Opinion

Facebook DIGG

The Ideology of No Ideology

by: Norman Solomon, t r u t h o u t | Perspective

photo
President-elect Barack Obama. (Photo: Emmanuel Dunand / AFP / Getty Images)

    On Friday, columnist David Brooks informed readers that Barack Obama's picks "are not ideological." The incoming president's key economic advisers "are moderate and thoughtful Democrats," while Hillary Clinton's foreign-policy views "are hardheaded and pragmatic."

    On Saturday, The New York Times' front page reported that the president-elect's choices for secretaries of State and Treasury "suggest that Mr. Obama is planning to govern from the center-right of his party, surrounding himself with pragmatists rather than ideologues."

    On Monday, hours before Obama's formal announcement of his economic team, USA Today explained that he is forming a Cabinet with "records that display more pragmatism than ideology."

    The ideology of no ideology is nifty. No matter how tilted in favor of powerful interests, it can be a deft way to keep touting policy agendas as common-sense pragmatism - virtuous enough to draw opposition only from ideologues.

    Meanwhile, the end of ideology among policymakers is about as imminent as the end of history.

    But - in sync with the ideology of no ideology - deference to corporate power isn't ideological. And belief in the US government's prerogative to use military force anywhere in the world is a matter of credibility, not ideology.

    Ideological assumptions gain power as they seem to disappear into the prevailing political scenery. So, for instance, reliably non-ideological ideological journalists sit at the studio table every Friday night on the PBS "Washington Week" program, which is currently funded by similarly non-ideological outfits including Boeing, the National Mining Association and Constellation Energy ("the nation's largest supplier of competitive electricity to large commercial and industrial customers," with revenues of $21 billion last year).

    Along the way, the ideology of no ideology can corral even normally incisive commentators. So, over the weekend, as news broke about the nominations of Timothy Geithner and Lawrence Summers to top economic posts, former Labor Secretary Robert Reich wrote an article praising "the members of Obama's new economic team." Reich declared: "All are pragmatists. Some media have dubbed them 'centrists' or 'center-right,' but in truth they're remarkably free of ideological preconception.... They are not visionaries but we don't need visionaries when the economic perils are clear and immediate. We need competence. Obama could not appoint a more competent group."

    Competence can be very good. But "free of ideological preconception"? I want to meet these guys. If they really don't have any ideological preconceptions, they belong in the book of Guinness World Records.

    As for competence, it seems that claims of non-ideology often go hand-in-hand with overblown claims of economic mastery. "Geithner and Summers are credited with expertise in crisis management," economist Mark Weisbrot pointed out on Monday, "but we better hope they don't manage the current crisis like they did in East Asia, Russia, Argentina or any of the other countries that Treasury was involved in during the 1990s with their help. They helped bring on the East Asian crisis in 1997 by pressuring the governments in the region to deregulate international financial flows, which was the main cause of the crisis. Then they insisted that all bailout money go through the IMF, and delayed aid until most of the damage was done. Then they attached damaging conditions" to the aid.

    After all is said and done, the ideology of no ideology is just like any other ideology that's apt to be much better at promoting itself than living up to its pretenses. No amount of flowery rhetoric or claims of transcendent non-ideology should deter tough scrutiny. And Judge Judy's injunction should apply to the ideology of no ideology as much as to any ideology that owns up to being one: "Don't pee on me and tell me it's raining."

    --------

    Norman Solomon is the author of "War Made Easy: How Presidents and Pundits Keep Spinning Us to Death." The book has been adapted into a documentary film of the same name. For information, go to: www.normansolomon.com.

»


IN ACCORDANCE WITH TITLE 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107, THIS MATERIAL IS DISTRIBUTED WITHOUT PROFIT TO THOSE WHO HAVE EXPRESSED A PRIOR INTEREST IN RECEIVING THE INCLUDED INFORMATION FOR RESEARCH AND EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES. TRUTHOUT HAS NO AFFILIATION WHATSOEVER WITH THE ORIGINATOR OF THIS ARTICLE NOR IS TRUTHOUT ENDORSED OR SPONSORED BY THE ORIGINATOR.

