Saving the Middle Class Is Ideological, Too

by: Chris Bowers

Fri Dec 12, 2008 at 19:07


Over at Daily Kos, DHinMI has been accurately writing that Senate Republicans are more interested in destroying the UAW than in saving the economy (see here and here). This is definitely true.

I do take issue with one aspect of DH's writing, though: the part where he argues that the desire to destroy a union instead of saving the economy makes someone an ideologue. This is because wanting to save three million middle class jobs is itself an ideological position. It isn't so much that Senate Republicans are being ideologues, and those who want to save the three million jobs are not being ideologues, but rather that it is a clash of ideologies. Wanting to save three million jobs instead of destroying the UAW is itself an ideological position.

For example, DHinMI writes:

So, it's possible that the GOP Senators like Corker and McConnell are stupid, and just don't understand some of the basics of the global auto industry.  But we shouldn't dismiss the possibility that the ultras who've taken over the GOP, the people for whom ideology is more important than consequences and reality, would rather risk destroying one of our most important industries in an attempt to destroy a labor union.

This isn't about a clash between ideology and reality. This is, instead, about different ideological desires for what should happen in reality.

Senate Republicans would rather see the UAW destroyed than save the three million jobs at the U.S. auto manufacturers. However, working to save three million jobs is not a value-neutral position. Instead, it requires an ideology that believes those three million jobs are a good thing that must be valued more than, say, the belief that government should not step in and save three million jobs. Both the belief that destroying the union is more important than saving the jobs, and the belief that saving the jobs is more important than destroying the union are values and, thus, ideological.

Last week, Matt outlined the conservative ideology at play in this case (more in the extended entry):
Chris Bowers :: Saving the Middle Class Is Ideological, Too
Though Marshall and Kilgore primarily ascribe the argument I'm making as strictly utilitarian in nature (deflation moves wealth to conservatives, so they like it), my point was more that conservatives believe in a strict social hierarchy in which they are on top, and that deflation serves that end.  Conservatives are principled adherents to an aristocratic ordering, and they are not primarily driven by money or wealth but by a desire to preserve and promote a stable society with their own needs protected and serviced and the needs of those in the out groups placed in dependency.  Deflation, like tax cuts for the wealthy or busting unions or gutting trial lawyers or breaking net neutrality or preventing universal health care or mobilizing the state for wars of choice or undermining civil liberties for those in the out groups while increasing it for conservatives themselves (see Sarah Palin's notions that her first amendment includes preventing criticism of conservative figures), serves that end well.  The economics is in service to the principle, in other words.  It's not a dry technical science.

From a certain type of conservative ideological outlook, destroying the union is more important than saving the jobs involved. The destruction of the union helps cement a strict, aristocratic, social hierarchy. However, viewing saving the jobs as more important than the destruction of the union is also an ideological position.

There is no non-ideological ground in this fight. This is the case with most political fights. Values like helping the middle class, ensuring civil rights, and protecting the environment are, in fact, ideological positions. These fights are not about defeating ideology altogether since, without ideology, then there would be no reason to work for civil rights, a clean environment, or broad economic prosperity. This isn't about defeating ideology altogether, but rather about defeating certain ideologies. Specifically, it is about defeating ideologies that consider busting a union more important than saving three million jobs. Beliefs like that are extremely dangerous to those who hold a different, progressive ideology: the belief in broad, economic prosperity for all.

Tags: , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Saving the Middle Class Is Ideological, Too | 61 comments
Otherwise known as... (4.00 / 4)
...wait for it...The Class War. This, folks, is what it used to looked like, from the preamble of the IWW:
The working class and the employing class have nothing in common.There can be no peace so long as hunger and want are found among millions of the working people and the few, who make up the employing class, have all the good things of life.

Between these two classes a struggle must go on until the workers of the world organize as a class, take possession of the earth and the machinery of production, and abolish the wage system.

If the Republicans are so confident that a) the war is over, and that b) their class won it, why are they so desperate to ban from public discourse even the slightest mention of a working class with interests distinct from their own.

Ahem,,,. Is it too early, or too frivolous to suggest that history has returned with a new set of lessons for them to contemplate?

How do you govern without an ideology (4.00 / 2)
When a more or less systematic set of ideas, values, and beliefs, which underlies the practices of a society of people is the ambition?  For instance, we are a nation of laws not men/women.

America was founded on the "new" ideology of liberalism and a somewhat systematic set of ideas, values and beliefs favoring equality.

If George Washington were to hope for America to embrace an ideology, Perhaps it would be something like:

"As Mankind becomes more liberal, they will be more apt to allow that all those who conduct themselves as worthy members of the community are equally entitled to the protections of civil government. I hope ever to see America among the foremost nations of justice and liberality."

And since it is quite possible to kill, imprison and oppress or subject a people to live in a state of miserable subordination to an aristocracy or tyrant, one might classify the following as the statement of an ideology as well:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. - That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, - That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

? (0.00 / 0)
America was founded on the "new" ideology of liberalism and a somewhat systematic set of ideas, values and beliefs favoring equality.

