Like religions, there are probably hundreds of political ideologies
with various levels of public support. Those ideologies compete against
each other. They espouse and rationalize everything from mainstream
conservatism, Libertarianism and evangelical Christianity to anarchy and
Fascism to socialism, communism and mainstream liberalism. One could
argue that if all possible points of view are already represented, then
why even consider yet another? Existing ideologies provide the basis on
which all political debate and policies are perceived and assessed.
According to that perception of reality and logic, anything calling
itself new is actually old and falls within one or more of the existing
ideologies.
Fortunately, both the perception of reality
and the logic are wrong. There is something different in politics.
There is no constitutional authority that demands politics to be based
on a traditional, commonly accepted or any other political or religious
ideology. Politics under America's two-party system is portrayed and
perceived to be a competition between competing ideologies, mainly
conservative vs. liberal vs. religious vs. secular. Essentially everyone
among the public more or less sees it that way. Despite that
overwhelming vision of U.S. politics, there is another vision of
politics that very few people, if any, have overtly espoused.
And, it is
profoundly different. Facts and logic that conservative sees is usually very different from facts and logic that liberals see. That is a fact, not an opinion.
Dissident Politics posits politics as a
competition, not between ideologies, but between competing special
interests and the public interest. According to that point of view or
framework, special interests argue for influence, advantage, power and
money among themselves. Special interest arguments are typically grounded in an
ideological rationale and, usually, rhetoric asserting that the special
interest favors serves the public interest better than the alternatives. That ideological
grounding masks the real nature of politics and the fact that the
competition is one or more special interests against the public
interest. Special interests can and do compete against each other, but some or all
of them can still be competing against the public interest. Often the competition is special interest vs. special interest
vs. the public interest.
If that doesn't seem to make
sense, consider an example based on real politics. A conservative state
governor can assert that when he and the legislature takes away most
collective bargaining rights for unionized state employees, that best
serves the public interest. Obviously, most liberals and the state
employees would argue that that harms the public interest. The fact of
the matter is that the new law could, on balance, help, harm or be
neutral toward the public interest. That fight is framed in ideological
terms. Assuming anyone asks the question, a rare event, and that the
people involved are willing to give an honest answer, even rarer, both
sides would vehemently assert that their vision serves the public
interest while the opposition's position harms it. Both sides can't be
right, but one or both could be wrong. How could both be wrong? It could
be the case that instead of wiping out bargaining rights, a compromise
would in fact have worked better for the public interest than what
either side wanted.[1]
It if fair to ask why anyone
should care if politics is grounded in ideology since ideologies frame
and represent all possible points of view and rationales? That is the
best that can be done, right? The simple answer to that is that those
assertions supporting ideologies are all wrong. One can argue that the
role of standard ideology in politics is harmful, maybe even lethally
toxic. Although most, maybe 98%, of people with strongly held
ideological beliefs will reject that this aspect of human nature applies
to themselves, it is scientific fact, not opinion, that strongly held
ideology of any kind can and usually does subtly but powerfully distort
both facts (perceptions of reality) and logic. The evidence of that
aspect of innate human nature is overwhelming and painfully obvious.[2]
Unfortunately,
many or most Americans would reject that fact because the ramifications
are very uncomfortable, to say the least. When someone or some thing,
e.g., modern social science, discovers a biological basis to question
the nature and adverse real world impacts of ideology, that is usually
tantamount to questioning their personal values and identity. That kind
of inquiry, backed by science or not, doesn't sit well with hardly
anyone, ideologue or not. Regardless of discomfort, it is fair and
defensible to argue that ideology in politics causes more harm than
good. That is one reason that the core validity of two-party politics as
usual is open to question and critical analysis.
One
key question that Dissident Politics is raising is whether there is a
segment of the U.S. public willing to consider the possibility that
two-party politics primarily serves the two-parties and the system they
built at the expense of the public interest. That system arguable
imposes adverse effects or costs on most average Americans. It is
probably the case that at least some of those costs are unnecessary and
detrimental to the public interest. The rise of independents
(43%) over democrats (30%) and republicans (26%) suggests that there
could be a slice of independents in the U.S. population who is willing
to at least consider a new way of thinking about politics and who or
what it actually works for.
Independents are just beginning to fight
for their rights against the two political parties, so there may be
some sympathy there for rethinking politics. It is unlikely that more
than a small few, maybe 0.5%, who are hard core liberal or conservative
ideologues would even accept the possibility that their ideology and its
impacts on their views could possibly be detrimental to the public
interest in any way. It is hard to know how most average or moderate
supporters of the two parties would feel about these questions. Of
course, partisans on both sides would assert that the other side's
ideology does, on balance, harm the public interest and both sides could
very well be right about that. The opinion here is that they are both
right about it.
Footnotes:
1. That
argument can be validly criticized as too squishy since the "public
interest" is defined to mean what each side wants it to mean, i.e.,
getting what they want. For the argument be be meaningful, the public
interest has to be defined. That definition is the topic for a later
post. Not everything asserted here can be explained in one post.
2. Ramifications of ideological impacts (innate biases), i.e., distortion of facts and logic, have been studied for decades. Some groups, mainly independents, are beginning to raise questions
about adverse impacts of ideology (bias) on politics. What is raised
here, while maybe rare, is not unique. The science has matured to the
point that it is time to raise direct questions about every aspect of
the two-party system. There is even solid evidence
that science-driven politics in at least some arenas is effective in
serving the public interest. The questions this raises include who or
what the two-party system, i.e., both parties and their politicians,
pundits, major campaign contributors and most or all of the mainstream
press or media, is primarily working for. Itself or the rest of us?
No comments:
Post a Comment