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.

Solving Real Problems Means Distinguishing Reality from Ideology

Does ideology prevent one from seeing the most obvious distinctions of fact, let alone the more refined?  Or is it simply that we have dumbed down so much that many are no longer capable of doing so?

We seem to have lost our ability to think – to examine a situation for what it is rather than for what we might like it to be.  This does not allow us to find realistic solutions for real problems.  Some examples:

There is a difference between legal and illegal, yet when it comes to those entering our country, many are incapable of making this distinction.  The result is that we can’t get past that to address the real issues and rework our immigration laws.

There is a difference between solid waste pollution and global warming.  Reducing plastic bags (the current go-to feel good act for environmental activists), while reducing land fill solid waste, does nothing for climate change; it does not reduce CO2 or other emissions.  It may even aggravate climate change since it takes more energy to manufacture and transport the likely alternative paper bags.  But, apparently it has become too hard to think past the feel good act and consider even this obvious distinction.  And, the failure to do so likely means less focus on climate change solutions.

Those who would welcome all border crossers, legal or illegal, try to shame those who do not help them by quoting religious references such as “love thy neighbor.”  Yet they ignore the fact that we have citizen neighbors who are suffering from hunger, violence, and other conditions similar to those the migrants claim.   And, the demand to open the border as the only way to satisfy  helping one’s neighbor ignores that there are other reasonable and responsible ways to do so; indeed, one can question how it is “loving one’s neighbor” to place children in dangerous caravans, to promise families a “better life” here when they may not be able to find work and may end up in situations worse than what they left.   When the demand to help is limited to that which supports a political agenda, the motive is suspect, the actions tainted, and the “help” perhaps not so wise.

There also seems to be a basic inability or disinclination to read or listen.  "Narratives" overcome facts.   The instances of this increase daily.  But here are just 2 examples: 

Joe Biden is using a false narrative to support his campaign to “make America moral again.”  While Trump did utter the phrase that there “were very fine people on both sides” in regard to Charlottesville, that was in the context of referring to the fact that some people were there only to protest for or against the taking down of a statue.  He further clarified “I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and white nationalists because they should be condemned totally.”  Yet, because it is more politically convenient to perpetuate the dishonest mischaracterization of the statement, many will overlook the dishonesty as well as the irony that this dishonesty is the underpinning of a campaign for morality.

Just one of many mischaracterizations from the Barr Senate testimony:  The Mueller report provides some evidence that Trump questioned Mueller’s objectivity and considered REPLACING based on conflicts of interest.  REPLACING.  Not firing and ending the investigation.  Yet, those (firing, ending investigation) are the words repeated over and over by Democrats in referring to this evidence.  When someone is replaced, the implication is that the job of that person continues (in this case, the investigation would then continue, not end).  Yet, driven by political desire to claim obstruction by Trump, the Democrats seem to have lost not only their ability to think, but to just plain read.

Finally, while politicians throw money at problems such as poor schools, violent cities, and poverty, the same politicians refuse to consider such things as different cultural values that may contribute to the problem and call those who would look at such differences “racist.”  That is, the bias or fear of political correctness often keeps us from even acknowledging that a problem exists.  The belief that all people are equal does not mean that everyone is the same.  Nor is it synonymous with equality of opportunity.   And, none of these concepts fully comport with reality.  Indeed, identifying particular behaviors or needs of certain communities that would enhance their equality of one or another opportunity may require identifying ethnic, cultural, economic, or other distinguishing characteristics of those communities.  Yet, such identifications are often seen as politically incorrect at best and racist at worst, so we avoid them with the result that the people within those communities suffer.

The above are only a few of the numerous examples available of over-broad thinking and characterizations that cloud our perceptions of and ability to deal with reality.  Reality is more than a wishful narrative and there are many shades and distinctions between even the most similar facts and situations.  To fully deal with and solve the problems of the real world we must first be able to identify these distinctions.

When we start letting our biases color, alter, and even eliminate actual facts we lose our ability to realistically and candidly assess a situation.  We lose our ability to solve or resolve a problem.  As a society we used to have a seemingly better ability to assess situations realistically and intelligently consider actual facts and make distinctions between facts and their circumstances.  

While intelligence demands the ability to make distinctions, biased rhetoric requires only emotion.  Emotions may give one the will to solve a problem, but it takes intellect to figure out how to do so.