If this is really the underpinning of American society whether then or now, how do you explain the following:

legalized slave trade through 1808 and slavery through 1865
breaking of contracts with american indian nations, trail of tears
denial of vote to women
denial of vote to non propertied men
electoral college, indirect elections of president and senators
1828 supreme court decision treating corporations as legal persons
idea of manifest destiny
segregation
use of private corporate troops to shoot labor activists - strikers
screening of birth of a nation in white house by woodrow wilson
(at least) two red scares
dropping of two atomic bombs on japanese cities
japanese internments, operation wetback
about 2 million deportations since 1996

etc.

[ Parent ]
By the fact that the intention was there (4.00 / 2)
on the part of some, but insuffienctly so on the part of enough, especially in its implementation. The spirit is willing but the political flesh is weak...

The country was founded on good ideas and intentions. That they were inadequately realized doesn't change that, although it might prove that they were somewhat untenable.

We'll see. The future is endless.

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton

[ Parent ]
im all for the future (0.00 / 0)
but isnt it about time we let the past go?  how about a constitutional convention in a few years?
[ Parent ]
We can no more let the past go (4.00 / 1)
than the past can let go of us. It is always with us, and us with it. There are no clean breaks, just breaks, and they tend to hurt more than they help. We're stuck with our constitution, for better or worse. It doesn't need replacement, just dusting off and liberation, and maybe some tweaking. But "Year Zero" solutions give me the creeps.

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton
[ Parent ]
i agree that the past is always with us (0.00 / 0)
that's why we don't need to justify our arguments in terms of a documnent written 200 years ago and substantially revised 150 years ago and changed overtime since then.  The longer you maintain that framework and the institutional structure that makes changes to it difficult, the more likely it is that you end up supporting entrenched powers or cause a political crisis because the government can't respond to contemporary events.

Anyway, I said in a few years (like 15-20) - I wouldn't want one without a progressive/radical majority in American politics.  Just putting it on the table.

[ Parent ]
There is no way that the establishment clause survives a new (0.00 / 0)
constitutional convention.  I fear that a new constitution would be gutted of a lot of fundamental rights.
[ Parent ]
By god, I think you're right (0.00 / 0)
Seriously, this is a really bad idea. For better or worse, we're stuck with this one, and any new one would almost certainly be worse than the present one, most likely in insidious ways that would take years to unfold. Just because something sounds like a good idea doesn't mean that it is one. Now if we can only get rid of the pardon power...

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton
[ Parent ]
Yes, why indeed (4.00 / 1)
Marx would have labeled your little counterexamples contradictions. Marx these days, of course, exists only in cartoons penned by Karl Rove. To understand why that is so, we'd have to delve into post-Marxist thought -- something called the return of the repressed.

So many philosophers, so little time....

[ Parent ]
Because ideas come first. (4.00 / 2)
You have to have the dream of a better society before you can make it a reality.

Montani semper liberi
[ Parent ]
i fully agree (0.00 / 0)
that's why i think if we take a good hard honest look at the american political system over the last 200 years comnbined with america's (self-chosen) role in the world, we will see that the structural obstacles to progress are the norm, and the exceptions are the progress, and that these were built on terrible ideas and entrenched social power.  

Why are American working people treated SO much worse than working people in other rich countries?  Is it really an exception to the historical norm?  Why did reconstruction not lead to civil rights for Black people for another 100 years and why do opportunities like reconstruction come along so seldom?

I'm not saying it's an easy thing to do or that's the only cause, but it does beg the question of why we are so reluctant to revisit some of those obstacles (like the senate or lifetime appointments to the supreme court or the 2/3 - 3/4 amending procedure or just the basic idea that you can never have a new constitution) and substantially improve upon them.  Wouldn't it be the most patriotic thing of all?

[ Parent ]
Besides which (4.00 / 1)
when America was founded, in opposition to the conservatives (we called them tories, then), the conservatives didn't vanish overnight.

We had to fight them every step of the way to get to where we are now, and as your list shows, they won some battles, too.

Montani semper liberi

[ Parent ]
it was founded by white landed propertied men (0.00 / 0)
and the values in the constitution reflect that.  that's not to say they didn't have some good ideas, but that's the social basis of the constitution and the revolutionary war- it was a battle between the elite that wanted to be free of british rule and the elite that wanted to stay in it / the british.  I don't think we should pretend otherwise.
[ Parent ]
Ideologue != one who has an ideology (4.00 / 6)
We've been through the semantics of this before. From http://www.merriam-webster.com...

1  : an impractical idealist : theorist  
2  : an often blindly partisan advocate or adherent of a particular ideology  

It's not the holding of an ideology that makes one an ideologue. It's the blind adherence to it regardless of the foreseeable consequences, even consequences the ideologue him/herself would admit are catastrophic. It's the willingness to accept the chance of catastrophe that makes some adherents of a particular ideology, ideologues. The word has a pejorative sense. That's why. If Shelby and friends aren't ideologues, then the word has no further use in the English language.

