Well, I'm late to this one, which is another keeper.
The aspect of current political ideologies that I spend most time ruminating on is their moral dimensions. The politics I grew up with seemed to focus on how best (technically) to achieve what was broadly a shared goal - everyone being more materially comfortable and healthier, with better opportunities. How quaint that now seems.
To me the most important part of this article is the statement that thinking people can mix their views. As generally a moderate liberal, if I feel that if a position on an issue is correct, I can't refuse to adopt that view just because it is generally labeled as right wing.
Theodore Olson is a well known conservative lawyer. Yet, he was the one who successfully argued before the Supreme Court for constitutional protection for same sex marriage. There is no contradiction between such a position and, for example, wanting lower taxes.
A person may take the view that given the extent of the current pandemic, mandatory vaccines are appropriate. Yet, that same person might take the view that the United States must enhance border security because a nation has a right to make sure all people enter it lawfully. Whether either or both of these positions are ultimately right or wrong, they are not mutually exclusive. They don't contain innate contradictions of each other, even though one can be seen as a "liberal" view and the other can be seen as a "conservative" view.
It is a negation of the independence of the human mind to claim that just because one is generally a liberal, one must adopt each and every policy position that is currently designated as the liberal position. The same is true for those calling themselves conservative.
The total cluster of issues deemed to be within the left of center framework is arbitrary. The same goes for the total cluster of issues deemed to be within the right of center framework. Depending on the issues, it is not inherently inconsistent for someone to choose policy positions derived from one camp as well as policy issues derived from the other.
Thanks for your comment Eddie. I broadly agree. But one should be cautious. It's impossible to be non-ideological and our attitudes are affected by all sorts of influences which we don't understand. Next week, I'm writing about 'bothsidesism' and will address this issue further. Do subscribe if you'd like to receive this post by email!
Agreed that we cannot avoid being ideological. The point is that our individual ideologies can be consistent even if all the positions we hold don't fit neatly into what would in contemporary parlance be considered an entirely left wing or an entirely right wing framework.
There is no intrinsic contradiction between a person's favoring affirmative action and simultaneously believing that a given rent control scheme is excessively unfair to landlords. The fact that the first is considered a liberal view and the second is considered a conservative view does not mean they are mutually contradictory. Someone who holds both views does have a definite ideology. It's just an ideology that has been formulated in such a way that some elements of it come from left of center while others come from right of center.
My point is that being ideological, having a definite ideology, does not require that a person's view on every topic has to fit into only a conservative or a liberal framework. It may require that there be no logical or internal inconsistencies. But the absence of such inconsistencies does not require that one's personal ideology pick items only from a menu considered to be entirely conservative, or one considered to by entirely liberal.
"Bothsidesism" would seem to be an attitude in which one would try to have inconsistent views on a particular issue. I don't think it would apply if a person has a view on one issue that is in accord with the perspective of most of today's conservatives, and has a view on another issue that is in accord with the perspective of most of today's liberals. The test would be whether the two positions contradict each other and not whether both views fall within political silos as currently defined.
Holy cow, Mr. Prosser, I only just discovered your Substack this morning and have been reading several of your essays, and I swear we're in a mind-meld!
As I said in another comment, my politics are far left, but I have no truck with political correctness or identity politics. And I've been telling friends for ages now that I subscribe to no ideology, that I think ideologies are dangerous. And here you are. Bravo!
Thanks for all your comments Lisa - I'm so glad you found my Substack :-)
Substack is a great place to find like-minded people! As with so many on here, I'm wary of growing conformism in the media and large institutions. Disagreement is one of the pleasures of intellectual life! I've just subscribed to your Substack and look forward to discussing things in the future :-)
Thank you, Thomas. I doubt I'll actually put together a newsletter, though. It seemed I had to check that box to sign up to comment on Substack, so I did (at least that's the way I understood it). But I will continue to read your essays and look forward to further intelligent conversations with you and other thoughtful readers.
