Ideology -- especially when tied to a particular political party or movement -- does strange things to people. For one, it makes people extremely selective in judging what is right and what is wrong. A party ideologue will defend to the point of irrationality a member of his party doing exactly the same thing he rightly condemms a member of the other party for. Why? Just because the person in question is a member of their party.
You are a member of Party A, and a member of Party B is found to be cheating on his wife with several women. You condemn the member of Party B for being a sexist and a cheater. Good. But then a member of Party A does the same thing and . . . you excuse his behavior? Why? Because he believes the "right" thing, even if he does the wrong thing? Even if his actions belie his words?
When we are blinded by ideology, we cannot see the evils of those on our team. This is one of the great evils of collectivist thinking. Party loyalty is collectivist thinking. Racism is collectivist thinking. Socialism is collectivist thinking. In each case, collectivist thinking brings out the very worst in us. The party ideologist ends up supporting and defending the indefensible. The other side is pure evil; my side is pure good. This Us-Them mentality is part of the collectivist mentality, and it is common to party ideologists, racists, and socialists. More, no amount of evidence is sufficient to persuade. You cannot provide enough evidence to show that the other side is not really evil, that they may in fact be well-intentioned (and it never occurs, then, that the Other may just be wrong, or different, as the case may be). This is because the collectivist suspends all judgment, accepting instead the judgment of the collective. One cannot judge for oneself in a collective. One can find these kinds of ideologists on the right and on the left -- it's not a matter, then, of right and left, but of the inherent collectivism in ideological thinking.
One element of ideological thinking is that those who engage in it seem to think that everyone else is then necessarily ideological. Yet, there are world views that are inherently anti-ideological. Among them are pragmatism and classical liberalism. In politics, pragmatism pretty much boils down to a cynical "what works to get me re-elected." The problem with pragmatism is that is sees things in the short term. Missing the big picture, those who make "pragmatic" decisions very often make bad decisions for the long term. The classical liberal is interested in how the world, as a whole, and in its particular parts, actually works. The classical liberal is interested in both agents and their interactions and the systems that arise out of those agents interacting. The traditional classical liberals saw the world as self-organized from the bottom-up, and that top-down ordering was unnatural. The science has borne them out. That is indeed how the universe came into being, and how each level of complexity has organized itself from its constituent parts. If this is true at the atomic through the biological and psychological levels, what sense does it make that it is not true also for the arts, the economy, the culture, the sciences, and other social systems and processes? Do we all of a sudden have to have a wise orderer where we did not need one before? I mean, it makes some sort of consistent sense that if you believe that there was in fact a wise orderer needed for natural processes, that one would be needed for social processes -- one would be a consistent creationist in both cases. One could also be a consistent intelligent designer if you applied it to the natural world and to the social world and were thus a social interventionist (in the economy, a Keynesian, welfare statist, interventionist, etc.). But to posit that self-organizing, evolutionary processes are sufficient for natural processes below the level of human complexity, but not for those above human complexity -- which is to say, social processes -- is logically inconsistent. The same is true if you reverse it.
Only an ideologue could believe that some things need a wise orderer while others things don't. Being an ideologue is the only way to be comfortably inconsistent. It also allows you to comfortably ignore inconvenient facts, or to make up facts without thinking you are being intellectually dishonest. These are all the things ideology can do for you. Me, I prefer to being open to learning how the real world works. I have no interest in being blinded by ideology.
24 comments:
Your post seems like it could be summarized thus:
"Everyone is an ideologue except for (1.) people who think like me, and (2.) people who blatantly say they will do whatever is necessary to get ahead"."
Doesn't that sound... ideological??? I assume by "classical liberal" you mean "libertarian", correct? (certain groups always seem to use their own meaning for this term). If so, I'm surprised you're saying that libertarians are anti-ideological.
I also think you go too far when you talk about ideologues thinking others are "evil". I'm not sure this is true. There are a lot of problems with an ideological outlook, but it doesn't always coincide with the assumption that others are evil (sometimes it does coincide with that, of course).
So I am a Keynesian, and also a classical liberal *unless you're defining that to mean "libertarian" in which case I am not a classical liberal). Do you think I think what I do because of ideology? I've always been under the impression that I think what I do because I'm "interested in how the world, as a whole, and in its particular parts, actually works", as you say.
I don't know - the whole thing is a little hard to swallow. This post seems definitive of an "us vs. them" mentality. You carefully define who "they" are, then you carefully define who "us" is. You attribute collectivism, ideology, etc. to "them" and you claim that that's not something that characterizes "us".
Do you really expect readers to take you seriously when you do precisely what you identify as problematic?