Late to the game, I know.

True In Theory, But... (4.00 / 3)
In present-day discourse, status-quo ideologues use the word to denote anyone who doesn't play the game their way.

For better or worse, this is how words change their meanings--or at least develop new ones.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
They're not trying to change the meaning (4.00 / 1)
They use it correctly, as a pejorative, with exactly the connotations Merriam-Webster, I and others have laid out. They misapply it to the moderate (non-ideologue) left in hopes that it will stick. They've has some success at this, but it's not working for them this year.

The present case is a great illustration of which side has empowered its ideologues, and it clearly ain't us. Leaving only the question of how to make the case in public. The more non-political people see them as the ideologues, the longer it will take them to regain power.

[ Parent ]
I Disagree (4.00 / 4)
In fact, they aren't even interested in its meaning.  All they care about is that it sounds pejorative.  Like calling Obama a socialist.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3
[ Parent ]
You make my (semantic) point (4.00 / 1)
Socialism is an ideology, (wrongly imo) viewed as extreme, unrealistic, impractical by the chattering class. By calling Obama a socialist, the right hoped to scare the electorate into viewing him as an ideologue, with the implication that he would plow forward with his Marxist-Leninist ideology regardless of the results.

Which is what Bush did with his ideology - an old rightwing trick, projecting their traits onto us...

The NYTimes editorial in Friday's paper http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12... correctly noted

As the American economy sinks into the deepest recession in a generation - caused in large part by this sort of anti-government and anti-regulatory dogma - it would be folly to allow the ideologues to undermine efforts to pull the country out.

[ Parent ]
The Ideologues In This Case (4.00 / 3)
Are those who believe in holding the wealthy and powerful accountable, as well as the poor and the [struggling-to-stay-part-of-the] middle class.

I believe the ideology involved is called "democracy."

You know.  Elections. Checks and balances.  Rule of law.  The whole nine yards.

Extremist DFHs to you.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
No ... (0.00 / 0)
The ideologues that they're talking about are the ones who espouse "anti-government and anti-regulatory dogma". They're the ones messing up the country.

Also, "holding the wealthy and powerful accountable, as well as the poor and the middle class," is called justice. You can have a justice system, or hold people accountable, without democracy.

Democracy is a form of self-rule.  

[ Parent ]
I don't think they are blinded (4.00 / 1)
In this case, I think they know exactly what they are doing.

They are fully aware of the consequences of their actions. I don't think they are blinded at all.

[ Parent ]
Class War in America (4.00 / 2)
The terms class, status and power are some of the first definitions learned in an introductory sociology course. In the U.S., we are taught, we have a lower, middle and upper class, each of which is divided into its own lower, middle and upper class category. The very rich, old name families, high-ranking politicians and the like are upper-upper class. The homeless, the majority of felons and the poorest of the poor are lower-lower class.

We are also taught that status, a measure of one's social position, is determined by age, race, sex, income, education and occupation. Again, those with the greatest income and the correct (i.e., dominant) race (white), sex (male), age (early adult to late middle age) and education (college and graduate school) tend to have the highest status.

Power is different. Power is not determined solely by class or status. Power identifies the dominant forms of economic and political relationships that exist between the classes at any given time. At times, power can belong predominantly to the upper class. At other times, the majority of power can belong to the middle class.

There has always been a class war between those at the top of the class system and those in the middle.

The only thing that has kept and continues to keep the U.S. from devolving into a third world country is the strength of the middle class, a class comprised of the working poor, blue-collar and white-collar hourly and salaried employees and the professional and educated class.

The middle class is the heart of this country. The middle class is the engine of its economy. The middle class is only clear and persistent evidence that democracy works both as an ideology and a form of government.

Of course we are in a class war. Our country was founded as a result of a class war. The civil war that nearly destroyed us was a class war. Both at home and abroad, the creation of wealth that resulted from industrialization throughout the 19th and 20th centuries led to one class war after another. In some cases, the result was the impoverishment of millions of people. In other cases, the result was the creation of a standard of living and an accumulation of wealth that no previous civilization had ever achieved.

At this time in history, the U.S. Republican Party represents the upper class in every definition of the term and they are doing everything in their power to destroy the strength and future of the middle class. They could not be more vicious or more cruel in either intent or action. They are like the woman in the Judgment of Solomon whose own child had died and who wanted to kill the child of another woman, a child she claimed was her own. Her idea of justice was to cut the child in two pieces and give one half of the dead child to the child's real mother, keeping the other half for herself. The Democrats, like the real mother in the story, seem too willing to give the child to a bitter, envious, evil woman, if by doing so they can keep it alive.

Yes, we are engaged in a war within this country - a class war, a culture war, a war of values, a battle for power and control of an entire society.

