The Limits of Ideology
Ross:
And it shouldn’t come as a shock that [Ron Paul's] son found himself publicly undone, in what should have been his moment of triumph, because he was too proud to acknowledge the limits of ideology, and to admit that a principle can be pushed too far.
When I first read Ross’ column, it seemed to be a reasonably fair and effective critique of “paleo” flaws, but something about it kept bothering me. Some of this has to do with Ross’ references to ideology. Most conservatives sympathetic to Rand Paul abhor ideology as such and not only recognize its limits, but are acutely aware of its distorting powers and flaws. Indeed, it has been the “paleo” right that has been relentless in criticizing the ideological mentality that dominates so much of conservative thought today. It has been one of our main themes for the last decade. If anyone has been aware of the limits of ideology, it has been people like Rand Paul. If anyone has been oblivious to those limits, it has been the people on the right who acknowledge Paul and his supporters only by way of belittling and dismissing them.
Something else that has not been discussed very much in response to Rand Paul’s controversial remarks is that Paul’s main error derives mostly from an overconfidence in the rationality and morality of both markets and democracy. This is arguably the product of an unduly optimistic assessment of human behavior. No one would normally accuse paleoconservatives of any of these things, since we are normally considered excessively pessimistic and skeptical of both the market and mass democracy. Put another other way, Paul has been subjected to particularly intense scrutiny because he has expressed confidence in markets and democracy in a way similar to, but less naive than, the ideologues who championed the inevitable triumph of democratic capitalism and promoted the ideas of Near Eastern regional transformation by force and the failed “freedom agenda.” The rather obvious difference is that Paul’s remarks had and will have no effect on policy whatever, but he could very well be politically punished more than all the people who helped wreck entire countries and provided the justification for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people.
For the most part, when “paleos” err we err because we are very concerned to prevent abuses of government power and because we want to keep the government from using its coercive powers unnecessarily and arbitrarily. Given their deference to the national security and warfare state, our critics on the right cannot say the same. This may lead us to go to extremes or to take the wrong position in a particular debate on occasion. Nonetheless, the alternative to this is a conservative movement that has obviously “sold out to both big government and the military-industrial complex.” We are all well-acquainted with what this means for our country, and generally speaking it has been a disaster. Rand Paul’s success so far offers the possibility of something different and better. It is simply foolish to try to destroy that.
Update: I’m afraid that Max Fisher has misunderstood my second paragraph. The point I was trying to make, and which I apparently did not make very clearly, was that Paul is being raked over the coals for being overly confident in the rationality and morality of markets and democracy in a way that resembles democratist ideologues, but the latter are never held accountable for being even more hubristic and unreasonable in their ideological convictions that have had disastrous consequences in the real world. Paul made some controversial remarks on a cable news show that he has since clarified. Democratist ideologues helped destroy whole countries in the name of democratic capitalist triumph. If we believed Ross, they were well-intentioned do-gooders who just made a few mistakes, and Rand Paul is a proud ideologue blind to complexities of the real world. I was criticizing the dramatic difference in how Paul is being treated and the way that ideologues who are actually responsible for enabling mass destruction and death have been treated.
Of course, in practice, one man’s ideology is another man’s principle, and I see little reason for confidence in Rand Paul’s principles given his willingness to trim so far on what should be the most fundamental principles.
Put simply, the overriding issue of the day for an informed westerner who takes morality seriously has to be preventing a US attack on Iran, as in 2002-3 it was trying to prevent the attack on Iraq. The evil of another such attack, and our personal responsibility for it, involving as it does our own governments slaughtering and causing the deaths of innocents in huge numbers using the proceeds of our tax payments and in our names, must put all other issues of domestic politics into the shade.
Paul has already shown willingness to trim on that overriding issue. Who knows, even worse he may actually believe the comments he has made in sympathy with the whipped up US war hysteria against Iran. If so, he is one of the warmongers, and loses any entitlement to sympathy or respect whatsoever as far as I’m concerned. That’s the line that cannot be crossed and remain worthy of respect. You can disagree about state provision of healthcare, or subsidies for big businesses, even about drugs prohibition, and remain basically within the bounds of respectable political dispute, but once you are prepared to countenance blowing innocent women and children to pieces for essentially political reasons, you have gone beyond the pale.
