More on Trump’s Impact on the U.S. Economy
In the discussion we have running here following my post “Trump’s Impact on the U.S. Economy Has Lots of Interesting Turns and Twists,” we get into the concept of ideology and what it means to be an ideologue. Apparently, this has a nasty connotation that I don’t understand. Ideologues support certain ideologies; they stand for something. Is that bad? Is it a matter of the particular ideology in question? I stand for all kinds of stuff, and I’m quite proud of my position on every single one.
Apparently, some people interpret the word to include the concept of being doctrinaire, cult-following, dogmatic, unquestioning, fanatical–“don’t confuse me with fact”–and those, of course, are all to be avoided. I like to think that I can change my ideology at the drop of a hat given new evidence on the matter at hand (though perhaps I’m kidding myself).
In any case, frequent commenter Glenn Doty notes that he thinks of himself as a political “pragmatist,” rather than an “ideologue.” I respond:
I think this is a matter of semantics, and that you are, at least in my way of thinking, an ideologue. You write: One cannot call me an ideologue, because nothing that I support stems from any ideology. Just a pragmatic desire to find a governing policy that works best.
I presume that, if you added a prepositional phrase to the end of that and tell us for whom these policies are supposed to work best, you would say, “for the well-being of all the people served by that government.” That would mean that you have the same ideology as Bernie Sanders, me, and every other progressive. If you said, “for those most able to garner wealth,” you’d be a Republican. If you said, “to force the redistribution of wealth so that everyone has the same spending power, regardless of his ability to earn it,” you’d be a Communist. If you said, “For those of European descent,” you’d be a White Nationalist. And so on.
I stand for something, and I know you do too. What we call ourselves is just a matter of words.
Craig,
Ideologue:
An adherent of an ideology, especially one who is uncompromising and dogmatic. [Oxford dictionary]
No, of course you are not an ‘ideologue’ you are open to other views as long as they coincide with those of Bernie Sanders, and those you define as fellow progressives !
I think all administrations,(including the present) believe they work for the well-being of all the people served by the government.
In truth it’s very difficult to remain objective and unbiased.
I’ve spent the better part of a lifetime learning to examine and understand every side of any issue. Eliminating natural bias isn’t easy, and I would imagine impossible for passionate advocates.
As part of my legal and officer training, I learned to sincerely debate either side any issue with equal diligence, and suppress any personal bias.
We all try to be pragmatic and objective, but being human we all kid ourselves we succeed,
I guess the biggest danger for ideologues is interpreting any issue through an ideological prism.
You write: “you are open to other views as long as they coincide with those of Bernie Sanders, and those you define as fellow progressives.” Pretty insulting stuff. Happens to be erroneous, as well.
Craig,
“Insulting ” ? I assure you it wasn’t my intention to be insulting.
I simply took you at your word when you identified yourself as holding the sort of “progressive” ideals espoused by Bernie Saunders.
If that’s not the case, maybe I misread the phrase, “the same ideology as Bernie Sanders, me, and every other progressive”.
Craig,
While Marcopolo seems to be oblivious to his own position as an ideologue (that of free market libertarianism, heavily influenced by propaganda and many “alternative facts”), he is correct on the definition and the danger of being an ideologue.
Bernie Sanders clearly wants what is best for America. But he is an ideologue. He believes clearly that central-government regulation, management, and distribution can achieve better results for society, and so he seeks solutions only within those paradigms… and is either unwilling or incapable of honestly considering policy outside of that paradigm.
So when Hillary offered a plan of subtly fixing the ACA by including a public option and extending the subsidy to patch the coverage gap for states that didn’t extend medicaid… that wasn’t enough. He KNEW that the “ideal” path must be for full government distribution of healthcare… and so he attacked Hillary incessantly for her micro-targeting approach.
A non-ideologue would immediately recognize either option as being better than the current status quo, and would honestly try to break down the pros and cons of each approach to consider them. Instead, Bernie just fudged the numbers of his own plan, seriously oversold it, and condemned Hillary (and Obama by extension) for not seeking to magically overhaul the entire industry all at once by pursuing Medicare for all.
That’s the difference between “ideologueism” and pragmatism. The pragmatist seeks to look honestly for the best answers and follow them regardless of whether they come from increased oversight or reduced oversight… whether they involve subsidies or taxes… whether they involve free market ruthlessness or government enforced egalitarianism.
I think that the rise of right-wing media and the right-wing blogsphere has caused America to be severely overbalanced, and so we have the Democratic party near the center of the ideological spectrum, while the republicans are lead by people far on the fringe… So it’s pretty easy for you and I to align, because in most cases something that is “closer to ideal” is also going to be “more ideologically ‘liberal’ – or at least ‘Democrat’ than the status quo”… But I do not wish to label myself as ideologically aligned, because the pendulum will swing again, and I imagine (hope) that I’ll be more “conservative” than the political center within a decade. I will then – as I do now – follow the facts and the logic and the math.
This is exactly what I was saying about the semantics associated with the word “ideologue.” It can imply that it’s “my way for the highway.”
I too am a pragmatist. In the absence of “perfect,” I’ll take “good” every day of the week. This, btw, is my viewpoint on the Paris Accord.
I have to laugh about your last sentence here. If ANYONE “follows” the facts and the logic and the math,” it will be Glenn Doty.
Craig,
FWIW, I don’t consider you to be an ideologue either, or at least not nearly so much as libertarians like Marcopolo, or the Sanders campaign and the far-left faction in the democratic party…
I merely reacted when you said “us ideologues”… because my reaction to an ideologue – even with one who I align with on some issues – is pretty negative. There must be room for compromise and room to allow for alternative approaches… and an ideologue can end up getting caught up in their own ideology and not allowing for either.
Craig,
I applaud your willingness to be pragmatic and in the absence of “perfect,” accept the merely “good” .
Personally, I’m cynical about the Paris Accord. Once you get past the symbolism and start to examine the detail it becomes quickly obvious the Accord is little more than symbolic.
Glenn,
Whatever gave you the idea I adhere to “the concepts of free market libertarianism ” ?
Exactly what is the propaganda I’m supposed to be ” heavily influenced by” ? What does “alternative facts” actually mean ?
Inventing labels and stereotyping people is pretty odd behavior for an ‘analyst”. It usually indicates you haven’t taken the time or trouble to understand, just invented a label to justify dismissing opposing veiws.
Just to set the record straight, I’m not a “free market libertarian ” in the sense you mean. Nor am I a “Libertarian” in the political sense.
I invite you to re-read my post and try to find any evidence to sustain your allegations, I’d be very interested to discover the sentence or phrase I employed that would lead you to such conclusions.