If that is true (and it is) the sooner we admit to ourselves that there is no peace to be had with the Republican Party in its current manifestation, the sooner we will able to take the necessary steps to ensure the survival of America's middle class and the preservation of our democracy.

harumph (2.00 / 2)
The only thing that has kept and continues to keep the U.S. from devolving into a third world country is the strength of the middle class

colorful, but not accurate, imho.  the united states has not become poor for a variety of reasons, but it isnt the strength of the middle class and the working class but its susceptibility to being bought off (social security etc) and indoctrinated (media, public education, etc) and frightened (attacks on anyone that challenges liberal capitalism).  This is probably possible because the money/power is accumulated or stolen from other parts of the world (i.e. imperialism) as well as off the backs of the poor/working classes/women/lgbt people/black and latino and hmong and other people/middle class etc. in the u.s.

[ Parent ]
so now particular kinds of political analysis also get troll ratings too? :) (0.00 / 0)
gotta love people who believe in social censorship ;)  You can't give a troll rating because you disagree with someone - you give them a troll rating because you think they're trolling.
[ Parent ]
why can't it be about what makes the most economic sense? (4.00 / 1)
Clearly, the GOP has gone off the ideological deep end once again. But wanting to help the economy isn't necessarily ideological. It's rational.

Jobs boost the economy, and a strong economy improves our standing of living. Is it ideological to want a higher standard of living? (Or clean air? Or good health?) Or is it rational?

Support for the right to organize (unions) can be based on the same rational argument -- that a thriving middle class spurs the economy and improves our standard of living.  

My beef with ideological arguments is that it allows you to make bad decisions. For instance, an ideological argument might be that you have to "save the auto industry" to save three million jobs. However, in the long run, those same workers might do better working for a healthy auto company that's been restructured. Stiglitz argued that the best plan for the auto industry might be a Chapter 11 bankruptcy, with a pre-negotiated strategy to help, or bail out, the employee pension plans.  

So, then, you might argue that it's ideological to want to bail out workers' pension plans, while making the shareholders and Big 3 executives suffer. A rational argument can be made for that too: It makes sense to deter practices that hurt the economy (poor management) while supporting the things that help the economy (savings, and middle class purchasing power).

Also, ideological arguments lead to questions like, If you're going to help Worker A, then why not  Worker B? For instance, why not bail out the Publishing Industry, which has been shedding jobs for years?

Or why not bail out the makers of typewriters? Oh, right, it's too late for that. No one makes typewriters anymore, they're obsolete. Maybe the makers of gas guzzling SUVs should be obsolete too, and replaced by restructured auto companies that make energy efficient cars.

The Belief In Rationality Is Ideological (4.00 / 6)
Some folks don't belief in it.

Don't believe in reason.

Don't believe in evidence, either.

So you can't escape from ideology by saying, "It's just rational."

Now, I happen to think that reason and justice (do unto others, and all that jazz) takes you an awful long ways in the ideological sweepstakes.  But they are an ideology in themselves, however bare-bones to begin with.

There's no escaping it.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
And even if you hold up rationality (4.00 / 5)
different people will see different things as being 'rational'.  We have different priorities.  Ideology is how we identify those priorities.

Saying something like 'a good economy is important' doesn't really tell us much about what to do about the economy.  This is the endless argument that the left and the right have about inflation versus unemployment, for example.  

[ Parent ]
Another good reason Obama wants (4.00 / 1)
to distance himself from the lefty blogs is that they say things like "belief in rationality is ideological."

[ Parent ]
It's All Fine (4.00 / 2)
Yes, let him. It's okay, really. We expect him to be a politician, not a philosopher. We'll explain that part to him when the time comes, when we're putting Neosporin on the bite marks on his ass.
[ Parent ]
Interesting (0.00 / 0)
My guess is that Obama could trounce most of the posters here on any philosophical question you care to name.  I wouldn't count on "explaining" much to him.
[ Parent ]
You're Guessing Again (4.00 / 2)
Yes, it's possible -- he's a very smart dude to be sure -- but it's unlikely. The very fact that he wants to be president, let alone has the complex set of skills necessary to get himself elected president, argues against it.

Besides, hero worship is beneath you, no? ;-)

[ Parent ]
You're redefining the word then (0.00 / 0)
Rational = reasonable. The ability to reason.

Ideologue = irrational adherence to a belief.  

They are the opposite of each other.

You're trying to argue that NOT being ideological is ideological, and therefore all arguments are ideological. That doesn't work.

For instance, I believe that the earth revolves around the sun. Is that ideological? No. It's rational, based on scientific evidence.  However, people who believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible might still insist that the sun revolves around the earth because that's what's implied in the Bible. That belief, besides all the evidence to the contrary, is ideological.

I agree that some people are irrational. They are the ideologues, and they are the problem.  

[ Parent ]
Yes, he is, but he's not alone (4.00 / 2)
Much of the knowledge we've acquired since the Enlightenment about human consciousness has served to reveal the tangled roots of rationality as you define it. In fact, much of this knowledge has existed, in aphoristic form, at least, for centuries in wisdom literatures both inside and outside the Western cultural tradition. (See Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Freud, Marx, and all the rest of the usual suspects for details on our own, more recent, learning curve.)