His trimming and backtracking for political gain so far doesn’t inspire any confidence in me, at least, that he will resist the blandishments and corruption of office to anything like the extent his father seems to have done, but he may grow into the job, as his father seems to have done. More worryingly, he has already shown disturbing signs of a willingness, at the least, to collaborate with the warmongers.
I don’t have an opinion on what constitutes ‘respectable political dispute’, but otherwise I agree with Randal.
I would also point out that the CRA issue is a pathetic unforced error. Rand Paul should have decided long ago whether or not he would risk carrying this bit of baggage through the general election. He could have done his backtracking long before it would get national attention. Instead he repeatedly put on record a view he wouldn’t go to the mat defending.
Daniel Larison:
Rand Paul’s success so far offers the possibility of something different and better.
I doubt his success offers much of anything good, since he appears to be a pitiful nitwit. It wouldn’t be the first time a father’s qualities missed the next generation.
Really, Daniel, what the Senate needs is more grandstanding ideologues with libertarian pretensions? And here I was thinking that some Republicans who actually cooperate with Democrats for the good of the country would be a nice idea.
Honestly, is hinting at misgivings about the Civil Rights Act what it takes to achieve a reputation as an intellectual around here? Because it ain’t exactly a profiles-in-courage stance in Kentucky. And if RP is making his suspicion of the military-industrial complex and an antiwar agenda centerpieces of his campaign, it’s news to most Kentuckians.
What exactly makes RP more than one more pol exploiting Tea Party anger and nepotism to a Senate seat? Where’s his “Audacity of Hope” manifesto that spells it all out for us?
Rand Paul’s success so far offers the possibility of something different and better.
I confess to being equally baffled by this statement. Paul has so far shown nothing other than mindless spouting, and the fact that he had a successsful primary run may be nothing more than the general mood of the electorate coupled with name recognition. It’s probably too early to be able to determine that. Win he did, admittedly, and handily. But the fact that it appears to be sincerely held mindless spouting is not necessarly an advantage. And the fact that he’s different from the phony conservatives who have been in charge of the Republcian party for what seems like forever now may make him an interesting candidate to ponder. Frankly, reading his statements over the years (selectively, I admit), it’s not clear whether that difference comes from a well-thought-out set of principles, or simple ignorance. As the guy from Spinal Tap said, it’s a fine line between clever and stupid. I suspect this is not going to turn out to be a good test case for an alternative sort of conservatism.
It is simply foolish to try to destroy that.
And this is even more baffling than the above. What on earth does it mean?
And this is not an ideology?
” …too proud to acknowledge the limits of ideology, and to admit that a principle can be pushed too far.”
So it comes down to pride, does it. We may rest assured that our media and political classes know something of that. As to what constitutes the limits of ideology and pushing principles too far, they are less certain guides.
It is precisely this kind of manufactured hysteria that the pancake make up crowd loves and that anyone with a brain hates.
The CRA for christ sake! Such is the sweet relief of encountering one’s better self in the mirror after another frustrating day of not bombing Tehran and masturbating in the hope of bombing runs ahead.
I’m inclined not to care about Paul’s candidacy (and maybe to actively root against him) first and foremost because he’s identified with the Tea Party Movement. Anything one freshman Senator might actually DO in the Senate is probably insignificant compared to the political impact it would have for the Tea Party to be able to crow about it’s rising influence.
As Larison has noted over and over, the Tea Party and its highest-profile backers (including Rand Paul) are either lukewarm about foreign policy adventurism and restrictions on civil liberties, or actively in favor of them. The idea that Paul would provide an independent voice in favor of fiscal responsibility, a less reckless foreign policy, or concern for civil liberties doesn’t seem to be borne out by the evidence of his campaign. Like Marco Rubio, Paul and his candidacy reach a national audience in the context of the Tea Party and its ideas, not in the context of any sort of principled and independent conservative or libertarian worldview.
