21 votes

The Anti-Ideology Syndrome

by Nelson Hultberg | Americans for a Free Republic

Modern intellectuals are anti-ideology. They shun its use like kings and high priests shun voting. One of the first putdowns a student receives from a liberal professor when expounding the basic principles of capitalism in a college classroom is, “Oh, that’s too ideological. Your thinking is too rigid. You’re trying to label things! You must be more open to progressive experimentation and creative government. The Constitution is a living document. The use of any strict ideology or rigid set of political principles is impractical and reactionary. In a modern world, we must be flexible, pragmatic, willing to tolerate a new and ever changing role for government.”

Such is the usual response given to any student daring to declare that government’s functions should be limited to a Constitution that is strictly, i.e., literally interpreted, or that capitalism is the only socio-economic system that is capable of protecting the individual’s rights, or that without upholding the principle of “equal rights under the law,” there can be no true or lasting freedom, etc.

It’s not difficult to understand why our liberal-dominated intellectual establishment opposes ideology and its use of labels to define government’s role in society. Precisely because it does just that – it defines government’s role in society! The statist mind wants a vaguely and loosely defined government, unfettered by the restrictions of theory or principle or rights or labels or moral judgment. He seeks blanket power over men and their production. Thus it is only natural for him to be antagonistic toward the use of an overall ideology that labels his approach dictatorial, statist, neo-fascist, authoritarian, etc. and backs it up with rational arguments. Such intellectual labeling inhibits his power.

Defining Our Terms

Webster’s Dictionary defines ideology as: the integrated assertions, theories, and aims that constitute a socio-political program.

To expand the concept further, it could be said that an ideology is a set of political principles and ideas that define the way the individuals, institutions, and governments of a country should interact and be organized. It is a basic framework of rules and guides that set the course for a nation’s individuals and their government, establish the limits of that government’s power, and clarify what rights (if any) the individual is to retain.

As an example, America, for the first 125 years of her history (1787-1913), operated under the individualist ideology of laissez-faire capitalism with the principles of “private property,” “equal rights under the law,” and “individual sovereignty” predominant throughout her culture.

Most of the world today operates under the collectivist ideology of authoritarian statism (labeled by various terms such as socialism, social welfarism, corporatism, liberalism, etc.). The collectivist ideology’s undergirding principles are “public property,” “corporate-state collusion,” and “equal results in life” predominant throughout their cultures.

Labels and Identification

Some points to consider about ideology and labeling:

1) If you don’t label things, you can’t identify things; and if you can’t identify things, you can’t possibly know what is happening around you.

2) Labeling is defining, and defining is the establishment of distinctions, and distinctions show one what is right or wrong, strong or weak, beautiful or ugly about what is being labeled. Such distinctions require that we make judgments.

3) Labels clearly identify the policies of statism as dictatorial. Naturally, those who wish to establish such policies frown on the use of labels.

4) Today’s anti-ideology thinkers are advocating the initial stages of a dictatorship! Do they think because they refuse to label it as what it is, it somehow means it is not what it is? Hiding from the reality of one’s convictions and advocacies will not change their nature. Evil, evaded, is still evil.

It’s easy to see why liberals oppose ideology and labeling. It defines in clear terms what they are up to. They would prefer to muddy up the intellectual waters with backdoor socialism. Clarity is not their friend.

But unfortunately many conservative intellectuals also oppose the use of political ideology and its concomitant of labeling? These are the followers of Russell Kirk. Why do they adopt the same antagonism as liberals? I believe it is because of an erroneous syllogistic process that takes place in their brains. They see the evil of socialism. They realize that socialism is an ideology, and thus they reason that since socialism is evil, ideology is evil.

This, of course, is the crudest of non sequiturs. It’s not the use of ideology that is evil. It’s the use of irrational ideology that is evil. Ideology itself is not responsible for the tyranny in the world. False ideology is. The false ideologies of socialism, welfarism, liberalism, corporatism.

What is needed is not to abandon the use of ideology in the structuring of society, but to devise a rational ideology based upon right principles. Ideological principles are crucial theoretical guides for men’s actions. Without them and their concomitant of labels, we would be nothing but a nomadic assortment of subhumans with no rules or laws or theories or ideals to direct us.

No society in the history of man has ever existed, nor will one ever exist, without the use of some form of ideology and its building blocks of terms (i.e., labels). Even primitive tribes have their body of thought, theories, and definitional terms that guide their way of life. Granted, their ideology is usually ritualistic dogma and voodoo. But nevertheless, they do make use of some system of ideological thought and labeling to guide them, irrational though it is.

What Ideology Is Proper?

Therefore, we must ask: if ideology itself is good, but socialist, welfarist, liberal, and corporatist ideology is bad, where are we to turn? What ideology should we adopt as our guide? The answer lies in the wisdom that we have forsaken – the great principles that first created America. Our founding fathers were ideologues that posited a rational idealism in governmental affairs. This is what led to the Declaration of Independence and its enshrinement of the “rights of mankind.”

The ideology that we must utilize is the individualist ideology of the founding fathers and their philosophical mentors, John Locke, Thomas Aquinas, and Aristotle. The framers of the Constitution were not flexible advocates of détente with King George when it came time to design the type of government they wanted. They were men of intensely held political convictions. They adhered to clear-cut ideological principles and strict rules of law based upon those principles. They knew that this was the only way to preserve the rights of the individual, which in turn was the only way to maintain a free society.

The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution resulted from the American revolutionaries’ adherence to an overall political ideology. The creation of these documents would have been impossible without formulation of ideological principles. Thus the creation of America herself would have been impossible without such a formulation. And just as it would have been impossible to create America without ideological principles, it will be impossible to preserve her without them.