Briefly put, it ain't as simple as you think. Consider, for just one example, the organization of the Nazi death camps. Being run by Germans, they were supremely -- if superficially -- rational, right down to their place in the industrial recycling system made necessary by the war. As someone -- I forget who -- once put, the techniques of mass production were quite coldly, and rationally employed in the service of genocide.

Paul is speaking shorthand here, to be sure, but the analysis he obliquely refers to does exist, and it isn't wrong. Neither is he.

[ Parent ]
anti-semitism is an ideology ... (0.00 / 0)
... and so is fascism, and the death camps were a manifestation of those ideologies. An ideologue can rationalize anything, even genocide.

Ultimately, we (people and nations) form and fight over scarce resources and the organization of civil and social structures to own and distribute those resources.

You can distribute these resources based on ideological grounds (ex. white men rule, or middle class rules) or on rational grounds (whichever system improves the standard of living the most).

So far, the system that's worked best is a system of democracy/capitalism that:
- rewards work
- promotes a well-skilled, well-educated middle class work force
- rewards risk-taking and entrepreneurship
- tends to the health and well-being of its citizenry
- preserves its natural resources
- engages in strategic protectionism (as opposed to completely "free" trade)
- etc.

We can look back at history and see this is true. When ideologues argue to the contrary and act on those beliefs, we suffer for it.


[ Parent ]
"the greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world that he didn't exist" (0.00 / 0)
:)

your entire argument is ideological (liberal nationalist capitalist), which goes to the point that many arguments that claim to not have a view point, be "practical" or other things, in fact are.  That doesn't mean you can't engage in nonideological thinking at all - but it doesn't change that you have both a social position  that informs your thoughts as well as preconceptions.

[ Parent ]
Location, Location (0.00 / 0)
What about the movement to destroy the industries in the South, which they have worked hard to bring to that area.

I grew up there.

There was a shoe factory.  Period.

So I'm not so sure progressives are exactly on the right side of this issue.

I'm Not So Sure I Understand What You Mean (4.00 / 5)
"These are our jobs, we stole them fair and square"?

As in, "There was a shoe factory, now we have car factories, too, because we work cheap and non-union"?

Because if that's not what you're saying, then I really have no idea what your point is.

And if that is what your saying, then how is a race to the bottom a good thing?

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
Protectionism isn't Viable..... (0.00 / 0)
I grew up where textile industries were the first to go, and we truly got down to 1 lousy shoe factory which closed in the 80's.

The "other" auto industry has revitalized those regions.

They are earning, nearly, the same pay.  They are NOT AUW.  And they won't be, ever, btw.

The representatives from these areas which have revitalized their economy, without bailouts, I add, asked the unions to demonstrate the same degree of willngness that we demanded from the CEO's.

The answer was No, we'll stick with our contract.

OK, but don't expect the taxpayer to "get" that.

You'd rather see your employer dump into bankruptcy than give an inch?

Baloney.

[ Parent ]
how will southern workers do (4.00 / 8)
Once the Unions are gone, and Toyota, Honda etc no longer have the competitive pressure of union level wages and benefits to keep up with?

Unions don't just improve the lot of their members, but of competing businesses too.

[ Parent ]
Also (4.00 / 2)
once the unions are gone, and the domestic auto industry is gone, and the pressure to have car tarriffs is gone?

Those factories are there to dodge US tarriffs on foreign cars.  That is the only reason why they are profitable to the Japanese to have there.  

[ Parent ]
So true (4.00 / 2)

  We're ALL labor.

  I work in a white-collar job, and I'm constantly regaled with union-bashing from my coworkers. None of them seems to understand that THEIR lucrative salaries are in many ways pegged to what blue-collar workers make.

  If autoworkers' wages crash, so will theirs -- eventually.

  The UAW's interests are the interests of EVERY American who works for someone else.  

"We judge ourselves by our ideals; others by their actions. It is a great convenience." -- Howard Zinn

[ Parent ]
Fear thinking? (0.00 / 0)
I think all businesses think mostly about a liveable wage.  So I don't see that your argument is viable.
[ Parent ]
If that were true (0.00 / 0)
There wouldn't be any unions or a need for a minimum wage.  We've seen what happens to wages when business gets to decide them on their own.  They drop to poverty levels.

Market work quite well at keeping wages to the absolute minimum for survival.  

[ Parent ]
We need to bring back textiles... (0.00 / 0)
Stealing jobs from one another at tax payer expense is not the answer.  America needs to make things:  computers, clothes, washing machines, cars, etc.  AND America needs money, lots of it, in R&D to lead us in space, medicine, and energy.  Stealing jobs from one another at taxpayer expense is not the way to go.  

In fact, many are urging GM to shut down the south first.  If you people keep electing barbarians, you should reap what you sow.  Instead of stealing from and attacking others, why don't you fight to get back what you lost?