If Paul were a down-the-line libertarian anti-interventionist like his father it would be easier to explain this Civil Rights Act debacle as the inevitable result of a worldview applied rigidly in all cases, without regard to historical context, the inextricable links between “private” discrimination in public places and hideously unfair and immoral policies of state-mandated segregation and racism, etc. Personally I think that context-free approach to applying libertarian or conservative principles is a bad one, and is an example of ideology run amok.
But we don’t even have to get into that with Rand Paul. Based on all the evidence he seems to be hedging his bets on contemporary issues of grave importance while letting it slip that he has a principled objection to generations-old legislation that forces lunch counter operators to treat black and white potential customers equally. That makes his candidacy either ridiculous or actively sinister (or both).
@ Larison: “but he could very well be politically punished more than all the people who helped wreck entire countries and provided the justification for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people.”
Does anyone really think Rand Paul’s going to lose the general election?
@ Charlie: “the Tea Party and its highest-profile backers (including Rand Paul) are either lukewarm about foreign policy adventurism and restrictions on civil liberties, or actively in favor of them”
Rand Paul is really strong on civil liberties, from what I understand. His alleged lukewarmness on foreign policy adventurism includes leaving the U.N., the WTO, IMF, etc. If that is “lukewarmness”, I’ll take it.
Well I see the PC jihadists are out in force on this thread. How dare anyone question the constitutionality of the CRA.
Well news flash to all the Cultural Marxist, and please spare me the feigned indignation. The CRA WAS UNCONSTITUTIONAL on enumerated powers grounds. Period. End of discussion. If you disagree then feel free to point me to the Article and Section or Amendment that authorizes federal regulation of private businesses in such a manner.
Red, feel free to disagree with me, but please don’t call me names. Have a great day.
I actually think Rand Paul has beliefs very much like his father, hence he is a paleolibertarian, but is just a little more willing to trim for political expediency. (In the Senate I have no doubt he will be a positive force on foreign policy.)
So as primarily a philosophical libertarian, instead of a philosophical conservative properly understood, I do think he is prone to the errors of ideology.
But there is a problem with the word ideology. Those of us with a Kirkean understanding of the term know it refers to a systematic ideology such as Marxism or libertarianism. But in popular use it doesn’t mean that. It means beliefs that are firmly held. Something closer to the opposite of pragmatic or moderate. So that puts us Kirkians in a difficult situation rhetorically. Because we really need less of the former type of ideology and more of the later.
Charlie, I usually avoid anything approaching name calling and leave that for the other side to discredit themselves. But repetitive (not just by you) posts along the lines of “Oh the horror! (Imagine hands thrown up in the air in dismay.) Someone had a stray un-PC thought on the Civil Rights Act” is being a PC thought policer and a good little Cultural Marxist. Sorry if the shoe fits. Given how quickly your side resorts to the r word slur among many others, you shouldn’t be so sensitive.
Young Geezer:
Does anyone really think Rand Paul’s going to lose the general election?
I’m not making a prediction, but in this flap he has shown himself to be such an inept candidate that I won’t be surprised if he manages to defeat himself.
I would be more pleased with Rand if he were less moderate, and it is true that he seems to be showing himself to be at once more pliable and less pragmatic than his father. Nevertheless, he would do a lot of good in the Senate. Jim DeMint, Tom Coburn, and David Vitter seem to be the only Republicans on the right with even the slightest streak of independence. Rand could to make some bad votes, but at the same time, he would probably equal the number of procedural holds and one-man stands that those four make all by himself, from day one.
Rand is not Ron, but he would make a difference. Judge him by his enemies if you don’t believe me.
I’m not being sensitive, Red. But I can recognize when there’s a productive debate to be had and when I’m dealing with someone who’d rather engage in name-calling and personal attacks.
If you “usually” avoid name-calling you’ve certainly fallen off the wagon today:
“Cultural Marxist”
“PC jihadist”
“PC thought policer”
“Cultural Marxist”
Additionally, you’re asserting without any evidence that I belong to a “side” that “resorts to the r word slur”, and using that baseless accusation to justify making intemperate personal attacks.
