It's not my fault, it's those bloody words!

I was going to begin with an apology to you all for preaching an incorrect sermon but then I remembered that none of you pay the slightest attention to anything I write or say so there's no need!  However, some of you may recall that from time to time I have become very irate at the lack of ideology in any of our frontline politicians.  None of them seem to be doing the job in order to achieve something greater than themselves which leaves one with the large suspicion that they are only in it for the money or for some peculiar psychiatric imperative in their personalities.  However, today I find myself taken to task by the supporters of the late Michael Oakeshott.

As it happens, Oakeshott, himself, is a fairly regular twinge in my conscience because I have never read a word he wrote and yet everywhere people speak highly of him as a true conservative (small 'c') philosopher.  His particular view of true conservatism has been taken up by Peter Wehner in Commentary.  He, of course, being American is beset with the shrill, poisonous, vindictive atmosphere of today's political scene 'over there'.  He uses Oakeshott's opinions to warn his fellow conservatives concerning what he considers to be there errors of judgment in partaking of this monumental 'bitch fight':

he lapse into ideology is a perennial danger for conservatism (and for any
political and religious movement, for that matter). The temptations of those of
us who are committed to a political and religious philosophy/cause, always, is
confirmation bias; that we go in search of facts to support pre-existing views;
and that we self-segregate and inhabit a closed mental world in which we simply
don’t allow counter-arguments and contrary empirical data to penetrate the walls we erect. We simply refuse to hold up our views to refinement and revision.

Well, that is true, of course, but it is not an argument that would convince me to dispense with ideology.  At this point I am forced to quote the late Prof. Joad who regularly began his counter-arguments with the phrase 'it all depends on what you mean by . . .' and here I would insert the word 'ideology' - see, "words, words, words"!  I would suggest that everyone has an 'ideology' but the line between that somewhat abstract ideal and the bricks and mortar of 'policy' is very fine.  I would suggest that the notion that 'I do not believe in any ideology' is, in fact, an ideology!  I would go further and suggest that it is totally untrue!  Everyone has an ideology in some sense of the word, by which I mean that everyone has their own, albeit rough and ready, idea of what the world is now, what they would like it to be and what it could be if certain measures were taken.  And it is around about this point that one shuffles across the line between ideology and policy.

So, coming back to the real world, I want my politicians to have an ideology.  I want them to point to a distant vision that for the moment only they can see so that I might inspect it and either approve or not.  I don't mind if they don't quite get there - that's the real world intruding - but I do want to see them trying.  So, sorry and all that, Prof. Oakeshott, but I'm right and you're wrong!  (I can say that to an immensely distinguished philosophical swot because he's dead!)  Read Wehner's article, it's worth it.

 

Comments

[Demetrius]

Knew Oakeshott in the '50's, heard his lectures and read his stuff. Decent chap, got on well with the rugger club unlike that Ralph something or other who was a bit of a pain.

[Able]

The lack of an ideology is in itself an ideology - are you talking about Dawkins again?

I agree wholeheartedly, I just wish those pols who did/do admit to/espouse an ideology (that would be those lefty types) weren't so adamantly, unquestionably, fervently, fanatically sure that theirs is the only 'correct' ideology. (Marxists/socialists/progressives, the jihadists of the political realm).

I wonder if it's more of that 'two nations divided by a common language' stuff again, that and interpretation, assumption and association. Maybe, to those who deny such. the term ideology smacks too much, rather than "the set of beliefs characteristic of a social group or individual", of the archaic "visionary speculation, especially of an unrealistic or idealistic nature". that and words like doctrine, manifesto and such. Ask them about their tenets, creed, credo or philosophy and .....

The redefining of words to fit 'certain views' is a modern epidemic. Maybe claiming/admitting/acting as if you have any ideology not 'of the left' has become tantamount to admitting your hobby is drop-kicking (punting to you Yanks) babies in front of buses and stamping on kittens.

Personally I suspect that, like honesty and probity in civil servants, it is the one characteristic guaranteed to ensure 'the party' never allows your selection. The Republican party establishment, rather than being RINOs, is actually DIOBNs (Democrats in all but name) - much like our own, not so beloved, Conservative Party then?

[dearieme]

Really? Is an American "punt" really a drop-kick? I never knew.

By the by, Duffers, I may have found a solution to the marmalade problem. I'm now pondering whether I could commercialise/patent it.

[David Duff]

Ah yes, that "Ralph something or other", can't think he would have gone down too well at the Rugby club! By the way, Demetrius, I just enjoyed a giggle over at your place at your link to the, er, 'national service' of the Kray brothers. For anyone who is interested:
http://www.thecynicaltendency.blogspot.co.uk/2013/11/who-needs-friends.html

Able, I don't mind the clash of ideologies - so long as it doesn't descend to the personal which rapidly makes it a waste of time - but since Maggie and Michael (Foot) we haven't had one between our political leaders. The 'Milipede' has some ideological notions, gleaned, I guess at second-hand from dear, old Dad, but 'Dim Dave' hasn't a clue beyond desperately wishing to be back in No. 10 after the next election.

[David Duff]

Oh come on, DM, you can tell me, your secret will be perfectly safe and secure because nobody reads this blog!

[dearieme]

Pah, rubbish. An American "punt" is just the same as in rugby or football: see http://www.wikihow.com/Punt-a-Football

It's not a drop-kick at all. Pah again.

[David Duff]

Never mind all that 'punt' stuff, what's the top secret marmalade equation?

[Able]

My apologies DM I shall attempt, probably fruitlessly, to be more clear in the future (most of the time even I don't know what I mean).

Drop-kicking (punting IN SOCCER to you Yanks).

Better?

Well does:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punt_%28Australian_football%29

- make you feel better? But then you already knew that one. Did you honestly expect me to educate you? Good Lord, DD will be expecting me to discus modern art or tell him how to clock a car next!

[dearieme]

The secret to imparting the required tartness is to spread a thin layer of quince jam on top of the butter and below the commercial marmalade. Brilliant, eh?

[David Duff]

But ... but ... I don't want "tartness", daddy, I want sweet as in SWEEEEET! Still, it's more interesting than all this waffle about 'punting' which I thought involved a river, a boat and a long pole!