Ideology & Acceptance or Inquiry & Freedom

In 2004, NCSU Emeritus History Professor R. Slatta created a chart that captures the contrasts between Ideology and Inquiry:

As one can see from the above, the characteristics of ideology and inquiry are mutually exclusive opposites.  Nonetheless, most of humanity entertain characteristics of each, as does society and its politicians.  Yet, while in different situations we may emphasize more of one or the other,  when one becomes exclusively dominant problems arise.

When ideology completely takes over and blots out critical thinking as well as the values and principles that allow us to navigate the opposing forms of behavior and thought, then we are in trouble – we lose the ability to navigate, to keep both in check as needed, and to understand when ideology rather than those core values are guiding us.

When a country’s politicians become ideologues rather than representatives and issue solvers, then our country is in severe peril.

Politicians have always stood for certain issue or policy positions.  Their attempts to resolve issues according to their preferred policy perspective has always required navigation between the ideological and the rational.  Yet underlying the persuasive acts in favor of their particular issue resolution, there was a touchstone built on the history, core values and beliefs of the country.  That touchstone allowed the partisan politicians to find ways of coming together to further the best interests of the country as well as to prevent them from becoming blinded by pure ideology.

Not so much today.  Today we have not partisan politicians but ideologues.  You can recognize them by their hypocrisy as well as the polarization they (usually intentionally) create.  When a partisan politician cares about his or her country, he or she will be willing to compromise positions for the good of the country.  But an ideologue is “someone who theorizes; an often blindly partisan advocate of a particular ideology.”  The typical ideologue is uncompromising and dogmatic.

The ideologue’s goal is to implant a particular ideology in everyone.  Yes, everyone.  That goal outweighs all else, including facts and rational thought and Truth.  The narrative becomes all important as the narrative is used to assimilate everyone into the ideologue’s ideology and to demean and create enemies of those who will not be swayed – those who choose to think for themselves. 

This is how today we so often see politicians and their followers to be inconsistent and hypocritical in their statements and actions, why the positions of the Left actually contradict many traditional liberal positions and values.  Ideologues do not have a solid issue position but rather a position that those who are not with them are always wrong (even if they hold a position that the ideologue has advocated for, the ideologue will now take the opposite stand). 

The ideologue politicians of today have lost sight of who and what a politician is.  They have lost sight of their role as simply a go-between for the people and their government.  Having lost sight of that touchstone built upon an understanding of our country, its values, and its democracy,  absolute and complete installation of their ideology has become their primary if not their only goal.  And their own power becomes imperative to them because they believe only they can keep the ideological order that they choose to implement.

What the successful ideologue ultimately does is destroy freedom.  If one is going to create and control a successful ideology then one must keep those whom one controls from thinking for themselves.  In the ideal ideological world, everyone must be the same in every way (the Left’s equity which is in no way equality).   Except of course those in power who make the decisions for everyone else.

That is not the structure upon which America was created and which has allowed her to become the great country that she has become.  That is the structure that will destroy America (and already is doing so as the ideologues gain more and more control). 

An ideologue is both more and less than a partisan.  More, because they are often more passionate and more persuasive, and even often receive more misplaced applause for their inability to bend and compromise.  Yet they are less than a partisan because their advocacy has no valid or constructive goal other than to advance their own ideology and power.

Ideologues exist on both sides of the political aisle.  Today, the rightist ideologues mostly push the traditional American ideology.  This is certainly far less dangerous to America than the progressive and socialist ideology of the Left, but it is not totally benign.

Anyone or group that pushes ideology rather than issue and problem solving is furthering an effort that avoids the individuality of thought.  It polarizes people until they become completely incapable of acting even in their own best interests let alone in the best interests of their community and country.  Worst of all, ideology destroys individual freedom.

Freedom requires thought, intellectual inquiry, critical thinking, creativity.  And these activities require freedom.  The ideologues would destroy both – the freedom and the activities upon which it thrives and which require freedom to thrive.  Ideology requires a uniformity void of individual thought and freedom.

America has created a place where Freedom and Intellectual Inquiry thrive.  This environment has allowed America to evolve and grow, to become a world power and a shining example to the rest of the world.  Right now, the ideologues on the Left are working to destroy all that. 

The Leftist ideology can be quite persuasive but, before giving in, the people of this country need to be sure they have exercised those skills of intellectual inquiry that we all possess.  Partisanship is a part of this country, but blind ideology is not.  The one helps us to grow, the other will kill us all.

Principle or Partisanship?

One has to wonder whether the ever-present outrage of the Left against Trump and his supporters is a result of some underlying principles that they hold dear or simply pure outrage that he and not they are in power.  Let me suggest that the outrage is far more likely partisan – a reflection of their real anger at having lost an election and with that loss their power as well.  By cloaking their outrage in the guise of standing for universal principles and humane values, they perhaps hope to hide the ugly partisanship that they are practicing.

Here are just a few of many examples of actions or policies that the Left claims to find abhorrent today, but which they previously accepted and often advocated.

Refugees and Immigrants

I suspect that everyone is aware that President Obama separated families and sent illegal immigrants home.  Somehow that only became cause for alarm or impeachment when Trump became president.

But, there are other examples in this area.  In 1975 many Democrats including then Senator Biden and then Governor Brown of California argued for a ban on Vietnamese refugees.  Governor Brown sounded the alarm about the huge toll that the refugees would take on his state as he worked to keep them from entering the country.  Yes, this is the same Gov. Brown who now welcomes immigrants, both legal and illegal, to his state and many of the same people who now assert that enforcement of immigration laws by President Trump is inhumane.

