems that confront us these days.

Truth be told, I have found a lot of value in recent libertarianism, especially their economic, foreign relations, and domestic social views.  I do not consider myself a libertarian, but it has some valuable perspectives for all of us.  Which is why I consider the possible election of Rand Paul not as a threat but an opportunity for enriching the political diversity of the Senate, especially in light of some of the corrupt, bought-off scoundrels who currently inhabit that 'deliberative body.'

Another example of ideology at work is the treatment of President Obama by the Right in the last 18 months or so.  Instead of seeing him for who he really is, a pragmatic neo-liberal, the Right has done its best to cast Obama as a socialist, a communist, a Nazi, etc.  They will not let the facts of political reality get in the way of their political and ideological project.  It is really fascinating.  And pathetic.  And scary, since they could regain national power in the not-too-distant future.