I’ve often heard the remark that in politics there’s an abundance of ideology over intelligence
Many folks seem to be suggesting that holding a particular “ideology” is a bad thing, or at least counter to intelligent rational thought. I would certainly agree that some ideologies appear a bit whacky, but many people arrive at a particular ideology after careful and intelligent consideration.
I also understand that ideologies often need to be compromised in politics – democracy is really largely about compromise, and it’s not necessarily a bad thing.
For example: my “ideology” would suggest that the LCBO should be privatized. That makes perfect, rational sense to me. I also respect that there are others with an ideology that would prefer to see it remain in government control – and I respect that. This doesn’t mean I stop discussing the issue, and it doesn’t mean I’ve changed my mind. It means I can tolerate the views of others, views likely inspired by a different basic ideology than mine.
I think understanding the ideology that inspires people in public life is useful in democracy, and I would encourage all politicians to be more forthcoming in expressing their ideologies. It would help us better understand the personal influences that will guide them in the future when making policy decisions.
One of the reasons I can comfortably and proudly call myself a Conservative is that my personal ideals (or “ideology”) match very closely with the Conservative Party of Canada’s “Founding Principles“.
On the other hand, one of the main reasons I can’t find myself supporting the Liberal Party is that they don’t appear to hold any particular ideals. About the most I could find was the vague statement:
The Liberal Party of Canada is dedicated to the principles that have historically sustained the Party: individual freedom, responsibility and human dignity in the framework of a just society, and political freedom in the framework of meaningful participation by all persons.
I say this is vague because it’s really a moving target. What exactly is meant by “responsibility”, and “human dignity” and “a just society?” I’m a bit uneasy not knowing what they mean specifically when they use these terms. And the ideal of “individual freedom” has certainly not been a plank in any Liberal platform I’ve seen lately. They seem to be adopting the very Obama-esque position of “Change“:
Much of the Liberal Party’s success has been its ability to embrace and welcome new ideas. Change is one of the founding principles of the Liberal Party of Canada.
What kind of “change” are we talking about here? Oh wait, I know: “Change we can believe in.” Well that clears everything up.
The NDP are not much better than the Liberals when it comes to defining their ideals. I was unable to find any reference to a constitution or document stating their founding principles on the official NDP web site.
So I suppose it comes as no surprise that it’s mainly those on the left that complain about the plague of “ideology over intelligence”, since they appear quite guarded about what makes them tick. So in this light, who really has the “hidden agenda?”
Ask questions folks, it’s important.
Update: Aug. 8, 2008 – In today’s National Post Charles Lewis writes an interesting comment asking “Why don’t Canadians want to hear about our politicians’ religious beliefs”
Most Canadians know that Pierre Trudeau and Paul Martin were deeply believing Catholics and most Canadians know that Stephen Harper is an evangelical Christian. But why should their silence about their faith be of comfort? It is not that hard to find out what a Catholic believes. Even the Complete Idiot’s Guide series has the Complete Idiot’s Guide to Understanding Catholicism. None of this is a secret.
Someone who is Catholic, an evangelical or an Orthodox Jew may hold conservative views about abortion and same-sex marriage. But their faith may also inform their compassion for the poor or their feelings about going to war. It may also say nothing at all about how they would behave in office. Either way, finding out is not that frightening.
[...] I have written in the past about why I have trouble identifying the Liberal brand – what it stands for and what principles guide them. And now it appears the Liberal Party has a leader who embodies that “non-ideology” ideology perfectly. From today’s National Post: Mr. Ignatieff’s arbitrarily shifted views on foreign policy and human ethics are hardly beside the point: He didn’t get nine honorary doctorates for his hypothetical future as a politician, or for his knowledge of economics for that matter. What good was done by all those years of navel-gazing on the human condition and the responsibility to protect if it must be ignored when real power is in view? [...]