|
by ValentinD
Rather than assigning a political colour to people according to where their words and ideas seem to position them, we might rather need to learn, and acknowledge that one does not always speak from an ideological viewpoint, but based on and looking at a real-life situation.
This seems to be the new way in politics: rather than governing from the centre, raising above it to face the reality directly, without the bias of a predetermined political position, without the skewed 3D glasses of a particular ideology.
Take, for instance, railway employees.
Their working conditions today can be safely defined as ultramodern - an indisputable fact, no matter how one might look at it.
If a 1930 worker was told that the said working conditions are considered difficult (say, because of the need to wake up early, or push a few buttons, pay quite a lot of attention and bear -- the stress for some, the boredom for others). Our 1930 worker would likely spit aside and smirk back at whoever told him that. A lot of responsibility, certainly, stressful situations, definitely, but difficult work conditions?... This is just normal evolution as the society becomes more and more advanced technologically. Work conditions get easier (or else we should think about re-defining the word "difficult", as happened with the word "liberalism", whose sense for many today is closer to socialism than centre; but I digress). Does stating all this amount to someone positioning on the rightwing side of the political spectre? Does it necessarily imply a hidden political agenda, aimed at harming workers' rights or benefits?
The French trade unions (and particularly so the likes of CGT, FO or Sud), are considered amongst the most leftwing unions in Europe.
Now, the question would be, does stating all this make one rightwing oriented (let alone hard-right). Is this a sign (let alone "proof") of thatcherist propaganda, well, why not say it plainly, of being For the Bosses, Against the Workers!
Also, let us consider a statement that clearly contradicts certain libertarian ideologies:
that people, men and women, would not be completely socially-conditioned, enslaved to socially-constructed, imposed roles; but would also be, from time to time, capable to think with their own minds, to step out of the well trodden paths the society (broadly speaking) prepared for them. This kind of oppositions and extremes appear today as ideological by definition, and promoted by people whose interest is to back a certain ideology and fight opposing ideologies. Psychological research tends to suggest that ideologies reflect motivational processes, as opposed to the view that political convictions always reflect independent and unbiased thinking. ( Jost, J.T., Ledgerwood, A., & Hardin, C.D. (2008) - this would also seem to indicate that those who decry conditioning are or were conditioned themselves (and have difficulties accepting a society that is not so by and large). A good example in the matter is the French political leftwing - especially the French Socialist Party -, whose main political slogan, even now, after three consecutive defeats in presidential elections and an internal deroute in terms of defining a unique political line, whose main slogan, I was saying, remains the aged "let us wage war against the Right"
A simple Google search on "Battre la droite" will reveal this simple (and saddeningly simplistic) line as the only flag capable to federate French leftwingers, from the far left, LCR and PCF, to the PS and the Green party. Mainly ideological approaches such as these, are opposed to pragmatic, rationalist ways of dealing with issues. Pragmatic rational policies do include humanism, care for the economic growth and at the same time for reducing unfair inequalities; defend freedoms and rights while rejecting social and economical libertarianism that lead to chaos and egocentrism. Such positions started to surface in the 90s already with leaders like Bill Clinton, or Tony Blair and find good audience today in Barrack Obama or Nicolas Sarkozy, despite numerous exceptions and mistakes each of them might have made.
Someone was arguing about the coming death of ideologies.
After all, Daniel Bell, a Harvard sociologist, had already mentioned the death of ideology in his famous book. His reflections though were more in line with Karl Marx's old prediction of a society without classes, following the advent and final success of the communism. If we look at it retrospectively, Burnham's vision seems as the less inaccurate, and maybe even now, as we speak, we are actually watching the last ideologues throwing their final burning arrows before their beloved dreams and utopies melt, fade away, die down under the uninspiring blows of the oh-so-prosaic pragmatism.
An example could be the difficulties moderate republicans meet with their rational stances against the "fundamentalist" ideology. No further than John McCain picking Ms.Palin for candidate vice-president, in a moment he should have shown his maverick talents and targeted the center and the undecided, is the most obvious proof of bad, irrational rightwing ideology at full throttle. Another example could be the article by former NY governor Eliot L. Spitzer in the today issue of the Washington Post. "The new president's team must soon get to the root causes of the mistakes that have brought us to the economic precipice. ... "But these are all mere manifestations of three deeper structural problems that require greater attention: misconceptions about what a "free market" really is, a continuing breakdown in corporate governance and an antiquated and incoherent federal financial regulatory framework. First, we must confront head-on the pervasive misunderstanding of what constitutes a "free market." For long stretches of the past 30 years, too many Americans fell prey to the ideology that a free market requires nearly complete deregulation of banks and other financial institutions and a government with a hands-off approach to enforcement. "We can regulate ourselves," the mantra went. "Those of us who raised red flags about this were scoffed at for failing to understand or even believe in "the market." During my tenure as New York state attorney general, my colleagues and I sought to require investment banking analysts to provide their clients with unbiased recommendations, devoid of undisclosed and structural conflicts. But powerful voices with heavily vested interests accused us of meddling in the market." (full article here) This is the new politician: refusing "ideology at all cost", and being more of a pragmatic technocrat. I might also remind the skeptics the number of people and media from the right which supported Barrack Obama. Washington Post has certainly gone a long way from a fierce supporter of George W Bush and the war in Iraq. Or The Economist - one should read the long string of issues before november where the paper was loudly supporting John McCain, even advising his campaign, only to end up endorsing Obama. Colin Powell, however compromised, is a good example too. And this is not just about endorsers, but about the endorsed: Obama met John McCain today and even talked about "working together". Skeptics might say this is rather due to the serious economic situation rather than Obama's personal pragmatism. I will again direct these skeptics to the On The Issues website where the rational, pragmatic posture shines through each and every obamaian declaration. As to Nicolas Sarkozy, here is an article speaking precisely about Sarkozy's pragmatism (or realism) - Google automatic translation here. Sarkozy's latest measures to sustain employment were called "an ideological turn coat" -- of course, by ideologists, who are positively unable to see anything else but ideology, in any political or social event or measure. One more proof about the decadence and eventual death of Ideology. I could find many more such examples, but this suffices for the point to be made, I suppose. |
Menu
. Home
. About . Contact . New User Guide . FAQ . ET Editorial Guidelines . Search . Search (Google) Login
|
||
|
Is Ideology Dead ?... | 348 comments (348 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden)
Is Ideology Dead ?... | 348 comments (348 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden)
| ||||
| ||||
