Ideology vs. Outcomes
By Alan Stewart Carl | Related entries in Conservatism, IndependentsIn a column about the difficulties the Republicans find themselves in, Mike Rosen asserts:
Two-thirds of voters may reliably support either Republican or Democratic candidates, but the other third goes either way. Most of them have no loyalty to parties, coalitions or philosophies. They just want nice outcomes and they want them now! And it’s they who decide elections. When the party in power can’t deliver, they try the other party.
To make sure we fully understand what regard he holds these members of the electorate, Rosen later refers to them as “discontented, gullible swing voters.â€
But I have to ask, what’s so wrong with caring more about outcomes than ideology? Most Americans just want a functioning government that manages the economy well, that provides reliable services and that keeps us safe. Does it really matter if those ends are achieved through big government liberalism or small government conservativism? To a lot of people, it doesn’t.
Ideologues believe their way is the only acceptable way. If they fail, it’s a matter of internal corruption (we’re not conservative/liberal enough!) or external perfidy (the conservatives/liberals are deceiving the voters!). Somehow this is supposed to be a wiser approach than simply voting for whoever has the idea that seems most likely to work right now.
There’s room for ideology in politics. In fact, it’s essential to the development of grand ideas. However, there’s just as much room for (and legitimacy to) voting based on which candidate or party will most competently manage the government. Sneering at swing-voters for not “getting it†is just puerile. If that’s the best conservatives like Rosen can do then they are headed for quite the defeat.
This entry was posted on Saturday, February 23rd, 2008 and is filed under Conservatism, Independents. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
February 23rd, 2008 at 3:41 pm
The problem is that it’s pretty incoherent to neglect to have a framework for dealing with problems. Theoretically, conservatives have a framework that says that generally govt should be constrained to do only what needs to be done by govt and individuals are best able to prosper when the govt stays out of the way as much as possible. Liberals have somewhat the opposite approach (though these distinctions almost reverse on social issues- liberals will argue that the govt has no business interfering in private moral decisions, while conservatives *sometimes* believe there’s a need for govt to interfere on the side of positive moral choices- with a pure conservative position only approving this when it comes to preservation of institutions of society that help individuals function better for the common good without having to resort to govt.)
So while there’s nothing wrong with someone who holds centrist type positions (a little of both but not too far in either direction) deciding that certain candidates of each party who are less ideological might fulfill that voter’s preferences, it is a sign of a lack of understanding and thoughtfulness that other people look at the situation without even realizing that the two different ideological poles represent two completely different sets of problem solving tools.
February 23rd, 2008 at 5:26 pm
What I want to know is, how is anyone supposed to be able to tell who would produce better “outcomes”? You can’t vote based on results, because the results won’t come until after the president (or senator or governor or whoever) takes office.
As a very ideological voter, I can certainly support the idea of getting good results but it makes me a little sick to my stomach when leaders consider the “ends to justify the means”. Bush is only trying to keep us safe by waging all these wars because he’s more concerned with results than with the process (processes being defined by your principles and ideology). See where that kind of thinking has got us?
Although I believe in small, limited government, I also happen to like a lot of Obama’s ideas. The fact that he’s second only to Paul when it comes to his aura of sincerity and honesty also makes him an option I’d be willing to vote for. The potential of an Obama administration certainly has me excited for some things like more transparent government and limited lobbyist power; but that’s ideology, not results – the results will (hopefully) come after we vote.
It seems to me even people who might be claiming to vote for outcomes are just voting for some poorly defined ideology. Unless I’ve missed something?
February 24th, 2008 at 1:18 pm
The modern conservative Republican almost always believes in interference in people’s private lives in the name of conservative Christian morality. If they don’t then they don’t stay influential members of the party. If there is no proof that a given fundamentalist Christian policy is necessary to protect society, they’ll make stuff up. See “defense of marriage” claims for suppress the gays legislation. The conservative hypothesis that holds that government should only do what government is necessary for falls apart because the concepts of what government is necessary for is frozen in a romanticized version of the 19th century. Since the modern world is so radically different from what things were really like back then the policies suggested by that hypothesis tend to fail miserably which reduces the modern conservative to explaining how the failure is the fault of the Marxist liberals who just wouldn’t let the free market be free enough. And they go along their merry way, proposing the exact same solutions that didn’t work last time. This is the failure of ideology. A complete inability to look at the real world. Whether it is the extreme left or extreme right the failure is the same. But right now it is the extreme right that pretends to not be extreme but center-right and therefore immune to this failure.
February 24th, 2008 at 1:23 pm
As a general rule ideologues of any stripe have a hard time believing in the existence of the non-ideological.
Christian fundamentalists insist on defining humanists as a religion, for an example, because they apparently literally cannot comprehend the existence of a non-religious person.
February 24th, 2008 at 3:59 pm
@JimS
Ideology: The body of ideas reflecting the social needs and aspirations of an individual, group, class, or culture.
This was the definition I was thinking of. Unfortunately, I had to dig through a bunch of definitions based in myth and religion, which means our miscommunication is understandable.
What I mean is that everybody decides who they will vote for based on their principles and ‘ideas’ about what society needs. Some anchor those beliefs in their religious texts, and some (like you and I) based on secular logic.
Ideologues (people who strictly follow an ideology) are not necessarily uncompromising, because they may be following an ideology that demands they work together with people. I would guess based on your comments that you are an ideologue for a secular, compromising ideology. And what I meant by ‘poorly-defined’ is that there is no mainstream definition for it. But again – I think we’re using different definitions of the word ideology.
All I was trying to get at, is that I would be classified as a swing voter because I can not be expected to vote D or R reliably every time; both parties only follow half of what I believe at best. But that does not mean I am not an ideologue or that ideologues are necessarily as messed up as psycho-fundamentalist-christians/muslims/whatever.
February 24th, 2008 at 6:09 pm
Whereas in the political environment of the United States now, ideology is viewed as being associated solely with ones chosen political party. Unfortunate, but true.