Ideology, what it is, and the women who love them

.
Ideology: a definition, or an explanation
The word ideology has been thrown at me ever since I was in college, and I could never figure out what it was.  Now that we have Google, I want to find out.

Ideology:  a system of ideas and ideals, especially one that forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy.
"the ideology of republicanism"
synonyms:    beliefs, ideas, ideals, principles, ethics, morals; (More...)

Now, that was as clear as mud, so of course I had to click on “more”:

doctrine, creed, credo, faith, teaching, theory, philosophy;
tenets, canon(s);
conviction(s), persuasion;
(informal) –ism.

The last entry suggests that ideology is the particular “ism” that you subscribe to.

That was a good first step, but I wanted yet more, so I went to Wikipedia.
Wikipedia:

An ideology is a set of conscious and/or unconscious ideas which constitute one's goals, expectations, and actions. An ideology is a comprehensive normative vision, a way of looking at things, as argued in several philosophical tendencies (see political ideologies), and/or a set of ideas proposed by the dominant class of a society to all members of this society (a "received consciousness" or product of socialization), as suggested in some Marxist and Critical theory accounts. While the concept of "ideology" describes a set of ideas broad in its normative reach, an ideology is less encompassing than as expressed in concepts such as “worldview,” “imaginary” and “ontology.”

Ideologies are systems of abstracted meaning applied to public matters, thus making this concept central to politics. Implicitly, in societies that distinguish between public and private life, every political or economic tendency entails an ideology, whether or not it is propounded as an explicit system of thought.

Now, we have this sort of thing in mathematics, so I think I know where this is going.  To clarify this from my point of view, I have to go into what we call a mathematical theory.

A mathematical theory has these things:

Some basic terminology, consisting of words which are not defined.  But to illustrate their use (which is sometimes almost as good as definitions), some statements are given, using the words, and these statements (called Axioms) are to be considered as holding in this theory.  (In the case of an ideology, unfortunately, it is not about a theory, but about the actual world.  This makes a huge and uncomfortable difference.)

Coming back to a mathematical theory, within a given theory you can prove certain theorems.  They follow logically from the Axioms.  So, for instance in a certain mathematical theory called Projective Geometry, all lines lying in the same plane must intersect.

Now, lines are an abstraction.  We all think we know what a line is, but you have to admit that, when you are looking at what you think are a pair of lines lying in the same plane, they may appear to not cross each other, but we just don’t know, because we can only see a finite portion of the lines.  But in Projective Geometry, it is convenient to play along with this Axiom, and certain math problems can be solved in the theory very conveniently.  But other problems can’t, so we can adopt a different theory to solve those.

As far as Ideology is concerned, reading between the lines, there appears to be a certain subjectivity in the definition of what an ideology is.

It is a system of beliefs.  This means that it is a logical structure based on certain statements (about the world) that cannot be proven, but which are accepted because they lead to the conclusions that one finds desirable.  Suppose we want to accuse Mr. A. of subscribing to a particular ideology.  This means we think that Mr. A has accepted certain statements as axiomatic, because Mr. A. has discovered that the conclusions from those axioms are compatible with Mr. A’s world view.

Normally we would be calling Mr. A’s philosophy an Ideology only if we do not believe in it.  For instance, if we don’t believe in Marxism, we would say that anyone who does believe in Marxism is a believer in Marxist Ideology.  So in one fell swoop we have managed to convey:

(1) We don’t like Marxism,
(2) Mr. A has accepted various Marxist Axioms.

Unlike a mere theory, as we said earlier, ideologies are based on axioms that describe the world of people and society, and by implication, business, economics and politics.  Let’s get away from the idea that the term “ideology” is subtly pejorative, and try to see whether the word can be used in a more precise way.  The main idea seems that someone (Mr. A) has accepted certain Axioms from which he can explain what he observes in society to his own satisfaction.  His system of beliefs is more likely to be considered an “ideology” if he can be observed to stick to his beliefs despite new facts and situations that seem (at least to us) to contradict his axioms.