"VIEW SOURCE ARTICLE" LINKS ARE PROVIDED AS A CONVENIENCE TO OUR READERS AND ALLOW FOR VERIFICATION OF AUTHENTICITY. HOWEVER, AS ORIGINATING PAGES ARE OFTEN UPDATED BY THEIR ORIGINATING HOST SITES, THE VERSIONS POSTED ON TO MAY NOT MATCH THE VERSIONS OUR READERS VIEW WHEN CLICKING THE "VIEW SOURCE ARTICLE" LINKS.

Comments

This is a moderated forum.  It may take a little while for comments to go live. Be civil and on-topic, don't threaten or advocate violence, please keep it under 300 words. Thanks for participating.

This is an interesting

This is an interesting analysis. By a general rule of thumb, if the mainstream media decides things are going the way they like you better watch out because it is probably nothing good. As Solomon points out, Obama's appointments to his administration reflect business as usual with little to no change to look forward to. Very disappointing after being really excited about the Obama candidacy and the change he promised.

Mr. Obama, Please don't let

Mr. Obama, Please don't let us down. Pragmatism? We want bold, daring, new. From one of many who voted for you.

The more things change the

The more things change the more they look the same. Obama's appointments to change our economic prospects are no change at all. Bah humbug and a lump of coal for xmas is what I foresee.

There is a word for the

There is a word for the ideology that manages to establish itself as non-ideological "pragmatism": hegemony. Whether it is corporate state capitalism, or the old days of Stalinist "existing socialism" there have been few things in the world more ideological than the allegedly non-ideological hegemonies.

Oh, for Pete's sake, people!

Oh, for Pete's sake, people! Let him form his government with people he chooses. He will make the policies and they will carry them out. He will not be the puppet of his own appointees, the way Bush was.

Right next to my home-made

Right next to my home-made bumper sticker which says Nader 2012 (replacing the one I put on in November 2004 which read "Nader 2008)" , I now have a homemade sign reading "Capitalist Imperialism Obama-Style: Same Song, 44th Verse". How long will people continue not understand that unless the people fight for a candidate that the people select early on in the process of an election campaign, they will end up with a ruling class vetted, media promoted, and establishment friendly candidate. Analyse the process. The system will produce what the system wants -- a member of the two party ruling class consensus. You bought him, you voted for him, you got him. Now deal with him. My way to deal with him is to oppose him.

"But - in sync with the

"But - in sync with the ideology of no ideology - deference to corporate power isn't ideological. And belief in the US government's prerogative to use military force anywhere in the world is a matter of credibility, not ideology." WHAT?? What/Who's the no ideology? Is this a straw man? The pragmatic is without ideology? The author refuses to man up. The times do not call for timidity or half-measures. Throw away your fear, mon ami. Report the facts. Curious that in this article, as in so many others, the record is never set straight about the media product left/right issue . The Press don't report that on issue after issue, in poll after poll, there is wide-spread agreement among Americans on all of the major and minor issues of the day. Marketers & politicos care very much about this stuff. But the results are never published in the Free Press! Guess why. It shows big majorities far to the left of US policy and both political parties, including what the so-called Moderate Democrats are doing. Americans are not moderate or center-ist. American public opinion is closer to what the Press calls "the radical left". Socialized health care, end military spending, care of veterans, building infrastructure, real jobs here, public housing and transportation, ending corporate welfare in poll after poll. The American people are much more civilized than their government. I would think that'd be front page news. It's certainly news-worthy.

Just what I was afraid of :

Just what I was afraid of : the Friedmanites are still there though under a different disguise...I hope like the other posts suggest that this will not lead to the same'o same'o economic policies. I'll give Mr Obama some time but the high expectations demand high and bold NEW measures; after all FDR didn't advertise the New Deal at the outset of his first term : it was arrived at after a somewhat lengthy period of gestation. Let's hope that this applies here as well....but I'm getting nervous.

Here's a non-ideological

Here's a non-ideological insight for you: war profiteers will never need a bailout.

the premises of this piece

the premises of this piece are borderline ludicrous..who publishes this drivel ?