So, apparently when President Trump enforces our immigration laws with an even hand, he is guilty of treason, of being like Hitler, of destroying America; but, when the Left enforces those laws or works to keep legitimate refugees out of the country it is perfectly fine.

Security Clearances

President Trump revoked the security clearance of Brennan who no longer works for the government in any capacity, has no need for a security clearance, and was using (and perhaps misusing) his clearance for personal gain.  Those who are again finding this somehow treasonous or an impeachable offense have apparently forgotten that President Obama also revoked security clearances.         
       In 2013 James Clapper (who is now outraged by the revocation of Brennan’s clearance) was concerned about “threats to national security resulting from the increasing number of people with eligibility for access to classified national security information.”  The Obama administration then began a review in order to scrub and remove a number of security clearances.

So, apparently national security and possible misuse of security clearances is something that a president can be concerned about unless that president is President Trump.

Sex, Hush Money, and Underage Victims

It is alleged that Trump, before becoming president, paid former consenting sex partners to keep silent about their affairs.  Again, we hear this is treasonous or calls for impeachment.  Where was the outrage when, until recently, the Congress had a fund out of which they paid to silence individuals claiming sexual abuse or harassment by their members?

When there were unproven allegations that Republican candidate Roy Moore had improper behavior with minors decades ago, this was cause for the Left to raise the alarm not only against Moore but against anyone who argued he should have a fair day in court and considered innocent until proven guilty.   But wait – these are the same people who for decades have defended Roman Polanski who pled guilty to having unlawful sex with a 13 year old child.  And where is the outrage this week against the MeToo spokeswoman who it has now been revealed had sex with a minor.  These allegations which can be backed up with actual evidence or guilty pleas are apparently not as heinous as the allegations against Moore which lack such solid evidence.  Could it be that there are different standards for Republicans and Democrats?  Could it be that the outrage against Moore was simply an effective way to campaign against him?

We have a similar situation in the way that the accusations against Bill Clinton were treated and the sudden “woke-ness” when the allegations are against a Republican.  Sure sounds like partisanship to me.

Russia

This is a big one, but I will only cite enough to make my point here.  First, there is just the simple outrage when Trump meets with any foreign leader, but especially when he met and suggests future meetings with the head of Russia.   Yet, where was the outrage when Obama met with Putin and other leaders.  It was not labeled as un-American or treasonous as Trump’s meetings are.  And, while the Left daily asserts some sort of collusion between Trump and Russia in their  hunt to find evidence for those assertions, they seem to have forgotten that in 2012 Obama was caught on a hot microphone telling Russian President Dmitri Medvedev that he would have more flexibility to negotiate with Putin after the election.

Not even an eyelash was batted when Obama made that statement.  Directly to the Russian President.  When he was President.  But, when candidate Trump at a campaign rally joked about hoping Russia would find more of his opponent’s emails, the Left sees this as some sort of verifiable proof of collusion.  I call it grasping at straws.

Campaign Finance Violations

Cohen, in his plea deal Tuesday, stated he made payments to keep quiet women who allegedly had consensual sex with Trump long before he was a candidate.  In is questionable at best whether such a payment violates campaign finance laws, but, assuming it does, and, assuming that through some sort of twisted logic that automatically pins the violation on Trump, he would not be the first candidate to violate such laws.

There are indeed allegations against Trump’s opponent Hillary Clinton that sadly seem to be worthy only of being ignored by the Left.  There are allegations that the Hillary Victory Fund was a scheme to bypass campaign finance laws and allow huge donations to the Hillary campaign that were violative of those laws.  The committee committing the alleged violations was authorized by Hillary.  These alleged violations involve millions of dollars directly to her campaign, not payments of a few hundred thousand to alleged former lovers.

Once again, one sees the Left turning a blind eye to alleged violations of law by those of whom they approve while twisting and turning every law possible to attempt to convict their “enemy.”

Supreme Court Confirmation Hearings

In 1992 Democrat Sen. Biden, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, stated that if there were a Supreme Court vacancy, then President Bush should not name a nominee or, if he did, no confirmation hearings should be scheduled until after the November presidential election.  This became known as the “Biden rule” and was apparently just fine with Democrats until Republicans enforced it in 2016 when then President Obama nominated Merrick Garland to replace Justice Scalia.  They did not want to wait until November then.  And now, as the Brett Kavanaugh nomination moves forward, the Democrats suddenly once again embrace the Biden rule, though now in the context not of an upcoming presidential election, but a midterm election.  

So, again, do the Democrats really have a position on this, or is it just that if their person is in power we should forget the Biden rule, but if their opposition is in power then we should enforce it, in the hope that the opposition will be defeated and the Left will regain power after the election?

The above are just a few examples of partisan maneuvering couched in the guise of standing up for principles.  It is hypocritical and dishonest.  But, what is really scary is that if principles can blow with the partisan wind, who next will be on the down side?  This is the problem when people become less concerned with law and freedom and true inalienable rights, and more concerned with creating a series of fleeting values that are geared to deny power to some while simply bolstering power for others.

So, next time you hear the Left assert that it is standing up for important principles of humanity or America or freedom, take a hard look at what the real motivation is.  Is it really a stand for principle, or just for partisan power?