I suppose your counter-argument would simply be "well I am right". It follows that you'd believe that, but its hardly evidence that you're non-ideological or non-collectivist.
After all - that's what the ideologues say too, right? "I'm right"?
I think an ideological and a collectivist outlook is simply a human phenomenon. No particular viewpoint is immune to it. Libertarians CERTAINLY aren't immune to it. Some people partake in it more than others. There are ideological, collectivist, closed minded Keynesians and there are non-ideological, non-collectivist, non-closed-minded Keynesians. There are ideological, collectivist, closed-minded libertarians and there are non-ideological, non-closed-minded, non-collectivist libertarians. It's a mixed bag.
No, libertarians are not identical with classical liberals per se. Libertarianism is an ideological movement. Classical liberalism is a world view that tries to make sure that their world view matches the real world. That is why I was very careful to use the term "classical liberal" rather than "libertarian."
Technically one cannot be a Keynesian and a classical liberal, for the simple reason that Keynesianism is the mathematicization of folk economics, and folk economics does not reflect the real, complex realities of modern society. Folk economics is a good reflection of tribalist culture. So Keynesianism isn't necessarily ideological (though it can be). It's just wrong. And it isn't classical liberal -- it's modern liberalism through and through. It is a fantastic pathway away from classical liberalism by giving our anti-liberal folk economics the facade of respectability.
You seem to be suggesting that one cannot escape ideology. Well, if all is ideology, then nothing is ideology -- if it covers everything, it covers nothing. The "everything is ideology" attitude is postmodern claptrap.
Is quantum physics ideology? Absurd, of course. What about dissipative chemical systems? They exist, or they do not. Nothing to do with ideology. Well, there are also biological facts, psychological facts, and -- dare I say -- sociological and economic facts. I am interested in understanding the world in its full complexity as it really is. It so happens that that pursuit has led me toward classical liberalism and Austrian economics. I have believed things in the past I no longer believe, though, because my beliefs change when the facts change. That is non-ideological.
You will note that I listed one school of thought I disagreed with, but which I found to be non-ideological. So your accusation of my just finding those who agree with me non-ideological spurious. Further, one can identify differences -- and even argue that someone is wrong -- without committing the Us-Them sin. I am not dehumanizing those I think wrong -- and that's what ideologues do to their opponents. That is the Us-Them dichotomy. In the past, when we are all tribalist, it was just practical; now, it is just ideological.
"That is why I was very careful to use the term "classical liberal" rather than "libertarian.""
Oh good! Well this is why I asked you - some people use them interchangeably and I didn't know if you were.
"Technically one cannot be a Keynesian and a classical liberal, for the simple reason that Keynesianism is the mathematicization of folk economics, and folk economics does not reflect the real, complex realities of modern society."
You don't seem to understand Keynesian economics and now I'm not sure if you really understand classical liberalism
"You seem to be suggesting that one cannot escape ideology. Well, if all is ideology, then nothing is ideology -- if it covers everything, it covers nothing. The "everything is ideology" attitude is postmodern claptrap."
Did I not say that there are non-ideological people? I said that quite plainly, Troy. So clearly I think that one can escape ideology.
My point was that you use a very ideological argument to oppose ideology. You use "us vs. them" thinking to oppose "us vs. them" thinking.
"So your accusation of my just finding those who agree with me non-ideological spurious."
Read what I said again - I had two conditions which, if either is satisfied, you seem to be saying makes you non-ideological:
1. People who think like me, and
2. People who blatantly say they will do whatever is necessary to get ahead
So no, my point is not spurious. It's only spurious if you selectively quote me.
"I am not dehumanizing those I think wrong -- and that's what ideologues do to their opponents."
You are not "dehumanizing" them, no. But since when is dehumanization required for an ideology? You clearly think Keynesians are ideological. Do Keynesians "dehumanize" others? Of course not.
What you do do is collectivize those who disagree with you. Aside from the blatant hedonist (who you call a pragmatist), not agreeing with you makes you ideological. That isn't "dehumanizing" the Other, but it is collectivizing them.
Isn't that an ideological impulse that you're exhibiting?
Your acknowledgment that I include those with whom I disagree as non-ideological proves I am being non-ideological. Your accusation that I am being ideological excludes the possibility that I could include anyone with whom I disagree. You say the first outright, but argue the second in everything else you said. I have a tendency to read what people mean, not just what they say.
