DUCKPOND

Ideology, it seems to me, is just another name for philosophy, and most people are not philosophers in the sense that they have not, cannot, or otherwise choose not to, examine their mix of evidence, prejudice, stereotypes and all the components of what makes up their understanding of their worlds and their place in them.^1. Yet democracy as a theory of government supposes that they might be, something which those who seek to manipulate and even control the democratic process would never assume. But the gap between theory and practice never seems to be a concern. The pragmatics of democracy, especially large representative democracy, and the process of democracy, often seem to proceed along different paths.

The problem is in large part due to the two-party electoral system, which creates confusion about ideology. I think it is neat that it is possible to have a voting system that will elect representatives in proportion to the plurality of the votes cast. I prefer the problems of democracy to the problems of politics. In NSW, we once had a government whose existence depended on the say of three or four independents, and rather than been unstable was probably one of our best State Governments. Why do we assume that minority party representatives and independents cannot be fully responsible, and those elected by the majority parties will be?

Rarely, as in the case of Congressman Ron Paul, will be given an opportunity to speak on “the mainstream” – a repugnant howardian expression – mass media forum, such as the Republican Debates. The ideological labels can get confusing. The point is made at The Largest Majority that while libertarians, such as Paul, and “the left” may agree on withdrawal from Iraq and anti-terror laws, there are significant differences:

Libertarians such as Paul cite government as the enemy of freedom rather than the true cause of tyranny in a democratic society – capitalism (corporate or otherwise). Hence, socialism is decried by the right for aiming to create more control through government. This criticism overlooks the fact that there are more ideological options than simply State Socialism or State Capitalism. Chomsky correctly points out in Government in the Future that (Revolutionary Socialism) reflects the intuitive understanding that democracy is largely a sham when the industrial system is controlled by any form of autocratic elite, whether it’s owners, managers, technocrats, a vanguard party, a state bureaucracy, or whatever. Libertarianism means freedom for those who can afford it. Revolutionary Socialism, in which industry is democratically owned and controlled by the workers, aims to bring democracy not only to the community, but to the workplace as well.

It is not rare to see expressions of the libertarian view, for example Anti-War Dot Com and Catallaxy, it is comparatively rare to see a critique of that position. Of course in the wider political debate this is unnecessary, as it is unnecessary to critique the ideologies developed by the major political leaders. Sometimes it is interesting to identify what they are against – what they see as the root of all evil. Are all ideologies Manichean?

The interesting thing to me, something that Marx hit on, with what seems to me striking perceptiveness in regard to the industrial working class, if I can generalize from my recent experience in hospital, is that ideology is socially created. It is a sociological phenomena. It is useful to keep in mind that individualism is also an ideology.

To see clearly means to step through the ideological wall, whether constructed in experience or designed for your entrapment by the interests of others.

Footnote: ^1. I include myself among the philosophically non-construct, as you may have well determined.