Yet, today we find politicians grasping at straws and mischaracterizing evidence just to make a political point.   We hear people talking in bumper sticker rhetoric.  This riles the emotions but does little else.  Complex problems do not respond to sound bite solutions.  Instead they require clear and objective thought - thought that is based in reality not ideology.

A Suggestion of Mind Reform (Are you being brainwashed?)

“Who is the slayer, who is the victim? Speak.”
-Sophocles

Today on one of my social media feeds someone posted memes implying that our current government is the equivalent of Nazi Germany and asserting that now is the time for people to show what they would have done/will do if given the chance to stop the “Third Reich.”  Memes that imply anyone who does not stand against President Trump or his policies is the guilty equivalent of Hitler or other evils.

In addition to revealing a complete lack of education about or understanding of history (both past and present), these sorts of posts reflect a technique used in classic brainwashing.  The question, however, is:  are those posting, reposting, and otherwise repeating such sentiments the brainwasher, the brainwashed, or both?

Brainwashing is an extreme form of the social influence that affects all of us daily.  Psychologist Robert Jay Lifton, an early researcher into the area, called techniques of brainwashing “mind reform.”  He identified specific stages in the process of this mind reform.   Looking at the process it is hard not to see it reflected in the anti-Trump rhetoric and behavior that abounds in today’s society.

Brainwashing or Mind Reform begins with assaulting and breaking down the self of the victims in order to convince them that they are not who they think they are.  Victims are berated with assertions that deny their beliefs about themselves:  You are not a true Christian; not a true patriot; not a good parent; not a good citizen; not truly compassionate; not defending freedom.  They are under attack being told: you are wrong; you are stupid; you are racist to think as you do, etc. They are told their beliefs are responsible for suffering, both theirs and others, both past and present. 

Under such constant attack the victims become exhausted and confused to the point that their beliefs seem less solid and they (with the brainwasher’s help) begin to feel an overwhelming sense of guilt and shame for the beliefs that make them who they are.  With this state of mind it becomes easier to change the values and beliefs of the victims. 

The brainwasher will push the victims to denounce family, friends, peers, and others who share the same “wrong” beliefs as the victim.  As the victims begin to separate from their past the groundwork is laid for building a new personality.  As the constant assault on identity along with the creation of guilt reaches its peak and the victims wonder “who am I? What am I supposed to do?”, the brainwasher will set up the temptation for the victims to convert to another belief system that will save them from their misery.  Thus ends the first stage of “mind reform.”

I would argue that the anti-Trumpers are fairly successful at carrying out this phase.  Those who do not hold their beliefs are constantly berated for those beliefs in a way that attacks their very identity.  They are encouraged to carry guilt for any wrongs in the world that they are led to believe are the result of their “wrong” values and beliefs.   Their values and their very selves are demeaned, they are rejected, and as they begin to question who they are, the value system of the anti-Trumpers is held out to them as right, good, and a way to make themselves both right and good.

The second phase of the brainwashing process involves several steps that create for the victims the possibility of salvation from their prior wrongs and from their guilt.  As the victims begin to lean toward the new set of values and beliefs offered by the brainwasher, the victims will be shown kindness and reprieve from the assaults they have been experiencing towards themselves.  They are thus faced with the contrast between guilt and pain versus the sudden relief they now experience.  They will be offered the opportunity to “confess” as a means of relieving their guilt and pain. 

Victims will likely not be able to identify specifically what they are guilty of, but will simply feel a heavy burden of being wrong.  The brainwasher will encourage the victims to attach the guilt and sense of wrongness to the belief system that the brainwasher is in the process of replacing.  The victims will begin to believe that it is the old belief system itself that is the cause of their shame and hurt, and will understand that the new system is, at the very least, a way to escape that agony.   

The idea that the root cause of guilt and pain is an external ideology allows the victims to place blame for their pain and “wrongness” beyond themselves:  “it’s not me, it’s my beliefs that were externally imposed on me.”  The victims can assert that they themselves are not bad and that they can escape their prior badness or wrongness by simply escaping the bad or wrong belief system.  All they have to do is denounce the people and institutions associated with that belief system.