So just who WAS Obama

So just who WAS Obama supposed to pick for a team to handle the worst disaster in American history? For pity's sake, people, he doesn't take office for another two months, and already you're expecting the man to be Gandalf and Harry Potter combined! Or Jesus and Superman! You're not going to overcome eight years of absolute hell with a bunch of namby-pambies. Let investors regain some confidence, money go to job creation instead of billionaire bailouts, and our people on the front lines be back with their families by the next holiday season, and I don't care if he installs Darth Vader as his enforcer. The only other thing I want to see from President Obama is the entire bushdick team arrested for treason and turned over to the World Court for trial on their crimes against humanity.

For those of you so eager to

For those of you so eager to criticize and analyze in the abstract: how secure are your income, your home mortgage, your retirement account, your children's college funds? In my small town, people are hoping for practical help finding real solutions to real problems at the cash register of their small businesses, at their home offices when bill-paying time rolls around. Unless you are living in an ivory tower somewhere among the communities of worried, hard-working Americans, you, like the rest of us, are hoping for/expecting practical timely solutions to the problems that threaten our economy. Thank God for intelligent and effective pragmatism from a compassionate man. Here's an idea: instead of spending time composing high-minded criticisms of the guy whose busy trying to get something done, why don't you plant some potatoes and feed your neighbors?

It IS possible to dispense

It IS possible to dispense with ideology in some political arenas. Ideology is just an excuse for believing in things that can't be proved, and for imposing one's own biases on others, who may or may not want to believe the same unproved assumptions. Since so little concerning economics can actually be proved -- the data set is vast, and the only valid conclusions complex and equivocal -- it remains one realm of policy in which ideology still matters. And yet economic ideology is complex and equivocal, too, so it's not very strident. Economists are given to making statements like "On the one hand... on the other hand..." So there are very few economists with stridently partisan views. Economists are empiricists by nature, and therefore equivocal moderates.

I must object to your

I must object to your characterization as well as to your tone. "more pragmatism than ideology" does NOT mean NO ideology at all , but a changed balance between those two ways of being, of looking at the world and of finding solutions to public problems. Be fair, please. Haven't we had enough of ideology these past 8 or more years ? Or perhaps even much longer than that, but I will not enter on that larger, historical aspect of that issue.

"After all is said and done,

"After all is said and done, the ideology of no ideology is just like any other ideology that's apt to be much better at promoting itself than living up to its pretenses." Really? The ideology of no ideology is just another ideology? That's like saying that atheism is just another religion. That non-belief is in itself a belief. You have a very cynical view of things Mr. Solomon. Have you considered the possibility that perhaps critical rationalism is being applied here as opposed to ideology? Basically, it’s an approach to how we obtain knowledge and its foremost proponent was the scientific philosopher, Karl Popper. In his book, The Myth of the Framework, Popper stated, “I hold that orthodoxy is the death of knowledge, since the growth of knowledge depends entirely on the existence of disagreement.” In short, everything should be open to critical analysis. Nothing is sacred in that regard. One of Popper’s main contributions to political theory was The Open Society and Its Enemies. In it, he reformulates Plato’s question of “Who should rule”, into “How do we arrange our institutions to prevent rulers (whether individuals or majorities) from doing too much damage.” He is probably best known for his principle of falsification. Falsificationism is the idea that science advances by unjustified, exaggerated guesses followed by unrelenting criticism. One of Popper’s students at the London School of Economics was William Warren Bartley III who along with Popper, recognizes “the authoritarian way of thinking which charactorizes Western thought. This creates demands for true or justified beliefs, along the lines indicated by the formula: “Beliefs must be justified by an appeal to an authority of some kind (usually the source of the belief in question) and this justification by an appropriate authority makes the belief either rational, or if not rational, at least valid for the person who holds it.” “However this is a requirement that can never be adequetly met due to the problem of validation or the dilemma of infinite regress vs. dogmatism.”. David Miller, in his book Critical Rationalism: A Restatement and Defense points to Bartley’s formulation of Comprehensively Critical Rationalism: “The new framework permits a rationalist to be characterized as one who is willing to entertain any position and holds all his positions, including his most fundamental standards, goals, and decisions, and his basic philosophical position itself, open to criticism; one who never cuts off an argument by resorting to faith, or irrational commitment to justify some belief that has been under severe critical fire; one who is committed, attached, addicted, to no position. What does this hold for political figures who are expected to adhere to committed positions regardless of the reality that constantly shifts? A politician who holds onto a position in spite of these new unanticipated shifts runs the risk of being viewed as stubborn, out of touch, and ideologically driven. The politician who is willing to shift his views based on new information is viewed as a “flip-flopper”, weak, or pandering to whatever the prevailing popular view is. If the politician adopts the views expressed through Comprehensively Critical Rationalism he is attached to no position. He is committed to nothing. The alternative is to be driven by an ideology that is held together by faulty logic and attempts to defy reality by appearing to be driving a square peg into a round hole. We do like for our politicians to take a position on something, but it seems that some degree of flexibility in that position is required if the policies that are enacted actually benefit those they are intended to serve. That's where pragmatism enters the picture. Never allow a belief to stand in the way of doing what is right.