And I repeat: Keynesianism and classical liberalism are mutually exclusive. I may not know more about Keynesianism than a Keynesian (though oftentimes people who are in the middle of something aren't the best judges of it -- ideologues don't take criticism well, and refuse to pay any attention to outside criticism, which can often see things about it those on the inside cannot), but the fact you think Keynesianism is compatible with classical liberalism argues that you don't know the first thing about it, with all due respect.
RE: "Your acknowledgment that I include those with whom I disagree as non-ideological proves I am being non-ideological."
How? I think you're using a strangely strict definition here. Would anyone count as ideological using this definition?
And I want to clarify if it was unclear to you at first - I don't know if you're ideological or not. I'm saying you:
1. Are making an argument that is a very ideologically-tinged argument, and
2. Adhere to a viewpoint that is every bit as susceptible to ideology as any other viewpoint.
You may very well not be an ideological kind of guy. We all slip into ideological arguments every once in a while. And maybe some people don't even have a problem with that.
Haha - thanks for repeating.
I'll repeat too - Keynesianism and classical liberalism aren't incompatible although not all Keynesians are classical liberals and not all classical liberals are Keynesians.
Anyone that deliberately draws bright red lines around the two and not only makes the point but reemphasizes the point in a subsequent comment doesn't seem to have much to add - particularly when the only argument they can muster is "Keynesianism is mathematized folk economics".
Collectivism is inherently dehumanizing.
I am pretty sure I never said Keynesians are necessarily ideologues. In fact, my argument that they use mathematical tools to legitimate folk economics makes them non-ideological. One could even argue that they are among the pragmatists, using "whatever works," without realizing that in the longer term, what they do doesn't work, creating all sorts of problems for which the chickens must eventually come home to roost. So I would argue that Keynesians, by not understanding the full nature of the economy, by not taking into account time, and by having an incorrect understanding of human psychology, action, and behavior, are deeply wrong, but not ideological. I do distinguish between the two. One can be right and ideological, wrong and ideological, right and non-ideological, and wrong and non-ideological. Naturally, real people are a mixture of right and wrong and ideological and non-ideological. There was a time when I was deeply ideological. I grew up -- as a thinker, as a scholar -- and now I am not.
I can buy the argument that one can be a Keynesian and a libertarian, but not that one can be a Keynesian and a classical liberal. I have a hard time not believing that a Keynesian libertarian experiences cognitive dissonance, but I have met plenty of libertarians who I believe have to experience cognitive dissonance. The same cannot be true of classical liberalism, as it is an internally consistent world view. Which doesn't mean it doesn't evolve -- but it will evolve in a particular fashion.
I know you don't like to hear that Keynesianism is nothing more than tribalist economics, with a veneer of math, but those are the facts. Thus, it is incompatible with real economies.
"RE: "Your acknowledgment that I include those with whom I disagree as non-ideological proves I am being non-ideological."
How? I think you're using a strangely strict definition here. Would anyone count as ideological using this definition?"
An ideologue, as I have said before, does not include "them" in "us". Thus, one who includes others in his "group" -- to use the term loosely, in this case -- has a quite non-ideological group.
It would sort of be like accusing someone of thinking Western culture and art is superior to all others, even though you know they are a huge fan of Noh plays and ghazal poetry and sitar music.
"I know you don't like to hear that Keynesianism is nothing more than tribalist economics, with a veneer of math, but those are the facts."
It's not that I "don't like to hear it". I think you sound absurd writing that and yet you appear willing to do it several times in a row (it wasn't simply a poorly thought out jab, in other words).
A couple days ago you encouraged me to visit and comment on your blog. I'm realizing I'm not going to get much out of that.
Every comment you throw up actually makes you sound more ideological than you initially did - and it's abundantly clear that you're not interested in having a serious discussion about anything touching on Keynesianism.
To get over the perpetual debates about the various kinds of liberalism and the demarcation from libertarianism I have a list to clarify my own mind on the matter. So there are several pillars, less if you aggregate some of them but it helps to have a longer list rather than a shorter one to be clear. The main thing is that there is no one main thing.
So, not in order of importance.
The usual suite of freedoms, with the caveat about limits - your rights stop wehre my nose starts etc. Including free trade, the ability to buy, swap and sell stuff with anyone else, regardless of national boundaries.
The rule of law.
Security of property rights.
Limited government under the rule of law.
A moral framework with items like honesty, compassion, personal responsibility, community service, civility etc.
This agenda will promote peace, freedom and prosperity. The best argument for it is the fact that wherever in the world things are getting better for ordinary people on a sustainable basis, one or more of those items is/are the effective part of the policy mix in place.
Troy
The opening line of the Wikipedia entry on 'classical liberalism' might be of interest:
'Classical liberalism is a political ideology ...'.