This second phase of the mind reform process certainly explains the 100% denouncement and hatred of Trump as well as denouncements of our country, its government, its laws, and anyone who shows any sign of support for those things.  Those who have been convinced that their legitimate beliefs are racist or in some way evil or that they are responsible for the suffering of others, now have the opportunity to release their pain by simply denouncing their former beliefs, including those beliefs upon which this country was founded, and joining the anti-Trumpers.

The final phase of brainwashing or mind reform involves the rebuilding of the Self.  The rejection by the victims of the old ideology leaves a vacuum into which the new ideology can be placed.  That new ideology is presented as the path to good.  The victims are encouraged to make a conscious choice in favor of the new system, and, once that is done, the previous attacks on the victims’ identities that caused the victims pain are replaced with welcoming comfort, collegiality, and a sense of belonging.  In this way the brainwasher reinforces the positive choice of the new ideology:  the new identity is safe and “good” unlike the uncomfortable and “bad” former ideology.  The victims will shed all allegiance to the old ideology and fully affirm the new as they are accepted and anchored firmly into the new order.

Lifton and subsequent psychologists who identify the steps of brainwashing and how it leads to a profound state of suggestibility also discuss why some people are more susceptible than others.  A strong sense of identity and self-confidence along with faith in a higher power can assist a targeted victim from detaching from and resisting the process.  I would submit that in this age of social media and its companion need for social acceptance and group belonging, an age in which social influence has such great power, that taking simple social influence to the next level of actual mind reform is perhaps a not too difficult task for those seeking to do so.  That is, for many the need for social approval and acceptance is so strong and so often accompanied by self-doubt, that their very identities will be easy targets for the brainwasher.

I don’t know where those who repost and repeat the ugly anti-Trump rhetoric are in this process of mind reform.  Are they fully accepted into the cult of anti-Trump, or are they trying to get there?  I do believe they are at least past the first phase and either because they are full members or in an effort to continue assuaging the guilt they feel for their old “bad” ideology, they are trying to impose the same efforts that worked on them on those who still hold those “bad” beliefs. 

Regardless of whether they are the brainwasher, the victims, or both, they are filled with either fear or hate of all who do not share the anti-Trump agenda.  Moreover, they are incapable of having any kind of dialog about the varying ideologies that must always exist in a democracy.  Reposting memes, repeating phrases that attempt to assign guilt to those who hold the “wrong” beliefs, makes them complicit in the brainwashing of new victims. 

In nearly any attempt at conversation that I have had with one of these at least semi-brainwashed individuals, rather than carry on a discussion their approach is to repeatedly ask me questions that take this two-part form:  (1) How can you hold that view when (2) it reveals you as racist/a white supremacist/without compassion/stupid/ignorant/without humanity or compassion/etc.?  Such a question presumes that my beliefs are indeed as labeled (e.g. they are racist, etc.).  If the questioner has already determined that, then there is little room for dialog.  I am immediately put on the defensive, expected to feel guilt and shame (sounds like the first phase of brainwashing, doesn’t it?).  If the second half of the question already has an answer (the view is racist) then the first part also already has an answer – I could only hold that view if I am indeed racist. 

And so, the attempt at brainwashing begins.  Sadly, these questions too often find victims that are likely susceptible to the anti-Trump brainwashing.  They will begin to question their identity and their beliefs and are thus well on the way to the guilt and shame that will make them willing victims of mind reform.

A real dialog might instead include questions such as:  “I don’t understand your view, could you explain it to me?”  Or even “I don’t understand why that view is not racist, but I’d like to hear why you believe it is not.”  Anything that would open up a discussion about differing views and differing ideologies.  That is far different than calling something a discussion or dialog when it is actually an attempt to create shame and guilt combined with  a predetermined judgment about a view and anyone who holds that view as being in some way “bad.”

With apology to Sophocles, I ask:   Who is the brainwasher, who is the brainwashed?  Are you a victim?  Are you knowingly or unknowingly assisting in brainwashing others?  Without honestly asking these questions of ourselves and others and honestly answering, there is little hope for dialog or tolerance, two key pieces of a free and democratic society.

The Politicization of Truth

We seem to be living in an era where one’s ideology determines what one’s Truth is.  How else can you explain the assault on the medical report issued by the doctor who examined President Trump, as well as, it should be noted, President’s Obama and Bush?  Because some so want to believe that the President is not fit for office, either physically or mentally, because that truth does not fit their reality, we have them questioning the physician as well as making their own pronouncements of the President’s ill health despite the report and despite the fact that, unlike the report’s author, they have conducted no examination whatsoever of the President.

