George Rebane
Dr George Friedman, founder and chairman of the global intelligence outfit Stratfor, writes a workmanlike and useful analysis, ‘Roots of the Government Shutdown’. Therein he traces the roots of the current shutdown and its surrounding political environment to the transformation of our political system from one of patronage run by political bosses, to the current one dominated by political activist organizations seeking reform of American politics. In short, the battle became one of ideas and how well these ideas could be formulated and disseminated to the voting public, all of which required money and vast amounts of it. Friedman writes –
Political parties ceased being built around patronage systems, but rather around the ability to raise money. Money, not the bosses' power, became the center of gravity of the political system, and those who could raise money became the power brokers. More important, those who were willing to donate became candidates' main constituency. The paradox of the reforms was that in breaking the power of the bosses, money became more rather than less important in the selection of candidates. Money has always been central to American politics. There has never been a time when it didn't matter. But with the decline of political bosses, factors other than money were eliminated.
Well enough. And through this sea change we saw that the contending ideas washing over the land came from belief systems or ideologies that sought to distinguish and brand themselves as conservative, liberal, classical liberal, libertarian, progressive, socialist, tea party, …, and even my conservetarian.
However, in his dissertation this is where George Friedman blows a tire and gets tied up in a contradiction as he tries to position principle viz ideology. Replacing bosses with ideology he says –
Bosses were corrupt, and in that corruption they were moderate through indifference. Contemporary politicians — not all of them but enough of them — live within a framework of ideology where accommodation is the epitome of lacking principle. If you believe deeply in something, then how can you compromise on it? And if everything you believe in derives from an ideology where every issue is a matter of principle, and ideology clashes with ideology, then how can anyone fold his cards? You can't go back to voters who believe that you have betrayed them and expect to be re-elected. (emphasis mine)
Here he clearly and correctly subsumes ‘principle’ within ‘ideology’. But two paragraphs later Friedman does an about face to cleave the definitions with a “vast difference” –
There is a vast difference between principle and ideology. Principles are core values that do not dictate every action on every subject, but guide you in some way. Ideology as an explanation of how the world works is comprehensive and compelling. Most presidents find that governing requires principles, but won't allow ideology. But it is the senators and particularly the congressmen — who run in districts where perhaps 20 percent of eligible voters vote in primaries, most of them ideologues — who are forced away from principle and toward ideology.
From here his argument gets a bit frayed as he describes the primacy of primaries in the election cycle. Primaries wherein the nuances of candidates’ principle populated ideologies rule, primaries in which the dedicated ideologues turn out the vote and let the candidates know the ideological bases of their support. You talked of your principles during the campaign, and we bought into them. Now we have a score card – compromise your principles and next time we’ll vote for someone else.
This is the new world of polarizing politics that especially afflicts the fortunes of Republican candidates who are prone to purvey their principles. Democrats are smarter, since their rank and file don’t hold much truck with explicit principles; they are more swayed by issues that can be communicated through appropriately vivid anecdotes (cf. issues activism).
So let me inject a little semantical hierarchy. The operational definition of ideology is a structured and communicative belief system (see RR Glossary), and an ideologue is a person that, for better or worse, operates within such an ideology. And an ideology consists of a collection of tenets that bear some hierarchical relationships to its other tenets. High in such a hierarchy are tenets which state overarching principles – broad statements of perceived truth in how the world operates and/or should operate. Principles arrive in our ken as being part of our culture (tradition, education, …), being mandated by higher authority, and/or by induction from life’s experiences. The latter process involves some noodling and reflection to pull out and summarize common aspects of what actually went down in our lives; some also call it acquiring wisdom.
In turn, such principles, sitting high in our ideology, allow us through deduction to assess, develop, and guide subsequent actions. So we see that a structured belief system, if not anchored by principles, reduces to a set of mostly disparate rules from which neither their lineage nor imprimatur can be identified. They simply stand alone, unsupported and undefendable.
Within this understanding we see why collectivists, especially in America, avoid discussing the overarching principles of their policies as much as possible – better always to go to the anecdote (cf "issue-oriented activism") that diverts, and then demands a direct and simple remedy. Coming full circle, despite the semantic bumps, George Friedman concludes –
It is not ideology that is the problem. It is the overrepresentation of ideologues in the voting booth. Most Americans are not ideologues, and therefore the reformist model has turned out to be as unrepresentative as the political boss system was. This isn't the ideologues fault; they are merely doing what they believe. But most voters are indifferent. Where the bosses used to share the public's lack of expectation of great things from politics, there is no one prepared to limit the role of ideology. There is no way to get people to vote, and the reforms that led to a universally used primary system have put elections that most people don't participate in at center stage.
Each faction is deeply committed to its beliefs, and feels it would be corrupt to abandon them. Even if it means closing the government, even if it means defaulting on debt, ideology is a demanding mistress who permits no other lovers. Anyone who reads this will recognize his enemy at work. I, however, am holding everyone responsible, from left to right — and especially the indifferent center. I hold myself accountable as well: I have no idea what I could do to help change matters, but I am sure there is something.
I am not so sure.
Addendum: And here is a geo-strategic trend that even the great Stratfor has been missing for years, a trend that confirms our post tipping point era, a future that RR readers have been apprised of for years, and one that is finally becoming apparent to even vaunted big corporation technology consultants like Gartner. Computerworld reports on Gartner's "dark vision" (here) about technology's impact on America's systemic unemployment. BTW, Congress has yet to get a clue about any of this, but that is at least understandable given their membership. (H/T to RR reader)
rebanesruminations.com 
Leave a comment