This page is very much
The Three Sentiments of Political Ideology
The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives
and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making
mistakes. The business of Conservatives is to prevent mistakes from
being corrected. Even when the revolutionist might himself repent of
his revolution, the traditionalist is already defending it as part of
his tradition. Thus we have two great types — the advanced person
who rushes us into ruin, and the retrospective person who admires
the ruins.
G. K. Chesterton
column for 19 Apr 1924
in the _Illustrated London News
In essence, there are 3 universal sentiments underlying all
political ideologies.
The local nuances add colour,
but these three are universally possible, and nearly always present in
a political society.
However, it is quite rare to find a political party or ideology that is
purely one of these three; usually a political entity will define itself
as being somewhere in the continuum between two of these, and
as being opposed to the third. Read on.
Liberalism
Liberalism (to American readers, all terms are in the "old",
European, original sense) is the attitude of trusting in people, and
accepting
what they do a priori. The sentiment is laisser-faire; let people do
as they please, in the aggregarte it will be OK. In terms of the time span
one could say that the Liberal is interested in the present, and how nice things (and people) are.
These people often like to call themselves "democrats", "free", and of course "liberal". One could say the emotionally they are basically
content with the world.
Progressivism
Progressivism is epitomised by "the man with the plan": Society can be improved,
and I am the one who knows how to do it!. This sentiment takes science,
progress, engineering etc. very seriously, and intends to apply it to the
management of society. The most common example of this attitutde is
Socialism, Communism, etc. Progressivists are concerned with the future,
and how good things will be.
These politics are usually "social-something", but relate also to any
other programme pursued with a vengance... They are hopeful people, mainly
because they dislike sothing in the world as it is. Take away their cause, and
they cease to be progressivists.
Conservatism
This is the attitude of keeping the good we have.
Counter-intuitively, this is the sentiment shared by the "greens" and
the Ayatollas; The past was great, don't mess with it! This is the sentiment of
romantic infatuation with history; The only
difference between the Ayatolas and the
greens is which part of the past they romanticize.
The words to watch for with these people are "Christian", "National", "Royal",
or any word which denotes national identity, such as the "Polish X
Party"; and, of course, the Greens. Emotionally, they are fearful
of the disappearance, decay or disintegrtion of their cause;
Thet are therefore attached,
possibly clingy people.
Choices
In choosing one's ideological affiliations, one comes accross the abovementioned
three stances, and must consider them in turn..
- The beauty.
All three of the sentiments have some logical thrust and internal
consistency that give them some beauty and appeal; It is difficult to
argue that our heritage is not wonderful, or that people
should not be free, or that caring
for the poor is a bad idea.
- The horror.
However, is one were to adopt any one of these stances completely and
exclusively, one is faces with the horror
of relinquishing the others completely.
For example, in order to be only a Liberal, one relinquished any protection of
the heritage of one's society.
As an example, to my personal taste, the two sentiments I find absolutyly
essential are the Liberal and, more mildly, the Progressivist
(Socialist) ones. Though I am
essentialy a liberal, I feel obliged to assist the weaker members of society.
- The compromise.
This leads to a compromise; and as compromises tend to be ugly, so is this one.
Adopting a main idoelogy is simple, and as long as one can stay with that then
that in enough. However, as in my persoanl case, in introducing a second
ideology the first becomes impure: If you want social policy
you need taxation, taxation beyond the bare necessecities is illiberal;
allowing for social progress or for individual choice will necesserily
dilute the society's heriteage, etc.
These compromises are all lacking is ideological consistency, but are
often the course chosen. Let us look at how this develops:
Mixtures
Liberalism + Socialism
These are the social democrats.
Liberalism + Conservatism
These are the American Republican party, the British Conservatives, the European "Christian Democtrats" etc.
Progressivism + Conservatism
This is a dangerous combination: They have a plan, and it is to restore some
romantic idea of the past. The "National Socialists"
of Germany pretty much define themselves as being in this category. Whether
being as nasty as the Nazis is inherent in this mixture is a
topic I have yet to
work out...
All 3 together
This is an ideological sham, since it basically means that the politicain does
not know what they want. This could (and is) called Pragmatism, but could
equally well be called oppoirtunism, corruption, or stupidity.
A bit about a few countries
USA
Britain
Israel
Shinui
Mafdal - National Religios Party
Shas
Copyright Sam Freed, 2002
You can see the rest of my personal web
site here.