 

Similarly, how can one explain that while Sen. Durbin is the only one who claims to have heard the President utter the word S***hole during a meeting, and despite the fact that at least 4 others present assert that the word was not uttered, those whose agenda the remark supports, including the main stream media, continue to take the word’s utterance as a proven fact. 

Let’s consider some examples of ideology rather than truth controlling our political narrative since Mr. Trump became President Trump.  The Democrats, as well as some Republicans and others were so stunned they could not accept the election results.  Thus began a multitude of attempts to unseat President Trump from office.  Hence, despite no evidence in over a year’s time, we are still hearing about collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign as if it were truth. The digging for evidence goes on and far outside any fields with any relevance to such collusion yet the Democrats hang on, because collusion supports their ideological goals.  But, when that story failed to unseat the President, those who were and are determined to do so had to look for other “truths” that would lead to their desired result.  We have had the stories about the President’s mental health – now disproven by an examination by a competent doctor.  Nonetheless, the belief that he is mentally ill remains a truth for may whose ideology it suits.  (I hate to tell these people, but just because someone behaves in a way they don’t like, or holds views and values different from theirs, or supports policies contrary to their own, does not make someone mentally ill).  We also have the allegations that the President is a sexual predator or the story that the President is a racist.  I have yet to see any concrete proof of either.  The President, unlike some of his opponents, does not single out individuals based on their race, but tries to treat all Americans equally.  Nonetheless, those whose ideology is served by having a racist president, will see their view as “truth.”

Let’s consider how asserting that President Trump is racist serves the current Democrat ideology.  The Democrats assert their concern for Dreamers (I’m not sure they really are concerned, but appearing so is part of their political and campaign strategy).  If a deal were reached that gave some sort of permanent status to Dreamers, but also compromised in a way to give some of the other immigration demands of Trump and Republicans, Trump might actually get some good press from the Democrat’s base.  They don’t want that.  So, instead they can push Durbin’s story, say they can’t work with the President because he is a racist, and either leave the DACA situation unresolved (and blame Trump) or demand that to prove he is not racist he must sign a non-compromise bill that only gives the Democrats their demands on this issue.  This is just part of their political strategy.  And in my opinion, it is sick if not un-American.

Let’s just assume for a minute that the President did refer to Haiti as a S***hole country.  So what?  That, my friends, is not a racist statement.  And, following that statement with the comment that we should let in more Asians and people from Norway also does not support a charge of racism.  What it does support is the idea that we should look to what those seeking immigration have to bring to our country.  Maybe that idea could have been stated more eloquently, but there has never been an argument that Trump is an eloquent speaker.    Again, failure to be eloquent is not proof of racism, or mental illness, or Russian collusion, or sexual predation, or any other of the many narratives that the Democrats try to put forth as a reason to end the Trump presidency.

We now have some legislators, lead by Rep. Lewis, announcing their boycott of the State of the Union address because the president is racist.  As noted above, that is their truth, based not on fact, but on their ideology and what they simply wish were true.  In their minds it justifies their refusal to work with the president, but in the end it is simply disrespectful of the Office and of our democratic Institutions and system of government.  It is not helpful to the country or to the American people whom these legislators were elected to represent.  Instead, it is a betrayal of their constituents as they place their ideology and their lies created to support it above the good of this Country.

What I would like to see is the Democrats, along with the main stream media, be fair and honest with themselves and with the country.  Admit that while they don’t agree with Trump’s policies, that he is the duly elected president deserving of bipartisan support.  Acknowledge the many good things that are the result of the Presidents actions, most notably a more thriving economy including lowest unemployment in years for minorities, successes against ISIS and in other international issues, an end to the office of the president being a supporter of identity politics, to name a few.  I would like the Democrats to understand that being the loyal opposition does not mean fomenting hatred toward the president, but means supporting him in his efforts to do right for America, while opposing those policies with which they don’t agree.  It does not mean constant ad hominem attacks against a man whom they personally may not like.

In Communist societies, ideology regularly overcomes truth.  People are imprisoned or worse for not holding the Party’s ideology – its Truth.  That is not our tradition or our history in America, even though many Democrats would make it so.