A few thoughts... Give the

A few thoughts... Give the man a second at least... All real progress is evolutionary, like the election of Obama itself. It took over forty years of changes in perception of Americans to make his majority win possible. We had a president who claimed to be a "uniter" and only listened to a very narrow group of opinions...do we really want to replace him with someone who only listens to a different narrow group of opinions? A community organizer has to reach consensus somehow... Give the man respect for his roots...he's no Bushie.

I am astounded at the

I am astounded at the short-sighted comments here with reference to PE Obama's cabinet-elect appointments. So, here we are, post-election, pre-inauguration, and already there are these complainers bemoaning their anticipated future behavior of the PE. Have you all forgotten how W was ruled by his own ignorance and managed by the machinations of people WAY smarter the him? Now we have an INTELLIGENT PE who actually has a plan, actually has the brains to make critical decisions, and who will hit the ground running as soon as he is inaugurated IN JANUARY. I guess the concept of a cabinet that actually will be responsive to Presidential plans for changing the direction and even the tenor of the nation as a whole is beyond your comprehension. Why not give the man a chance to actually take office before scribbling your post mortems on his presidency? I know, I know, you just like to see your ideas posted online.

Prof. Solomon, I greatly

Prof. Solomon, I greatly admire your courage and intellect, and I probably share the bulk of your political views about the state of the U.S. Nonetheless, I see this piece as a Seinfeldian article about nothing. If it turns out that Obama is indeed just another oil company stooge, then you told us so? I understand that the odds are against substantive change and in favor of the same elites running the show in basically the same way under Obama. But EVERYBODY, even including the dreadful Larry Summers, has witnessed the damage the Bush faction has done to the world. Maybe the Clinton crew indeed don't care. But Obama a) IS the guy in charge, b) IS as smart or smarter than the people he's hiring, and c) hasn't worked his first day yet. Please give him at least a one-week "honeymoon". And let's hope your peevish view of the developing situation is, at least in part, unwarranted.

Tactical /illusionary

Tactical /illusionary change only, the goal hegemonic world domination by western elites/allies through any means short of global obliteration. Thanks

The disappointment's really

The disappointment's really beginning to set in, isn't it? Well, good. That means we're awake and observant and that there's still hope for us. Let's just try not to get complacent again between now and 2016.

Mr. Solomon is perfectly

Mr. Solomon is perfectly correct. Unless Obama proves to take real command over these establishment tools that he has appointed and actually steer us in a healthy direction (away from the "free market" mythology toward sustainable eco-economics), then we will be a few screwdriver twists away from where we are now. I am amazed at the total blindness of the center-right responses that precede this posting. Some get it, who have their ethics compasses working, but too many of you don't. You have all fallen under the David Brooks KoolAid narcotic of the warm and fuzzy "middle" which is far right of where Americans actual reside, when asked. I live in a state where Democrats compromise way their souls every day to please the demi-gods of war and capitalism. So, I know it every time I see it. And I'm seeing alot of it in these ridiculous responses that call for "pragmatism" and "stability." Go pick up an M16 and fight for your own damn oil in Iraq. The soldiers there will gladly change places with you all.

To my earlier comment, and

To my earlier comment, and in light of all that has been said about this issue to date, I'd add that old German commentary cum proverb: "So streiten sich die Leut' herum" Approximate translations: 1. The stuff people won't quarrel about ! 2. That's the kind of stuff people will fight about. 3. People will quarrel about anything !