The problem is that whether or not the new facts contradict those axioms depends on interpretation.  To us it may seem that the new facts and situations clearly contradict Mr. A’s axioms.  To him it may appear that either the new facts do not contradict the axioms at all, or that all the information is not yet in.

So the question of whether someone has an ideology or not is very much in the eye of the beholder.  Unlike mathematical facts, the axioms and the observations are not clearly connected by logical or mathematical links, and (at least in the eye of the spectators) there is a lot that depends on interpretation.

The whole question was recently made interesting by two developments.

The Mid-Term Elections
In a recent post, a certain writer observed that the GOP has related to Barack Obama entirely politically.  In other words, they’re deciding whether or not to compromise and cooperate with the Democrats only based on the issues surrounding getting re-elected, and discrediting Democrat candidates, and not on what is best for the people.  As a case in point, he puts forward that the House Republicans rejected the President’s offer to compromise on the budget, and reduce Social Welfare services, which resulted in no reduction in services, and increased the national debt.  They refused to participate in Health Care reform, to deny giving the ACA the appearance of having bi-partisan support and had eventually to accept features that they did not like.  We could accuse House Republicans of being ideologues, because they stick to Conservative and party axioms in the face of evidence that indicated that compromise is better for both sides.  The word ideology is strongly associated with philosophical inflexibility.

Pope Francis
Again, in a recent post, it was reported that Pope Francis charged, on a certain Sunday in October, that religious ideologues are bad for the Church.  Here he is using the word “ideology” to refer to inflexible doctrinal axioms adopted by certain Catholics, who refuse to moderate their stance or compromise their principles.  ("The faith passes, so to speak, through a distiller, and becomes ideology.")  In human affairs, abiding by rigid principles of conduct has, over the last half century at least, come under justified criticism.  Religious morality, and certainly Christian morality, is all about moderating judgment with mercy.  The attitudes of ideologues is bound to inflexibility, being judgmental, and in inflexible application of simplistic moral principles.  The words of Pope Francis should be read directly, to understand what he means, but I for one believe that, in a sense that I understand, the inflexibility of the Religious Right is what the Pope, along with so many of us, is decrying.  The Pope is further saying that in his opinion, religious morality cannot be applied mathematically; doing so is not what is best for the Church.

As a youth, I have to admit that I was an ideologue.  Among many "ism"s that young people are susceptible to are various sorts of absolutism, the belief that a particular social philosophy, such as Capitalism, Socialism, Marxism, or Christian Morality, can be applied to all situations without modification.  As one grows older, one begins to understand that certain basic principles are certainly widely applicable.  But the application has to be flexible.  For instance, I still believe in the principle that the least financially self-sufficient sector of society has to be assisted by the state, regardless of whether the assistance is taken advantage of by unscrupulous individuals.  If a class of lazy good-for-nothings comes into existence as a result, so be it.  Similarly, I believe in protecting the environment, even if it is at the cost of lowering our standard of living.  Similarly, I believe in the right of every child to better than a basic education, though I also believe that we must work away at [added later] eliminating the stratification of occupation based on social class.  I can't see having to compromise these broad principles, unless compromise is necessary because they are seen to logically contradict each other somehow.

In contrast, there are a lot of people around, many of them House Republicans, who hold certain truths to be self-evident, such as if a Democrat says something, it has to be a lie; or if there is a piece of scientific information that they cannot understand, then it cannot be true, or important.  For instance, at a congressional hearing on Warming, certain Republican congressmen challenged the scientist who was giving evidence saying that there seemed to be a lot of thinking "out there" that suggested that global warming is all exaggeration.

The scientist came right back with suggesting that it would serve the congressman better if he read the scientific literature rather than the opinions of laymen on YouTube.  (It turned out the particular congressman involved had been heavily supported financially by energy companies.)

The congressman responded saying that he could not take seriously the testimony of people who studied climate change for a living, since it was in their interest to exaggerate the degree to which it was taking place.

