From: hampday@earthlink.net
Date: Thu Jul 07 2005 - 22:11:23 BST
Hi Arlo --
You've raised some noteworthy points in a thoughtfully constructed post.
As far as Chomsky is concerned, my research to appease msh was enough to
convince me that his socialist rabble is damaging to this nation, and that
his public notoriety is a result of a provocative, irascible style rather
than substance.
As a self-admitted idealist, I search out people whose viewpoints are
ideological. The word has been given a bad rap in recent times, largely
because of the language of politics you've referred to. But for me, anyway,
an idealist is one who stands for something. And. if we're lucky it means
something positive or constructive. That's why I have problems with people
like Chomsky and msh. If they "stand for" anything it tends to be putting
down something they're paranoic about. Mainly, they are negative and
destructive. And they seem to thrive in their anger.
Tony Blankley, the rotund anglo-accented fellow on The McLaughlin Group,
gets kudos from me for a column he's just published on idealism. Although
it was written to criticize Senator Biden's recent characterization of the
retiring Sandra O'Conner [Biden had praised her for not being an
"idealogue"], it expresses my own view and, I think, is a fitting follow-up
to your comments. In part, he says:
"The word ideology is one of the most loaded terms in politics. It was
invented by 18th century French philosopher Claude Destutt de Tracy to mean
the science of ideas, but came to mean the set of ideas themselves.
"The mid-20th century Harvard academic Daniel Bell called ideology "an
action-oriented system of beliefs [whose] role is not to render reality
transparent, but to motivate people to do or not do certain things."
"But the word's deepest villainy was given it by Karl Marx and Friedrich
Engels for whom, according to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: 'It
is the exploitative and alienating features of capitalist economic relations
that prompt ideas they dub 'ideology.' 'Ideology only arises where there are
social conditions such as those produced by private property that are
vulnerable to criticism and protest; ideology exists to inure these social
conditions from attack by those who are disadvantaged by them.'
"Interestingly, in the 1970s the Marxist offshoot Critical Legal Studies
Movement argued that the law itself was little more than an ideology, with
the impression of the law's certainty and legitimacy being a mere capitalist
ideology used to deter 'The People' from seeing that the law need not be a
tool of the capitalists.
"In other words, for them, the law may be anything those with power wish
to make it. There is no objective law, only an opportunity to deconstruct it
to one's own likings. First get power; then re-make the law."
We need more idealists -- people with principles and strong values who have
something constructive to offer society. Certainly we have to be vigilant
to keep a "critical eye on power", as you have noted -- especially power
that can be used to deny our freedom. But "patriotism" isn't really "blind
obedience"; it's enthusiasm and loyalty for the cause. That we need, too.
I would say that the terms most often used by liberals to describe
conservatives are:
"right wing", "money-hungry", "monopolistic", "uncaring", "narrow-minded",
and "oppressive". On the opposing side are terms like "leftist",
"socialistic", "irresponsible", "touchy-feely", and "elitist". There is
some truth in all of these labels, and sometimes they are useful in
characterizing our major political contestors.
However, you are quite correct in stating that it's the ideas and principles
we stand for that make us what we are, not labels applied by opponents to
score points. I suppose I'm as guilty as anyone else in using labels
carelessly, even though I really don't like them. It's so much easier to
"smear" someone with a label than to use critical analysis! (If that
happens to be your objective.)
I would add that if we wish to change the world for the better, we must
start with an idea. Some call it a "vision", others "foresight". Ideas are
the positive force in cultural progress, whether they're philosophical or
political.
You concluded with this:
> Personally, I'd prefer if people were
> able to look beyond "nation-state" boundaries for the "patriotic" support
> we offer, and looked instead to ideals (so when we say "all men are
endowed
> by their creator with certain unalienable rights", we don't really mean
> just "all Americans").
So, I guess that makes you an idealist, too!
Essentially yours,
Ham
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Jul 07 2005 - 22:13:35 BST