I think many commenters are

I think many commenters are misunderstanding this article. I don't read it as Solomon defending or attacking the concept of ideology--he's attacking the pretense that there's no ideology when there clearly is! This is like the myth of a "center" that is really to the right.

"Critical Rationalism", when

"Critical Rationalism", when invoked without a recognition of first principles and deductive natural laws, is a dressed-up relativism masquerading as rationalism. Rationalism in the continental tradition is Aristotelian, and therefore based in cognitive reality. We perceive good, evil, right, wrong, and make deductions from our natures and introspective understandings. "Pragmatism" in the context of politics and the modern nation state is nothing but the naked exercise of power in an idiosyncratic (and capricious) manner. Rights and the natural order are reduced to "interests", which themselves are cast aside in a laughable and transparent invocation of "necessity" and "seriousness" as political acts of redistribution, bailouts and good old fashioned plunder are perpetrated before our very eyes. Indeed, someone is pissing on our legs and telling us that it is raining.

in response to Tothus post

in response to Tothus post in which he claims that most Americans are in what the mainstream press might dub 'the far left'. (I happen to agree with this assessment. Also in response to the lead article which makes, I think, valid points, although doesn't go very far with them. Still, this is a rather daring article for this pusillanimous press we have nowadays. It's not their fault. They are controlled basically. Two little factoids I picked up, that illustrate the degree to which corporate hegemony is deeply entrenched. 1. The patent for the best fuel cell car that GM had launched a few years ago was bought up by.... you guessed it, Exxon. The care was scrapped (literally by recall and then all models crushed). What sort of country makes this sort of 'private sector' initiative legal? 2. GM led the initiative to scrap public transport in the US and largely succeeded. From simple Google search for 'Standard Oil public transportation' the first article: http://environment.about.com/od/fossilfuels/a/streetcars.htm These are two simple examples of the extraordinary inefficiencies built into the US system. This is far deeper and bigger than Bush or Obama or Democratic Party or Republican Party. There will be no substantive change under Obama. The same 'free market' racketeers who have been in charge for the past century are still in charge. Nothing will change until there are food riots. And then, if history is any guide, we will progress from the current oligarchy which masquerades as a liberal democracy into a more full-blown dictatorship type model. If that works - which means ordinary people can put food on the table - it will remain for a while. If not, the US will break up into different regions - perhaps a good thing. And then, if things go really, really well, at some point we will go back to the most enlightened, but arguably tricky system, Monarchy. But that is several centuries from now the earliest. And that's only if things go very well. First, they will get far, far worse since the foxes are still clearly in charge of the hen house.

Most readers seem to be

Most readers seem to be missing the point of this article. Solomon was not criticizing Obama. He was attempting to point out that framing the conversation by saying that people appointed are "not ideological" is misleading. It actually deludes us into thinking that these people won't drive us into a war as a result of pre-determined ideas they are holding. Instead, they will act more realistically and hold our safety and security in mind when they make decisions. Was it ideology that got us into Iraq? Is it ideology that is destroying our environment? Is it ideology that made government incompetent? Was it ideology that led to the financial meltdown? Maybe it's just greed. Is greed an ideology? Well, what is "ideology"? All people who think, think with ideas. If they have ideas, they have a pattern of using these ideas. They have a belief system which drives them and their ideas. This system is an ideology. Let's not pretend they don't have one. Let's rather find out what it is. That way we might have an insight into their future decisions.

To call the ideology of

To call the ideology of Milton Friedman economics, and global militarism, and multinational corporate global dominance a "nonideology" is to anoint these dominant Washington ideologies seemingly the best, and only rational policies. These are the ideologies that have been clearly enunciated by Obama's appointees to the most powerful cabinet posts. This is not what his supporters expected. His statement that "I will make the decisions" ring somewhat hollow. There are certainly many well quallified persons who could lend some degree of open mindedness, and would be receptive to practical solutions compatible with what the majority of people want on the major issues. Thanks for pointing out what a bunch of prostitutes the MSM once again shows itself to be.

I agree 100% with The Die

I agree 100% with The Die Hard!! Let there be justice where justice is due. Go get'em!!!

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.