They're asking for another four years -- in a just world, they'd get 10 to 20. ~~ Dennis Kucinich  

[ Parent ]
An excellent point (4.00 / 2)
and yet another in a slew of data points exposing the sophistry of "postpartisanship."
Sophistry or ideology of post-partisanship (4.00 / 1)
One could say "post-partisanship" is an ideological term, par excellence, if one subscribes to the notion of the ideology as a normalizing or naturalizing of a point-of-view or power structure.

That is, to call oneself post-partisan suggests that one has superceded the (petty) differences that skew the perspectives of the partisans and, so, the post-partisan is making a claim that his politics, for example, are grounded in the real or natural world.

Let it not go unnoticed that this maneuver can be a very powerful one especially in a nation whose ideology, as it were, is still in large measure "pragmatism".

[ Parent ]
Of course there is nonideological ground (4.00 / 1)
in every fight.  That is the ground the sane occupy.

The auto bailout can be conceived in very practical terms.  Most people understand the issues:  Will the bailout work long term, given the structural issues in the companies?  Can the economy withstand this blow today, regardless of whether the fix will work long term?  Will bankruptcy a viable option, or do the companies need the credibility that will be established by government backing?  

The problem can be conceived as a series of practical pros and cons, focused on what will prevent the greatest economic harm to various aspects of the economy and society, now and in the long run.  In fact, that is the typical way in which the issue is conceived, and the way in which it should be understood.

There isn't any such thing as "conservative ideology."  The Republican party is, in fact, a diverse and fractious coalition of interest groups, as is the Democratic party.  Viewpoints run the spectrum from libertarian, small government believers, to religious zealots, and in fact the power base of the GOP is largely non ideological, but simply committed to supporting whatever source of revenue it has secured, just like the Democrats.  The Democrats don't support labor for ideological reasons: they do enough to keep the union money flowing, and no more.  

Political opponents are the last people who should be defining one another's ideology: that ends up being demagoguery.  Republican will decide that liberals believe that "more government is always the solution" or "people can't be trusted to make their own choices" or "there should be equality of result, not equality of opportunity" etc, etc, none of which has any real usefulness in understanding why the party acts as it does.  Similarly, stating that conservatives believe in a rigid social hierarchy is bunk: most of them believe that the free market creates opportunity for everyone, and allows people to advance in the social hierarchy.  Most Democrats believe this too, but they also believe that the unregulated market does not cure social injustice by itself, and that the playing field needs to be leveled to some degree.  

I have no idea why so many partisans passionately defend their oversimplifications, and want to drag everyone else into their cartoonish vision of reality.  

Karl Rove Would Love You (4.00 / 1)
Rather, he would love this sort of analysis, as would any politician worth his salt, in that it leaves them in charge of the narrative.

What you're saying, in effect, is that there is no narrative, that only one person who is part of the body politic has a bird's-eye view of human motivation: you. You're also saying, if I'm to take your penultimate paragraph to be definitive, that European-style social democracy is the only sort of political system which has a chance of meeting everyone's needs.

This may well be true, but if you believe that it is, or should be normative, that your perspective is the only one which explains all the facts, then you'll never understand why anything happens. You are, in fact, indulging in a false rationality, one which denies what it can't explain.

Which is to say that you shouldn't be watching the diverse and fractious interest groups but how it is that a Reagan, or an Obama -- or a Roosevelt, Hitler or Lenin, for that matter suddenly appears in their midst.

[ Parent ]
Ships in the night (4.00 / 1)
I'm not saying there is no narrative presented by the political parties.  I'm saying there is no consistent, ideological narrative, just a string of policies that are connected by largely disingenuous talking points that are claimed to be related, but really aren't.  Narrative isn't ideology.

Take any number of issues - start with the Republican position on "life."  It is completely incoherent: life in the womb is sacred, but the death penalty is moral, and war is glorified.  The "narrative," if you want to use that term, strings together with largely meaningless distinctions like "guilt v. innocence," or "freewill" etc -  but any cursory analysis, and particularly a Biblical perspective on any of these questions, will show that the attempt to harmonize these postions is tremendously weak rationalization.  The conservatives just need to keep the religious zealots, the law and order/racist crowd, and the military industrial complex happy, so they string together these rationalizations and call it a philosophy or ideology.

Or, take immigration.  Although conservatives believe in dropping all barriers to trade in goods, they believe in sovereignty, closed borders, and the utmost restrictions on labor entering the country. And, whenever immigration comes up, there is an uncharacteristic self-righteousness about saving blue collar jobs.  This is a way to keep the racists in the fold with the industrialists, and inapplicable concepts like "sovereignty" and "national security" are used to sell the same line to all involved.  But it doesn't make any sense: it's more a tribal identification than anything else.  

I'm not denying that "narrative" has effects as propaganda campaigns.  What I am denying, and I think it is an important point, is the notion that a consistent worldview drives any real world political movements, even the socialists and communists.  I don't think that we have seen a clearer example in our lifetimes of the absolute dominance of interest groups over alleged ideologies than the banking bailout.

