Ideology and Consistency of Rhetoric
This is another in my series on voter apathy. This time, I turn my attention to how modern ideologies mix-and-match their rhetoric in ways that work at cross-purposes.
Most political debate around the world is divided two-dimensionally – liberal vs. conservative. Sometimes other terms are thrown in, like libertarian or socialist, insurgent or establishment. In one English-speaking country, there is Labor vs. Liberal, where the Liberal Party is actually right-wing. In the U.S., our main parties use the labels Democratic and Republican, or Blue vs. Red. Yet, in most elections in most countries, even when there are multiple parties winning seats, regardless of how it is labeled, there is an us vs. them divide that is usually expressed as liberal vs. conservative.
Liberals believe in government’s abilities to correct for perceived wrongs, and their economic policies on taxation, income inequality, and trade show that. Even in their social views, which are about individual freedoms, liberals do not talk about keeping government out, and rarely use the word freedom. Instead, social liberalism is focused on using government to promote equality and protecting from discrimination against perceived societal threats against minority groups. That at least makes their reliance on government action to promote change consistent with their rhetoric. This, despite what would ordinarily sound like a philosophical inconsistency between social and economic liberalism. In academic circles, economic liberalism – or today’s neoliberalism – was about lowering tariffs, cutting regulation, and promoting trade. Around the turn of the 20th century, liberal thought drifted from discussions of “freedom to do X” to ones of “freedom from Z” and as such liberals grew to accept the role of government in our lives.
Today’s conservatives hate government in the economy and are most prolific in using freedom buzzwords and “tyranny of government” rhetoric – both as an expression of pro-business sentiment and as a racist dog whistle. Yet, conservatives have no qualms about using government to impose their “traditional” or “Christian” values on other people. That creates a rhetorical and ideological disconnect – that those who preach most about freedom are also very much willing to use government action to get what they want. This explains why libertarian-minded business types gravitate to an otherwise non-libertarian party. It also explains how easily it is for conservative politicians to engage in corrupt, so-called “crony capitalism” – as they don’t object to government action, just government action they disagree with.
Neither side is terribly consistent. That’s why, both in academic circles and in online quizzes, the old left/right line that represented the political spectrum has been replaced largely by grids that add a second dimension to ideology. The Libertarian Party promotes one such quiz that adds libertarianism and authoritarianism (others call the latter ‘populism’). In their view, libertarianism is the more consistent about freedom in ideology and rhetoric, in social and economic policies. And authoritarianism/populism is its polar opposite.
I personally think the world is far too complex, and the problems we look to our leaders to solve being too big, to rely on any -ism for too much. I prefer a pragmatic approach that delivers a government that does certain things quite well and tries to stay out of the areas it will screw up. In today’s ideological battles, I do lean toward the liberal side of things, but that has as much to do with my aversion to the unethical practices of crony capitalism and desire to see a cleaner environment, as it does with anything else. But I do find it frustrating when either side pretends it is more consistent or ideologically pure than the other, and then uses rhetoric that seems to contradict their record.