So beware. When a professor or politician tells you that he’s against the use of labels and political ideology, he’s setting in place the destruction of the proper guidelines and governmental limits requisite for a free society to exist. That is what ideology and labeling give to us: guidelines, definitions, and limits for our rulers. Most importantly, such a professor or politician is telling you that he prefers a government that is not limited or defined by any of those old fashioned ideological notions such as “inalienable rights,” or “equality under the law.” He’s telling you that he doesn’t like being labeled a statist or a collectivist or a liberal because it identifies the evil of his beliefs if he’s a professor, or the evil of his ambitions if he’s a politician.

The Choice Before Us

Ideology is theory, theory is thinking, and labels are our tools to construct proper theory. The man who wants to erect a government and oversee society without thinking and labeling is a thug or a fool, or both.

The choice before us is not ideology or no ideology! It is which ideology do we employ? Socialism or capitalism? Collectivism or individualism? Statism or freedom? Liberalism or conservatism or libertarianism?

The collectivist ideology (along with its welfarist variants) has ruled the world since the early twentieth century, and its brutal irrationality is directly responsible for the tyranny that prevails over three-quarters of the globe. It is time to restore the only rational ideology that exists – laissez-faire capitalism. The socialists and the liberals have had their chance, and they have failed.

Libertarians and true conservatives advocate laissez-faire capitalism. Liberals and neo-conservatives advocate authoritarian statism. Freedom cannot be defended without identifying the essentials of these ideologies and the intellectuals and politicians who advocate them. Without political-philosophical-moral clarity, tyranny wins.

Modern day tyrants want a vague pragmatism that is not defined (i.e., labeled) as to what it is. In this way, they can violate our rights and say that they are only implementing necessary policy for the emergency of the moment, or the good of the group, or to serve the will of the people. They can seek arbitrary, unfettered power and feel justified in doing so. Freedom demands clear labels and rational ideology. Never let the statist mentalities take these intellectual tools away from you.

-------------------

Nelson Hultberg is a freelance writer in Dallas, TX and the Director of Americans for a Free Republic www.afr.org. His articles have appeared in such publications as the Dallas Morning News, The American Conservative, Insight, The Freeman, andLiberty, as well as on numerous Internet sites. He is the author of The Golden Mean: Libertarian Politics, Conservative Values. Email him at: nelshultberg@aol.com




Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Mr. Hultberg's essay is the

Mr. Hultberg's essay is the best politics essay I've read. Out of all my reading on politics, this essay hits on and dissects the essence of human activity where rule is concerned: language.

So intimate is language in politics, the euphemism for control, that it's rare someone notices language's involvement in this arena and discourses about it. This discourse is a plea to people his kind and not his kind to become his kind to turn the tide of life because he recognizes the picture before him (after recognizing its factors, the factors' connections and separations and, consequently, their direction) necessitates that turn if everyone wants to live well.

Few things comprehended spurn the individual to action as well as comprehending language, the commonality in every human activity (and is, I believe, logic in long/definition format). Upon this comprehension, the individual drops or continues to avert the superficial and dodges deceit or exposes it and moves on.

Good Lord, I love the Daily Paul, a forum for inquiry and discourse, where learning occurs around the clock. Mr. Hultberg, thank you for this astute essay on language in politics and, outside it, as a reminder that language is thinking expressed. Yes, the politician and professor -- and everyone else! -- really do tell you their natures and intentions! It's up to you, the receiver, to comprehend them.

Forever live the ability to identify and discuss. Forever live the short-long relationship, the term-definition relationship, a main characteristic of society, which is derived from the individual's ability to comprehend. This is to that as that is to this -- A:B::B:A.

School's fine. Just don't let it get in the way of thinking. -Me

Study nature, not books. -Walton F. Dutton

good read

Something I find when talking to liberal or progressive minded people is that they cannot find the line of where governments role ends and individuals lives begin and vice-versa. When talking about government they take it as a personal attack on themselves even though you are clearly not talking about them directly.

Homeland security statement: patriotism is now considered terrorism.
I love www.isidewith.com shared it with everyone I know. If anything they realize its not just a red and blue idiot running for reelection.

I remember the first time I

I remember the first time I was called an ideologue. I got from the context that it was meant in a derogatory way, but my sense of the word had a positive connotation. I went home and looked up the definition to make sure I hadn't absorbed the word's meaning incorrectly. I hadn't. I was left contemplating in what sort of mind or context would "ideologue" would be a pejorative term.

That was many years ago and I've only seen "ideologue" become more pejorative in common usage.

What concerns me with this trend is that it maligns a whole category of human motivation. All actions are motivated by SOMETHING. If we malign all actions motivated by a firm belief in a set of ideas, then what motivations are we venerating?

Expediency and pragmatism is an answer I hear bandied about most often. But these are METHODS not MOTIVATIONS. Expediency and pragmatism motivated by what?

If not motivated by ideas, what are such non-ideologues motivated by?

How are particular course of action makes them feel at any moment? How it is perceived by others? How those others make them feel?

Eleanor Roosevelt said, "Great people talk about ideas. Average people talk about things. Small people talk about other people."

It seems to me that this idea expands naturally into: Great people concern themselves with ideas; average people with things; small people with other people.

We're at place where we are more suspect of people motivated by ideas than of people motivated by how they feel and what other people think about them. A shame. I took back the term "ideologue" a long time ago. It's an honor to achieve such a label.

Isn't "anti-ideology" an ideology?

Good Read

and I couldn't agree more.

Thanks

I really like how you worded this:

"Libertarians and true conservatives advocate laissez-faire capitalism. Liberals and neo-conservatives advocate authoritarian statism."

Well said. THANK YOU.