The Anti-Ideological Ideology of the 2008 Presidential Campaign Part 2
Joseph McHugh
March 10, 2008
In my last article, I explained that the two leading candidates for the President of the United States represent an anti-ideological stance. Their whole campaigns have been premised on not taking a consistent world view. Barack Obama elevates feeling over thought, and John McCain eschews ideological labeling.
And I explained that George Bush´s ideological bumbling was the cause of this electoral shift from candidates with strong views, to candidates who try to duck any clear and consistent labels.
Now, the question is, who cares?
After all, isn´t it great to not be bound by a limiting ideology, to keep your mind flexible, and to be willing to get things done?
The problem is that everybody needs some sort of comprehensive view of reality and their life, and no matter how much people try to forswear such a view they can´t. Indeed, anti-ideology is a kind of ideology, an ideology that preaches that one should always reach out to the other side, compromise one´s principles and not take too much too seriously.
It´s like saying, there are absolutely no absolutes.
Let´s try a thought experiment. You get up one morning and you just don´t feel like going to work. You´re not sick, just unmotivated. But, on the other hand you know you have an important project due, and that you can´t do it from home. What do you do?
Well, a simple answer would be, go in for God´s sake! But hey, why be so rigid? Who says that that project is so important, and, after all, rest is important too. And why should work be the most important thing in a person´s life anyway. Who decreed that?
Calling in sick: Lying? Oh come on some people think white lie´s are Ok, and after all everyone´s dishonest. Sometimes principles have to be sacrificed, right?
You pick up the phone and call in "sick." You find yourself behind in the project. The boss is unhappy with your performance.
But who is he to judge, anyway?
You say this is a simplistic example? Yes. But if principled questions are inescapable in a case like this, how much more so are they needed in more complex cases, such as tax policy, health care and war?
Let´s take the example of "Special Interests," both Barack Obama´s and John McCain´s favorite bugaboo. What is a "Special Interest?" What is an "interest" and what on earth makes it "special." Try answering these questions without referring to some view of government, democracy and rights.
A clear cause of lobbying is the fact that the government has enormous, even arbitrary power over the lives of individual citizens; without the prodigious size and avuncular reach of government bureaucracy there would be little need for lobbying. Can one blame those most impacted by government policy for their attempts to influence policies that directly impact their lives? Don´t these citizens have rights?
That sounds a little ideological to me. And we mustn´t be bound by ideology right? Facts get in the way of unity.
Ironically, both McCain and Obama, because they believe in an expanding role for government will increase not decrease the influence of "special interests."
Such ironies abound for people who refuse to think.
What is the ultimate result of non-ideological governing? As stated, people need an ideology of some sort to govern their lives and their country. The result of "anti-ideological" governance is that the office holders are not beholden to their own ideology, but to any ideological current then blowing throughout the land. They are passive creatures of whatever the current trend in politics is. After all, getting agreement is their holy grail. In the end, these "radical reformers," become the most hidebound creatures in our politics.
Compare today´s anti-ideological jag to the rise Ronald Reagan, who had a particular ideology, pushed it, largely stuck with it, and ended up bringing real change to Washington.
That was a reformer. But, if you want people who follow the prevailing political winds, vote for Obama or McCain. Note, I said the prevailing "political" winds.-not the prevailing will of the people.
The people may want change, but anti-ideology ideologues can´t deliver. After all, they don´t think.
And I explained that George Bush´s ideological bumbling was the cause of this electoral shift from candidates with strong views, to candidates who try to duck any clear and consistent labels.
Now, the question is, who cares?
After all, isn´t it great to not be bound by a limiting ideology, to keep your mind flexible, and to be willing to get things done?
The problem is that everybody needs some sort of comprehensive view of reality and their life, and no matter how much people try to forswear such a view they can´t. Indeed, anti-ideology is a kind of ideology, an ideology that preaches that one should always reach out to the other side, compromise one´s principles and not take too much too seriously.
It´s like saying, there are absolutely no absolutes.
Let´s try a thought experiment. You get up one morning and you just don´t feel like going to work. You´re not sick, just unmotivated. But, on the other hand you know you have an important project due, and that you can´t do it from home. What do you do?
Well, a simple answer would be, go in for God´s sake! But hey, why be so rigid? Who says that that project is so important, and, after all, rest is important too. And why should work be the most important thing in a person´s life anyway. Who decreed that?
Calling in sick: Lying? Oh come on some people think white lie´s are Ok, and after all everyone´s dishonest. Sometimes principles have to be sacrificed, right?
You pick up the phone and call in "sick." You find yourself behind in the project. The boss is unhappy with your performance.
But who is he to judge, anyway?
You say this is a simplistic example? Yes. But if principled questions are inescapable in a case like this, how much more so are they needed in more complex cases, such as tax policy, health care and war?
Let´s take the example of "Special Interests," both Barack Obama´s and John McCain´s favorite bugaboo. What is a "Special Interest?" What is an "interest" and what on earth makes it "special." Try answering these questions without referring to some view of government, democracy and rights.
A clear cause of lobbying is the fact that the government has enormous, even arbitrary power over the lives of individual citizens; without the prodigious size and avuncular reach of government bureaucracy there would be little need for lobbying. Can one blame those most impacted by government policy for their attempts to influence policies that directly impact their lives? Don´t these citizens have rights?
That sounds a little ideological to me. And we mustn´t be bound by ideology right? Facts get in the way of unity.
Ironically, both McCain and Obama, because they believe in an expanding role for government will increase not decrease the influence of "special interests."
Such ironies abound for people who refuse to think.
What is the ultimate result of non-ideological governing? As stated, people need an ideology of some sort to govern their lives and their country. The result of "anti-ideological" governance is that the office holders are not beholden to their own ideology, but to any ideological current then blowing throughout the land. They are passive creatures of whatever the current trend in politics is. After all, getting agreement is their holy grail. In the end, these "radical reformers," become the most hidebound creatures in our politics.
Compare today´s anti-ideological jag to the rise Ronald Reagan, who had a particular ideology, pushed it, largely stuck with it, and ended up bringing real change to Washington.
That was a reformer. But, if you want people who follow the prevailing political winds, vote for Obama or McCain. Note, I said the prevailing "political" winds.-not the prevailing will of the people.
The people may want change, but anti-ideology ideologues can´t deliver. After all, they don´t think.