Comments on: Ideology Once Again: Between Past and Future

By: Jeffrey C. Goldfarb

Jeffrey C. Goldfarb — Wed, 22 Aug 2012 12:13:00 +0000

I don’t think that holding strong identifiable principles equals ideological politics, nor do I think a pragmatic approach necessarily is the same as a technocratic one. Modern magical thinking, I see, as the problem, not a rhetorically successful politics. Ideological politics tends to appear strong and appealing, but its consequences have been tragic. Obama may have done better, but his successes have been under appreciated. If he were more ideological, he would have failed as a political leader. More on this in my next post.

By: Pait

Pait — Wed, 22 Aug 2012 10:01:00 +0000

However, the issue with lack of “ism” is exemplified by Obama’s troubles – although right in the center, he opens himself to attack from the right exactly because he doesn’t have a simplifying ideology to rally the troops and confound the enemy. That is perhaps part of the reason he didn’t push a bigger deficit stimulus package or a faster health program, so it is not only in the plane of ideological debate that the trouble resides.

One might say something similar about the social democrats (PSDB) in Brazil. The Worker’s Party is perhaps not as dishonest as the Republicans but they don’t miss the opportunity to torture a number either. And lack of a coherent ideology makes it hard for the social democrats to combat misinformation.

Pragmatism may be fine in theory but in practice it is different. But then, pragmatism is also an ism.

By: Jeffrey C. Goldfarb

Jeffrey C. Goldfarb — Tue, 21 Aug 2012 23:05:00 +0000

What you call ideological, I would call common sense or world view. That said, yes, seeing through ones own is very difficult. It involves a critical self consciousness that is rare. I think we observe this in and beyond the academy, among the very intelligent as well as among the less intellectually gifted. If you are a strong rightist, as many in your present corner of the world are (Utah for those who don’t know), of course it is difficult to see through the ideological (in my sense) magical thinking of Ryan, Fox and the Tea Party. But others less blinded, normal conservatives, moderates, liberals, I am pretty sure, though not positive, that critique of ideology will define a happy election result. The dangers, though, should be noted. The most morally repugnant aspect of the Akin affair is that he wants to distinguish between genuine v. false rape. The most troubling from the point of view of the power of ideology, is that he can imagine a science that indicates that in genuine rape the body won’t conceive. The belief in false science and turning away from the factual truth are deeply troubling and a consequence of ideological thinking, again in my sense, as I am a student of Arendt. By the way in my next post, I am going to address the issues you raised on my Facebook page and in the comment here to one of my looking for conservatives posts
.

By: Aron Hsiao

Aron Hsiao — Tue, 21 Aug 2012 22:29:00 +0000

I hope (and suspect) that you’re right. But certainly in the parts where I’m dwelling right now (the single most conservative state in the nation), there is universal belief that the left is the land of the True Believer, the right largely ideology-free and “common sensical.” That, of course, is ideology, as is most common sense. But to my eye there is a way in which it is dangerous to presume that anyone can quickly or easily “see through” ideological forms of knowledge, whether their own or those of others. That blindness, of course, is intrinsic and fundamental to the very sense of the word in most of its conventional uses.