Comments on: My Big Mistake: The End of Ideology, Then and Now

By: George

George — Wed, 23 May 2012 18:16:00 +0000

It appears to me that there are 2 forms of discussion on policy. The technocratic details that policy makers and theorists engage in. And the vague ideological narrative spun and debated for the benefit of the electorate. Ideology is a necessity because of democracy, while voters are unable to partake in discussion of the details of policy they look for solutions in ideology.

By: Jeffrey C. Goldfarb

Jeffrey C. Goldfarb — Wed, 21 Dec 2011 14:45:00 +0000

Tim, I obviously want to reserve the term ideology for what you call dogmatic ideology. I do so, following the usage of Arendt. Also following her, I want to identify a particular intellectual development, scientized politics, connecting the understanding of past, present and future in a neat package, deduced a simple idea, e.g. race or class “theory.” I am struck that this continues in sometimes in new forms, more often with only slight variations on old themes.

On the need for more reflective ideology: I would agree but use different language: the need to well considered political principles enacted in a careful way. Thus, for example, the type of political ideas and practices enacted by Vaclav Havel. There will be a series of posts on him and his ideas starting today. I think they will reveal why it is best to look for an alternative to ideology.

I don’t agree with you on the Democrats and Obama. I think they and he do stand for something and that they and he are trying to implement a vision of the good society, radically different from what the Republicans have to offer. In the rough and tumble of daily political contest the vision can get lost, but it’s there to see and hear in the President’s speech and in the coherence of his actions. He may not be succeeding but it is clearly there. I develop this in my new book, Reinventing Political Culture. More about this in future posts on DC.

Principled politics of the sort that Havel sought are evident in many of the revolutions of the recent past, including the Arab Spring and Occupy Wall Street. This was apparent in the meeting between Michnik and OWS. More about this in a future post, also. So though we disagree on Obama, I think, we agree that the grounds for hope are in the emerging social movements.

By: Tim

Tim — Tue, 20 Dec 2011 16:06:00 +0000

I am not quite sure that ideology will ever end, because people do seem to have a need for generalized ‘truth’ – if only to make easy choices with little need for attention. Ideology has become the political version of religion. Interestingly even religion (as you mentioned) can be appropriated as political ideology. I think though, that we should differentiate between dogmatic ideology and, what I would call ‘reflective, deliberative’ ideology. I would agree with your post, but all the instances you mention are dogmatic. You are right, there is nowhere to go from dogma. On the other hand, there is a need for ideological foundations, not only for politicians, academics, but also for the people. We see the opposite problems of un-ideological politicians, when we look at most of todays Democrats (including Obama) or center Republicans, they make no sense, have no stance and also offer no solutions in times of crisis. Unfortunately the grounding of politics in ‘reflective’ ideology seems to have become a lost art, where ever we look: left and right.

We have very few people who speak today from a ideological foundation that is not blind towards more ‘profane’ politics and a dialogue with the ‘other’. This is unfortunate, I think Habermas with his stance on Europe is one (Havel was here another, even though he would not call himself one). The Social Democratic movements in Europe, especially in Scandinavia with there “de-commodification” politics, were too. All these appealed to the people not only through some emotional, dogmatic application of ‘us or them’ rhetoric, but through complicated dialogue and education. They did not offer simple ‘truth’, but ideological starting points for politics.

These ‘reflective’ ideologies have been born out of the crisis of dogmatic ideology after WWII and the beginning of the Cold War. Unfortunately it might need another crisis of ‘dogmatic’ ideology to get back to more deliberative alternatives (I see the irony here, as this tactic of waiting for the crisis, was part of the Communist dogma of the 1920s/30s and probably still is for some on the far left).

On a more hopeful note: Maybe movements (or phenomena) like the politics of the governed, OWS, Arab Spring, etc do offer (if not solutions) at least starting points for politics that are focused on ‘bare’ necessity rather than ideological shadow boxing.

Ps: Please excuse my rather Eurocentric post, I know there are probably many more positive examples in the world, I am not aware of.