As to whether you should take my "penultimate" paragraph to be "definitive" - take it as you please.  On its face it's an explanation of other people's views.  My own view is that neither the Democratic nor the Republican view (as I've describe them) of the effect of the "free" market is particularly solid.  My own suspicion is that social mobility is largely a factor of economic growth, and that the rapid growth of Western economies has been more due to colonialism in all its forms than to the internal workings of the Western economies.  But that is a very complex issue on which I claim no expertise.  Since I don't know the answer to this question - that is, whether capitalism is in itself a laudable economic system or a sustainable one - I would be cautious to adopt a "definitive" "ideology" about capitalism, and certainly wouldn't express an opinion about European social democracies other than they currently appear to have certain practical benefits for the general population not acheived elsewhere.  

As to whether "I" have a bird-eye view of the body politic and others - or no one else - do, I don't even remotely understand how you are interpreting my comments.  It seems to me the pegging of "ideology" as a true mover of political or social movements is a strangely 19th Century way to view human behavior.  I tend to assume - based on the best evidence this lay person can come by - that a more scientific view of human nature obtains currently, in which we understand human behavior not by imputing some overarching rationality or attempt at rationality to it, but by looking at the behavioral mechanism developed through millions of years of evolution, which are profoundly situational.  I can't find much evidence in what I see or what I read that ideology drives human behavior in any aspect.  Should I come across some, I'll change my view.  Hence, I'll avoid the problem of "not understanding why anything happens," which frankly hasn't been a problem for me in my life, as I always make conscious efforts to revise my views as I gain experience.

Personally, whenever anyone seeking power speaks about their commitment to philsophical principles, whether they be Republican, Democrats, or Green, I am extremely skeptical.  Whether that approach should be "normative"  or whether it leaves some unnamed facts "unexplained" (what facts????) has nothing to do with whether it is a legitimate perception, as far as it has been discussed.

[ Parent ]
Constant Bearing Means Collision (0.00 / 0)
Or so I hear. Full disclosure: no soy marinero, ni capitan. As I said above to Kovie, so many philosophers, so little time. I can't find a single thing to fault in your last, except perhaps to say that contemplating a play is not the same as acting in one, which is where all the functions of human consciousness, ideology included, engage in that weird dance of inversions which drive the introspective and sincere to places like this. One must be careful to remember that even when we perform the sacrament of abstraction, we remain medias in res.
[ Parent ]
hmmmph (4.00 / 2)
Will the bailout work long term, given the structural issues in the companies?  Can the economy withstand this blow today, regardless of whether the fix will work long term?  Will bankruptcy a viable option, or do the companies need the credibility that will be established by government backing?  

The problem can be conceived as a series of practical pros and cons, focused on what will prevent the greatest economic harm to various aspects of the economy and society, now and in the long run.  In fact, that is the typical way in which the issue is conceived, and the way in which it should be understood.

I have a lot of sympathy for the argument that ideological thinking can exist side by side with other forms of thinking (which likely have some kind of belief based underpinning whether or not thats relevant) but I dont think this is a particularly strong argument.  

Just attempt to define "work" "the economy" "work long term" "greatest economic harm" etc and you will see that there are places where different sections have interests in common and places where they dont.  Usually this manifests itself in terms of how "practical" is defined and possibly through competing ideologies.

[ Parent ]
Not so much (0.00 / 0)
Let's say we could model the results of three different bills for the auto industry:

The first option would result in a country with a dramatically weakened union presence, declining healthcare coverage, and futher loss of manufacturing jobs.

The second option would result in a dramatic strengthening of unions, but an auto industry that would still struggle to be competitive, and may need repeated bailouts.

The third option would result in a moderate reduction in union wages, but an auto industry that could rebound.

You could say that would require a choice between competing values.  But who would make that choice?

No matter what option is advocated, both parties would use exactly the same rhetoric to support their choice: it's the best one to save American jobs and keep us competitive.  So, the public won't make an ideological choice at all - they'll just be confused and lied to, by both sides to a degree.  

The politicians themselves won't make their choice on ideological grounds.  They will do what enhances their chances of getting elected.  Whatever bill is presented, it will be subject to the same horse-trading as every other bill - I'll support your bailout if you give me a bridge, or I'll vote with the party now, on this issue, if you help me get my bill on pickle farming to the floor.  Opposing this bill means $$$ for the GOP.  Supporting this bill means $$$ for the Democrats.  Politicians seldom  make decisions based on philosophy.

So if the voters aren't presented with an ideological choice, and the politicians aren't making an ideological choice, how is the matter ideological, except in the most abstract way?  

[ Parent ]
Yes, if you reduce everything to one dimensional zero sum (0.00 / 0)
make information clear, and make goals universal, it is really easy to make decisions that are objective.  

But even in the example of the auto bailout, the cause and effect is dramatically more complex than what you describe above.  And, it isn't about the unions taking so much that it bankrupts the companies.  It just isn't.

