The difference between policy as a tool and an ideology
A classic error made by some political scientists (and journalists) is to equate, or in some instances linguistically make interchangeable, a policy tool with an ideology. Many of the issues under debate in the current economic maelstrom would serve as examples. One one side, we have the strident calls for industry deregulation, and for the dynamics of the free market to lead the US from the recession. On the other, that our current economic problems are the result of too little oversight or regulation, that is a call for greater regulation. The issue is debated back and forth, but not in terms of the real merits of each actual approach, but rather in the language of an ideological division. These strident arguments indicate a fundamental intellectual confusion of categorization, and as a result, prevent efficient analysis of benefit versus cost. Any trained economist can tell you, if asked, that in the life-cycle of any industry, there are times when regulation is appropriate, and times when it is is not. It is a question of maturity in the developmental cycle, and the other key dynamics of the supporting economy. Regulation and deregulation are but legislative and economic tools, but somehow mystically they have been imbued with the untouchable magic of ideology, and so the nuance of best available policy sacrificed in the fire of political dialog.
The same mistakes are often made in the broader diplomatic and foreign policy context. It would, for example, be a very simple statement (sadly often promoted even on the dizzying heights of Capital Hill) that all that Israel does is inherently good, and that everything Iran does is fundamentally bad. Is any situation ever so single dimensional and simple? Such a ideological simplification is based not in fact, circumstance, nor conditional action. Such an ideological folly leads to a very limited armory of diplomatic tools being available for use. It results in all the ’support’ side diplomacy tools – aid, arms, incentives, and so on – being reserved for the ‘good’ party, and all the ‘denial’ tools – sanctions, censure, resolution and even, military force – being applied to the ‘bad’ party in the dispute. It results in blunt, erroneous foreign policies that cause the sponsor long term damage. to their standing and moral authority
To view the complex relationships between sovereign states in a volatile and hotly-contested political regions in this way is, of course, non-sensical. However, this is often how the policy sets laid on the table in front of each party appear. It is how wars occur, nuclear arms proliferate, and empires have been lost. Judge the act, apply the correct policy tool as opposed to an ideological filter, and the results may be much more propitious. Applying a rigid and unchanging ideological mind set to an issue, takes many potential policy tools out of one’s immediate armory. It results in judgmental policy sets. It is akin to spats between sibling always being the fault of one, never the other, resulting in repeated punishment of one party, and over time the creation of a victim syndrome. There may be a preponderance for one to be more of a troublemaker and a rabble-rouser, but life is rarely, if ever, so one dimensional that one party is always at fault. This is why the preponderance to treat the tools of governance as ideologically categorized is problematical.
Certainty on any particular issue only resides in the realms of extremism. An extremist will adhere blindly and stubbornly to ideology regardless of any empirical evidence presented to the contrary. This is a truism in all aspects of life – religion, morality, politics, economics and on. The believer that never question their own philosophy dwells at the most extreme edges of their belief set, living a life unexamined by by analysis, and cocooned only in information that supports their world view. For example, an individual that relies on a religious text for moral code cannot countenance that the teachings of the book could be questioned – it is an absolute value for them. However, if one is not dwelling at the extremities, there there are always occasions for doubt, conditional understanding, and for nuance of consideration. There is where ideology can be put aside, independent thought applied and tools applied more strategically than theocratically. It is an important distinction, it allows one to focus on an analysis of the actual condition, not a neat assignment of a situation into one’s ideological filing cabinet.
The US is confronted by a serious set of challenges. It has massive economic problems, multiple wars, security issues, infrastructure decay, asset value free-fall, environmental catastrophe, education system failure, health care system reform requirements, and on an on. At a time of such fear and confusion, the tendency to fall back on the false foundation of a rigid ideology is tempting. There is a certain comfort to assign blame to others for not concurring with one’s ideological view. It is all the other guy’s fault – and that argument is vigorously pursued in media to the detriment of the country making progress. The blame game, if you will, dominates the consciousness and consumes the energy. It is a false prophet of ideology that allows one to escape any culpability or responsibility for the current state of affairs. Political parties do it, journalists do it, individuals do it, by blaming either the previous incumbent of the Presidential office or the current one. The issues are far more deeply set than that , but if the policies of office remain run by this ideological divide, then both are guilty as charged and the status quo is maintained.
It would take a wise man, or team of them, to distill each and every priority issue that the US faces down to its root, throw any ideological bias aside, and apply whatever is the most appropriate tool to the the task of resolution of the issue. It would take a judicious, sage, knowledgeable, objective, independent and wide -ranging intellect to do this effectively. This is what the US needs, but whether it has this in the newly elected Obama and his team is yet to be determined. In relation, to the many critics, armchair quarterbacks, pundits and commentators that call foul at every move, I would reiterate the theme of this piece – forget the overall ideology, judge the tool in relation to the issue, and see if it is appropriate. Disagreement and debate are the heart of a democratic process, however an evangelical ideological war of words may stroke the ego, but is not in any meaningful sense moving any closer to resolution. There are some undeniable dynamics to the situation, and one of those is that the US is in a period of existential crisis. The use of ideological policy selections as opposed to sound policy tool choice bears a fair amount of responsibility for the current state of affairs, but is unlikely to form much of the solution. We need the right tools, that is the current ideological imperative.
Sphere: Related Content
