 |
||||||||
|
5/25/2003 10:25:00 PM | Brad Plumer America and Ideology So I originally wanted to respond to Jared's link to the Times article about the Rumsfeld Youth League cropping up all over the US. Something about how the Republicans are trouncing liberals on the ideological front, and what the Democrats need to do to become more cohesive and effective (sidenote: the Washington Monthly answer is to wait until minorities overrun the country). But then it got me thinking about what it means for a political group to have an ideology, and whether it even makes sense to think of America as an ideological society. So here goes. I'm sure there's a whole basketful of different ways to define ideology, so I’m not going to cycle through all of them. The Marxist definition of ideology sounds something like this: cultures are institutionally structured in such a way that legitimizes whatever group is in power. Rather than active coercion and muscle-flexing, ideology usually filters on down and manipulates the public through churches, schools, TV shows, etc. In addition, political groups are built upon ideologies, which are generally a structure of assumptions about what is “natural” in the world. (Yeah, I'm simplifying. Call me out on it if you'd like). The question is: is it beneficial at all to discuss America in terms of ideology? Political theorist Michael Foley has two interesting things to say about American political thought. First: The United States possesses a little understood ability to engage in deep conflicts over political ideas, while at the same time reducing the adversarial positions to legitimate derivatives of American history and development. This often gives American politics the impression of being non-ideological in nature.So American political thought tends to barter in local ideas, rather than all-inclusive theories of society and government. And, moreover, at the heart of the debate are only a handful of ideas: Such a common core of indigenous principles can be used in varying permutations and with different degrees of emphasis to produce a quite startling diversity of political positions.Foley goes on to discuss those principles one by one (freedom, individualism, capitalism, pluralism, nationalism, constitutionalism, etc. etc.) On this approach, it makes more sense to analyze the particular concepts being bandied about (ex. George Bush’s understanding of pluralism) rather than comprehensive doctrines (ex. the neo-con “vision” of global politics). Once again, is it beneficial at all to discuss America in terms of ideology? Conservatives get hysterical at the mention of the word, conjuring up dystopic images of Stalinist Russia and Maoist China (on this, see George Kateb’s Utopia and its Enemies, which argues that utopian societies need not be destined for disaster, pace the National Review crowd). And perhaps as a result, they shy away from developing abstract philosophies and ideological systems. Modern conservatives seem to have intuitive values (the idea of the stable family, self-sufficiency, small government) and pragmatic ideas (tax cuts) rather than comprehensive doctrines. (This would make today's conservatives true heirs to Burke and Oakenshott. Is that even true?) And it seems to me that modern progressives are no more coherent. Afraid of embracing a totalizing Marxist, etc. critique of capitalism, their ideas generally come out in patchwork and pragmatist chunks (tax corporations here, support social programs here). Again, they obviously hold dear certain intuitive values, but is this ideology? We can also talk about the general American ideological framework. This might not amount to any more than pointing out some of the banal assumptions that undergird all American politics. For instance, we assume that democracy is the most natural form of government. We assume that freedom is a natural right—and we seem to conceptualize the idea of freedom differently from, say, Europeans, (though I don’t have nearly the skill to get into this). So yes, we could analyze those assumptions. But aren’t those assumptions debated openly already? Courts and judges wrangle over the proper idea of freedom and liberty all the time. Sure they keep some base assumptions in place, but can an ideological critique of those assumptions really add substance to the debate? (Perhaps I'm just asking whether those assumptions are the most flexible imaginable?) Can an ideology-hunting social critic make any more astute criticism of American political theory than what already goes on in the Supreme Court (and other political venues)? In theory, do the institutions in America possess an unlimited capacity to debate the structure of American society? Or are there certain fundamental blind spots in American political discourse that prevent thorough-going and limitless social criticism. Notice that this is more of a theoretical question than a practical one. I realize that given the people and groups in power right now, the change possible in American society is certainly limited. But is this because of the ideological organization of American government/society, or is only a historically contingent matter of the particular people in place at this particular moment? Is there any ideological critique of American society that doesn't fall into those tricky shades of Marxist revolution? Or, is it actually possible at all to explain the ascendacy and prominence of this or that political group in terms of the popular ideologies that have infiltrated American society? Are there some unseen fundamental assumptions being perpetuated at grade school that lead us to support, say, the death penalty? Is Michael Moore right when he talks about America's culture of fear (and in what way is this ideology: that is, an implicit system of control and organization)? And is it at all possible for political groups in power to control or manipulate these cultural networks? (I can see Naomi Klein-esque corporate conspiracy ideas fitting in right here...) So there, a bit of a ramble, yes. I'm hoping actual students of politics can see things more perceptively than I can. perma link |
| 0 comments
0 Comments: |
Dartmouth The Free Press Alums for Social Change The Green Magazine The Dartmouth Dartmouth Observer Dartmouth Review Dartlog Inner Office The Little Green Blog Welton Chang's Blog Vox in Sox MN Publius (Matthew Martin) Netblitz Dartmouth Official News Other Blogs Ampersand Atrios Arts & Letters Altercation Body and Soul Blog For America Brad DeLong Brad Plumer CalPundit Campus Nonsense Clarksphere Crooked Timber Cursor Daily Kos Dean Nation Dan Drezner The Front Line Instapundit Interesting Times Is That Legal? Talking Points Memo Lady-Likely Lawrence Lessig Lean Left Left2Right Legal Theory Matthew Yglesias Ms. Musings MWO Nathan Newman New Republic's &c. Not Geniuses Ornicus Oxblog Pandagon Political State Report Political Theory Daily Review Queer Day Roger Ailes SCOTUS blog Talk Left TAPPED Tacitus This Modern World Tough Democrat Untelevised Volokh Conspiracy Washington Note X. & Overboard Magazines, Newspapers and Journals Boston Globe Ideas Boston Review Chronicle of Higher Education Common Dreams Dissent In These Times Mother Jones New York Review of Books New York Times Salon Slate The American Prospect The Nation The New Republic The Progressive Tikkun Tom Paine Village Voice Washington Monthly Capitol Hill Media ABC's The Note American Journalism Review Columbia Journalism Review CQ Daily Howler Donkey Rising The Hill Medianews National Journal NJ Hotline NJ Wake-up call NJ Early Bird NJ Weekly Political Wire Roll Call Spinsanity Search Search the DFP  |
|||||||
The opinions expressed here are not necessarily those of Dartmouth College or the Dartmouth Free Press.