I read that as saying that classical liberalism is a coherent collection of ideas.
Is it possible to be blinded by classical liberalism in the sense that this collection of ideas acts as an obstacle to learning how the real world works? I don't think so - but I wouldn't want to be too dogmatic about it!
Winton,
The Wikipedia article only goes to show that the term "ideology" is misused.
"Ideology ... is usually taken to mean, a prescriptive doctrine that is not supported by rational argument." [D.D. Raphael, "Problems of Political Philosophy," 1970]
The term "ideologue" was first used in 1815 in reference to the French revolutionaries.
Dictionary definitions include:
1. the body of doctrine, myth, belief, etc., that guides an individual, social movement, institution, class, or large group.
2. such a body of doctrine, myth, etc., with reference to some political and social plan, as that of fascism, along with the devices for putting it into operation.
3. theorizing of a visionary or impractical nature.
So, as you can see, classical liberalism is not an ideology. It is a rational world view.
Daniel,
The satirist in me has a hard time not ridiculing things I find ridiculous. To me, Keynesianism is equivalent to intelligent design theory. It's based on a folk understanding of how the world works, but takes into consideration enough modern understanding to make it appear that it's something other than what it really is.
If you want to talk economics here in response to things I write, by all means, do so. We can discuss details, etc. Bring up Keynes, and don't be surprised if I say things like "Keynesianism is folk economics with a veneer of math" -- because it's true. Keynesianism is popular exactly for that reason -- it doesn't challenge commonly held beliefs (just those commonly held by other economists). Most of my relatives, most of whom didn't go to college, or even finish high school, hold what are essentially Keynesian beliefs. Most of them are also creationists and folk psychologists. None of which is a problem, since none of them are in the position of making policy or teaching college students.
I will say this: only an ideologue would complain that criticism of his beliefs is ideological. Non-ideological people are open to having their deeply held beliefs up for criticism.
Rafe,
A good checklist. One wonders how rule of law can be in place with the kind of economic interventionism called for by Keynesianism.
"I will say this: only an ideologue would complain that criticism of his beliefs is ideological. Non-ideological people are open to having their deeply held beliefs up for criticism."
Ideology and criticism are not mutually exclusive. My point is your posts have a much higher ideological content than you seem to think they do. They are critical, and that's fine - but they have a very low logical or empirical content. That's what's frustrating.
Why would only an ideologue complain about that? Presumably if a non-ideologue was facing fundamentally ideological arguments against him he would complain about that too, right? I'm not sure your point here makes sense.
Now - am I ideological? To a certain extent. I've always understood "ideological" to be something like "philosophical", the way Winston describes.
I don't think I'm ideological in your sense of the word (collectivizing, "us vs. them" mentality).
"One wonders how rule of law can be in place with the kind of economic interventionism called for by Keynesianism."
Could you elaborate on this? This doesn't seem to make much sense, but perhaps I'm misunderstanding you.
Let's leave the "ideology" debate behind for a moment -- especially since I further clarified it with the dictionary definitions, which back up my use of the term -- and rather deal with this question, which I find to be more interesting, anyway.
I say:
"One wonders how rule of law can be in place with the kind of economic interventionism called for by Keynesianism."
You respond:
"Could you elaborate on this? This doesn't seem to make much sense, but perhaps I'm misunderstanding you."
The first thing we need to make perfectly clear is what we mean by "rule of law." This term is often mistaken to mean merely that it is laws through which we are governed, and not the whims of any particular person. This is part of it, but not all of it.
"The rule of law does not have a precise definition, and its meaning can vary between different nations and legal traditions. Generally, however, it can be understood as a legal-political regime under which the law restrains the government by promoting certain liberties and creating order and predictability regarding how a country functions. �In the most basic sense, the rule of law is a system that attempts to protect the rights of citizens from arbitrary and abusive use of government power.� "
More than this, rule of law requires that everyone be treated equally under the law, including members of government.
Redistributionist policies -- which Keynesianism promotes, especially in a recession -- violate rule of law. They do so because they treat citizens differently under the law, just because of income. Intervenionism also violates rule of law because those rules protect companies from competition, and the regulations are focused on particular companies, meaning they do not apply to all people equally.
Redistributionist and interventionist policies violate rule of law, particularly that involving property rights. Since Keynesianism promotes such policies, it violates rule of law (and many tenets of property rights). This, a Keynesian cannot be a classical liberal.
Incidentally, I just found the following, which you might find interesting. The author invites you to prove him wrong:
http://thelibertypen.blogspot.com/2009/06/failure-of-keynesianism.html
Post a Comment