Ideology

More and more in our polarized society, it seems, it is considered a sort of treason by some not to become a complete ideologue (even when such a position is not expressed in so many words). We see such Manichean thinking everyday. As a result, many otherwise sane people are often reduced to talking utter nonsense out of a sense of false loyalty to a particular viewpoint. Take the obvious question of whether one is in politics a "conservative" or a "liberal". I'll only briefly mention the fairly evident fact that such a question is a false dichotomy. (Quite apart from the existence of moderates, of course, which fact is recognized, there is the fact less remembered by some that such a question only makes sense in the context of a single issue, if always then, yet, needless to say, there are more issues than one which one can ask the question about. One can be, not only "conservative", but very conservative in the context of one issue, and simultaneously be not only "liberal", but very liberal, in the context of another issue, yet be perfectly consistent and have a perfectly coherent view of life, despite such “extremism”. And then there are some issues in which one does not even fall on the continuum, because one is approaching the question from a completely different plane. There can indeed be a general sense in which one is "conservative" or "liberal", I acknowledge- more on that below- but only when taking into account the preceding factors.) No, I wish to focus on the fact that it is even worse than a false dichotomy. Rather, it is a complete inability to grasp the relative importance of ends and means.

What, after all, is the purpose of politics, or, indeed, of life in general? There are many different answers that can be given to that question. But however one answers that question should also determine how he approaches other subordinate questions. Generally speaking, everybody wishes to progress in the sense that everyone wishes to reach a certain goal. Progress is a journey to a destination, and how well you progress depends on how closely you reach your goal. But like any other journey, there is usually not simply one direction in one's steps of approaching the goal. Even the best way of approaching it usually consists of many different turns. If I wish to go to a friend's house, for instance, and am given directions, it would be very unusual indeed to hear of directions that consisted entirely of "turn right" at every single intersection, or otherwise to "turn left” every time. That would basically consist of simply going in circles and never actually arriving at his house. Similarly, in politics, to "turn right" in the sense of turning to the Right, or "turn left" in the sense of turning to the Left, on every single issue, as a matter of principle, is insane.

It seems, however, that many have made such "directions" as goals in and of themselves, and have completely lost sight of the ends that they were wishing for. They are so focused on the means, that in consequence they forget the very ends they were seeking, and indeed are willing to sacrifice the ends they originally desired if only to continue with the means! They first seek some political perspective as the means to some vision of life. But soon they will sacrifice their vision of life, if only to be a better partisan! Now if that is not insane, what is?

That does not mean, of course, that one cannot generally be described with political labels. I myself, for instance, would no doubt be considered (generally speaking) as a "conservative". There are other people who would be, generally speaking, considered as "liberal". (While I would probably disagree with them concerning the primary question of the purpose of politics or life, and consequently their goals, still, given their own first principles, and the ends they are seeking, they could still be quite consistent, at least, even if mistaken). But the problem is that too many people have jettisoned their original goals, and have instead made being "conservative" or "liberal" as ends in themselves, rather than simply as means. That is the mark of an ideologue. I may be conservative generally (in the context of today's society), but I am not a conservative as an end in itself. Consequently, if I encounter a "conservative" position that contradicts my first principles, then I will sacrifice being a conservative in that instance, and not my first principles. Because conservatism was only a means, not a goal in itself.

In short, it is good to recall what Christ reminded the Pharisees: that the Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath. Or, in other words, don't sacrifice the end to the means.