[ Parent ]
Congratulations (4.00 / 1)
You just made a logical, non pejorative argument.
[ Parent ]
very practical terms (4.00 / 1)
The one thing abundantly clear to Detroiters is that most people do NOT understand the issues.  First, they have no sense of the industry's history, and they have no understanding for the policy issues the industry has been coping with for the last 30 years.  

I know.  Let's put Brownie in charge of FEMA Detroit.  An organization is an organization, right?  

They're asking for another four years -- in a just world, they'd get 10 to 20. ~~ Dennis Kucinich  

[ Parent ]
Well, seen this way, everything is ideological (4.00 / 1)
including political apathy and detachment. But I honestly don't believe that all rich Repubs look at preserving their class power and prerogatives as ideological, but rather as protecting and expanding these things, because they have them, like them, and want to keep them.

Is a child who wants to take all the other kids' marbles being ideological? No, he's just being greedy. Is greed ideological? I suppose that it could be. But most often, it's just unlimited desire, detached from conceptual formulation. A default "ideology", perhaps, but not one consciously intended or thought of as such. "I want this, I'll take this, so tough" is less ideology than id (hmm, does the word "ideology" comes from the word "id"?).

Obviously, there is an ideology of greed, as espoused in more nuanced fashion by the likes of Will and Buckley, and in more profane terms by the likes of O'Reilly and Limbaugh ("Keep your hands off my stack"), with Goldwater and Reagan articulating an everyman's version that blends elements of the two. And I suppose that there are people who truly believe in such an ideology as inherently admirable apart from its convenience to those who have a lot of money (or believe that they too will one day have it, a la Joetheplummer).

But for the most part, I'm convinced that the overwhelming majority of people who claim to believe in such an ideology are liars, and it's little more than a cover story used to justify blind and reckless greed, to themselves as much as to others, no different from Calvinist bullshit about predestination. So to me, conservatives' money and power grab is less about ideology than about raw avarice and megalomania, wrapped up in a pseudo-ideological frame in order to make it seem more acceptable. At most, it's a default fallback ideology, not a real one.

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton

The First Law of Political Acumen (0.00 / 0)
Thou shalt not assign levels of reality to ideologies.

Exegesis: It's 'cause they follow rules of their own. (See philosophy, neuroscience, poetry, religion)

[ Parent ]
Default ideologies, as opposed to held ones, is my point (0.00 / 0)
I suppose that everyone has some ideology, by default, even if it's not consciously conceived and understood, or is something that they tack on in order to have a patina of credibility. No doubt Bush tells himself that he does what he does because it's the right thing to do, and thus ideologically justified. More likely, though, he does what he does because it feels good and seems right, without his having ever bothered to think it all through critically. I suppose that that's an ideology, of sorts, but hardly a genuine one, even on its own terms.

There are, of course, people who have formulated coherent (if to us repellent) ideologies that support what Bush does, and others who have some understanding of these ideologies and haven't just conveniently adopted them because they sound nice. But that doesn't change the fact that for a Bush--and I'd argue for the vast majority of conservatives--it IS conveniently adopted and inadequately if at all understood, words that they mouth because they sound good, but which they don't in the slightest really understand. And I'm not sure if that qualifies as genuine ideology, in their case, as opposed to the ideological equivalent of a toupe.

I need to go back and re-read Borges now...

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton

[ Parent ]
Why has "ideology" returned to favor? (4.00 / 1)
There are many ways to address the constellation of social and political thought addressed by the term "ideology". The term comes ladden with so much baggage from its service from the French Revolution through the political turmoil of the 19th and 20th centuries that I think it is worth asking why it has become useful in the age of Bush.

The term has a history and not a few meanings as any term with a history will. On the face of it, DHinMI is using it as a pejorative whereas Chris references it's "value-neutral" meanings. Still, why "ideology" now? Is its new found salience a sign or symptom of the highly partisan and antagonist nature of the current political moment? Or is this term newly useful for discussing why or how you hold your views and why or how I hold mine?

In my view, the re-emergence of ideology points to a sharpening of political and social struggle such that questions of why I believe what I believe and how I believe what I believe become ever more pressing. So, when I say x is my ideology, does that mean I've thought about the why and how of my beliefs or does it mean I've foreclosed that thought in order to steel myself for the fight?

Ideology? Or really representing Geography (0.00 / 0)
I'm not buying the idea that the fight is about ideology or some nefarious plan to bring down labor.

I think it's about representation, which IS democratic in spirit and soul.

There is another auto industry in this country.  And it's rebuilt economies in areas that are just as deserving as Michigan.

These were areas that were poverty-stricken.  

Now they aren't.

And it is due to the "other" auto industry.

Saving the Middle Class Is Ideological, Too | 61 comments
Donate to Open Left







QUICK HITS

Friends of the Earth thanks the OpenLeft community for the ideas you generate and your contributions to the progressive movement.
As an anti-spam measure, there is a 24-hour waiting period after registering before new users can comment.
blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
LIBERAL INSTITUTIONS
STATE BLOGS
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2009, Powered by SoapBlox