Well, I'm late to this one, which is another keeper.
The aspect of current political ideologies that I spend most time ruminating on is their moral dimensions. The politics I grew up with seemed to focus on how best (technically) to achieve what was broadly a shared goal - everyone being more materially comfortable and healthier, with better opportunities. How quaint that now seems.
Thanks Mike :-)
To me the most important part of this article is the statement that thinking people can mix their views. As generally a moderate liberal, if I feel that if a position on an issue is correct, I can't refuse to adopt that view just because it is generally labeled as right wing.
Theodore Olson is a well known conservative lawyer. Yet, he was the one who successfully argued before the Supreme Court for constitutional protection for same sex marriage. There is no contradiction between such a position and, for example, wanting lower taxes.
A person may take the view that given the extent of the current pandemic, mandatory vaccines are appropriate. Yet, that same person might take the view that the United States must enhance border security because a nation has a right to make sure all people enter it lawfully. Whether either or both of these positions are ultimately right or wrong, they are not mutually exclusive. They don't contain innate contradictions of each other, even though one can be seen as a "liberal" view and the other can be seen as a "conservative" view.
It is a negation of the independence of the human mind to claim that just because one is generally a liberal, one must adopt each and every policy position that is currently designated as the liberal position. The same is true for those calling themselves conservative.
The total cluster of issues deemed to be within the left of center framework is arbitrary. The same goes for the total cluster of issues deemed to be within the right of center framework. Depending on the issues, it is not inherently inconsistent for someone to choose policy positions derived from one camp as well as policy issues derived from the other.
Thanks for your comment Eddie. I broadly agree. But one should be cautious. It's impossible to be non-ideological and our attitudes are affected by all sorts of influences which we don't understand. Next week, I'm writing about 'bothsidesism' and will address this issue further. Do subscribe if you'd like to receive this post by email!
Agreed that we cannot avoid being ideological. The point is that our individual ideologies can be consistent even if all the positions we hold don't fit neatly into what would in contemporary parlance be considered an entirely left wing or an entirely right wing framework.
There is no intrinsic contradiction between a person's favoring affirmative action and simultaneously believing that a given rent control scheme is excessively unfair to landlords. The fact that the first is considered a liberal view and the second is considered a conservative view does not mean they are mutually contradictory. Someone who holds both views does have a definite ideology. It's just an ideology that has been formulated in such a way that some elements of it come from left of center while others come from right of center.
My point is that being ideological, having a definite ideology, does not require that a person's view on every topic has to fit into only a conservative or a liberal framework. It may require that there be no logical or internal inconsistencies. But the absence of such inconsistencies does not require that one's personal ideology pick items only from a menu considered to be entirely conservative, or one considered to by entirely liberal.
"Bothsidesism" would seem to be an attitude in which one would try to have inconsistent views on a particular issue. I don't think it would apply if a person has a view on one issue that is in accord with the perspective of most of today's conservatives, and has a view on another issue that is in accord with the perspective of most of today's liberals. The test would be whether the two positions contradict each other and not whether both views fall within political silos as currently defined.
Holy cow, Mr. Prosser, I only just discovered your Substack this morning and have been reading several of your essays, and I swear we're in a mind-meld!
As I said in another comment, my politics are far left, but I have no truck with political correctness or identity politics. And I've been telling friends for ages now that I subscribe to no ideology, that I think ideologies are dangerous. And here you are. Bravo!
Thanks for all your comments Lisa - I'm so glad you found my Substack :-)
Substack is a great place to find like-minded people! As with so many on here, I'm wary of growing conformism in the media and large institutions. Disagreement is one of the pleasures of intellectual life! I've just subscribed to your Substack and look forward to discussing things in the future :-)
Thank you, Thomas. I doubt I'll actually put together a newsletter, though. It seemed I had to check that box to sign up to comment on Substack, so I did (at least that's the way I understood it). But I will continue to read your essays and look forward to further intelligent conversations with you and other thoughtful readers.