That, of course, was such a great non-sequitur that it appears that the scientist gave up that particular exchange.  As Jon Stewart put it, it is impossible to talk to someone who prefers the opinions of laymen over those of professionals.  The congressman went on to accuse the scientific community of scare tactics.  In short, messengers who bring bad news must be censored.

I think this qualifies as ideology.  It is the particularly pernicious ideology of discrediting any information that is uncomfortable.  Today, there is very little comfortable information coming in, so it is an ideology of burying heads in the sand, and putting a bullet into any head that remains unburied.

Arch

Howard Dean Puts the Finger on Why So Many Democrat Seats Were Lost

.

I was pretty disappointed when the election returns trickled in on Tuesday night.  But, you know, I kinda expected it.  I was looking for publicity in the media from Democrats seeking re-election, and very few of them were to be found.  (Unfortunately, I only get media coverage on the Internet, because I don’t have TV, or I might have been even more upset.)

Well, the point Howard Dean makes is that Democrats running for re-election were too chicken to stand behind Obama.  They thought it would get them more votes to show that they were independent of Obama than to appear to march in lock-step with the Democrat political line.  I was seeing hints of this situation in various opinion pieces and blogs, but it didn’t really connect until Dean pointed it out.

Howard Dean was the Chair of the Democrat National Committee in two years when they got massively good results.  But, he says, he had a terrible time in getting Washington Democrats to stay on message.  His words.  What’s happening here?

Washington Democrats are watching too much Fox News.  They believe the onslaught of disinformation and lies that Fox puts out.  Unfortunately, Congressmen and State Representatives who watch Fox News uncritically absolutely deserve the beating they get.  “Consider the Source” has never been more apt than when talking about Republican propaganda.

Another frightening source of demoralization are “surveys” that seem to show that the population is drifting to the Right.  This may or may not be true, but it is the job of the President to drift with the population, not that of Congressmen or State representatives, who are elected for 2 years.  A Congressman or State Representative, with the much smaller group of people who elected him or her to office, must (1) continue to believe that the political and economic needs of his constituents continue as they were when he or she was first elected, unless proven otherwise, and (2) resist thoughts of trying to attract a larger constituency by waffling.  It is almost impossible to get further to the center of the political spectrum than President Obama.  We can only stay to the left of that line.  But our Washington Democrats tried to be clever, and moved to the Right of Obama, and fell off the platform altogether.

Well, we know it is impossible to find people willing to run for election on the Democratic ticket these days.  People like Hillary Clinton, Elizabeth Warren and Nancy Pelosi run for office out of, I believe, their drive to offer ideological leadership to the Democrat party, and a sense of responsibility.  Others run for office as a means to make a living, and people in that category do not have the courage to stick to their philosophical guns for fear of losing their seats.

Arch

Well!

.

Huh. That’s the last time I’ll let people think for themselves. Hello gray skies!

Last night there was what looked like a landslide in favor of the GOP (though sometimes the Media indulges in wishful thinking), and except for a Democrat governor for PA, the turtles have taken over the country!

What does this mean, really? Those who vote Republican, and even those who run for office for the GOP, are far from being unified philosophically (just as Democrats do not walk in lock-step, either) except in their statements to the Media, of course, which are uniformly paranoid. But there are a few things they do agree on, in the majority.

Taxes, Interest Rates, and the Economy

We can say goodbye to raising the minimum wage, though the GOP media geniuses will be able to point back to 2015 as the year when “things began to look better,” though they will not! But the price of oil will go down even further, which will result in jobs of certain sorts.

Despite their stated hatred of raising taxes, the GOP will raise taxes. Republican presidents have always raised taxes more than Democrat presidents have, but I have a feeling a GOP Congress will also raise taxes, and blame it on the President. This is a god-given opportunity to do it. This will increase government spending, and create jobs. Stealing from the Democrat play-book is always a good plan because the Democrats have the ONLY decent plays.

I really don’t know about inflation (and raising interest rates); that sort of thing is done by the Fed, and the link to political philosophy is a little harder to see.

But the political climate will certainly be even more Pro-Business than it has been for a while, and we’ll probably see a certain amount of Pro-Business legislation that favors Business Owners over labor. And probably Big Business far more than Small Business. Banking laws, I hope, will not be liberalized, because everybody knows that Wall Street is dangerous when it gets going. On the other hand, the Top 1% who really pull the strings of the country probably feel that it is fine to relax the chains on Wall Street and let her rip, as long as they keep their private jets fueled, for a quick getaway in case things go kaplooey. And of course, there will be lots of guns on every table, and plenty of drugs in every pot. I don’t know why I suspect that, and I certainly don’t know whether drug crime goes with one party or the other. We do know, however, that most of the drug demand comes from wealthy white-collar folks, though it is poor blacks and Latinos who get caught.

Health Care, Social Security, and Welfare

Welfare and Social Security will both be in serious danger, especially if the new Red Congress has younger legislators in it. There was some thinking already, among members of both parties, that the only way to continue to keep Senior Citizens adequately supported was to cut services to the most affluent retirees.

It is hard to tell what will happen to Health Care, though. If Obamacare is repealed in its entirety, a lot of people will lose health insurance which they have had for a year, and it might be a tough sell for the GOP to convince people that this is a Good Thing. This is especially so if they’re unable to improve all the situations which they claimed were screwed up because of Obamacare. This is the cost of lying: it's tough when you’re called on it.

But, on the other hand, the GOP has lied to the people for decades, the The People have bought it, with little or no impunity few bad consequences (and moderate impunity, actually).

International Politics and the Military

This is also tricky to predict, but generally speaking, the US will go to war on some pretext or another. Look out, ISIS, here we come. This is especially true if there is Oil in ISIS territory, though of course we don’t really need their oil, since we have so much of our own under the Polar Bears in the Arctic. Look out for Polar Bears to join forces with ISIS.

Education

Well, my thinking is that education is going to take a major hit. What the GOP wants most is to ensure a Republican President in 2016, and they will do all sorts of clever maneuvering to ensure this. But they have very few ideas among themselves, so they will try to resuscitate various Democrat measures that they have succeeded in defeating thus far, but present them in new guises. But one idea that has worked well for them is to vilify teachers, and they will do this with all their might. They will vilify colleges and universities, too, though in fact colleges and universities have really provided them with all the steam they have used to get into power.  Consider this:

Business Departments across the country have educated their students to take advantage of all sorts of political climates. A recession is an opportunity to cut back on employment and raise prices. A boom is an opportunity to raise prices even more, and get the populace hooked on new commodities.

Economics Departments across the country have educated their students to preach the inevitability of the supremacy of business.

Political Science Departments across the country have educated their students to take advantage of both Republican Administrations (in good times and in bad), and Democrat Administrations (in good times and in bad), so that no matter what cloud is passing overhead, there is always a silver lining! This is how we have evolved to such a point that political office is now only held by opportunists, who make their money quickly while in office, and then parlay their connections to business. No electoral district can depend on a congressman or representative to look after their interests long term.

So, colleges and universities have been friends to Business, and conservatives generally.  But they will attack colleges and universities, because it goes over well with the rural conservatives. Colleges and Universities have been trained to sing the praises of Capital even if they're attacked. They grumble, but they lick the whip.

The Environment

Well, we know what’s going to happen to that. We’re going to drill. We’ll know more about how the Environment is going to get beheaded in a few months. It looked as though the gas-guzzling behemoths were on their way out. But now, with gasoline pouring in at pre-2008 prices, maybe it’s time to dust off the old Expedition, or Escalade, or Suburban, and fill her up.

Well, I guess we knew this would happen!  That's why we didn't vote!!  But we had a wonderful six years. Funny, but I can't remember them being that wonderful...

Arch