Under the circumstances I’m going to let my original post speak for itself and bow out of this thread. You’re doing a good enough job already of demonstrating that you have nothing useful to say; if I stuck around to make that point I’d just be getting in your way.
@ David Tomlin:
Yeah, I guess. I’d be interested in seeing a post-Civil Rights Act “flap” poll, though. I honestly think there’ll be a bit of a backlash against those who wish Rand Paul ill eventually, especially by people who suspect the national press of being unfair to anyone outside political orthodoxy. I’m no expert on Bluegrass State politics, but I would think being criticized in the New York Times is a plus, not a minus in Kentucky politics, especially on the right. In other words, the more media outlets like the NYT flog this, the greater the chance there is local people thinking the east coast press is attacking them, and not just Paul. And then they’ll rally around Paul.
Also, I’d think an anti-Washington Republican from a state that gave McCain near 60% of the vote in a cycle favorable to Republicans has a pretty good shot at winning-by-default. I wonder if this is really a big deal outside of the Internet-”gossip/news”-obsessed-crowd (of which of course, I am a member!)
I hate to double comment, but when I say: “the more media outlets like the NYT flog this, the greater the chance there is local people thinking the east coast press is attacking them, and not just Paul”, what I mean is: if a poll comes out this week that shows Rand Paul leading Conway, you know there will be some sepculation in the press on how “those dumb hicks can still support Rand Paul even though the NYT op-ed page has declared him unfit.” And then Kentuckians (like any other human beings), would feel under attack and there would be a backlash.
I’m not saying that is what will happen, I just wonder if this CRA thing is overblown as crippling Rand Paul’s candidacy.
It is disheartening that the country founded on the Ideals of Liberty and Freedom has done such a terrible job of educating that few in the present actually understand the gift and are so eager to relinquish its benefit.
Will you rush to the same people who caused calamity for the remedy? In my observation this is the norm. Erosion Is Relentless And Mostly Imperceptible.
Rand Paul Is A Solid Citizen And He Does Understand The Environment That The USA Was Created In.
The Fact That He IS Not “Owned” by Special Interest Lobby Groups Make Him The ONLY Right Choice. K-Street has more power than any state in the union currently => If you do not recognize this then you are either not paying attention or you are Willfully Ignorant.
Only Fools Believe That The Power Of Bureaucracy Will “Save” Them.
Better Begin To Pay Attention To The Shadow Banking, Level 3 Asset, Currency Crisis That IS Beginning To Manifest. What People Hold Dear May Be Tested Soon. Debt Slaves Are The New Financial Commodity.
Nothing quite like the Media Hubbub Du Jour to turn otherwise generally intelligent commentators into morons.
Charlie, Cultural Marxist is a specific tern with a specific meaning. It is not an all purpose smear. Enforcing right think on anything dealing with race is its MO.
Now I will admit that your post was more level headed and less hysterical than some, but this paragraph (as well as your blanket dismissal of the TEA Parties) is still problematic.
“If Paul were a down-the-line libertarian anti-interventionist like his father it would be easier to explain this Civil Rights Act debacle as the inevitable result of a worldview applied rigidly in all cases, without regard to historical context, the inextricable links between “private” discrimination in public places and hideously unfair and immoral policies of state-mandated segregation and racism, etc. Personally I think that context-free approach to applying libertarian or conservative principles is a bad one, and is an example of ideology run amok.”
Debacle? PR wise yes, but on the issue? It depends on where you are coming from. The CRA was unconstitutional. If you would care to take the time to make the case otherwise instead of mounting your high horse, be my guest. On freedom of association grounds? Again depends on where you are coming from. What I am objecting to is all this “Oh my God! Rand Paul uttered wrong think!” knee-jerk hysteria.
“Nothing quite like the Media Hubbub Du Jour to turn otherwise generally intelligent commentators into morons.”
What are you talking about?
“Paul’s main error derives mostly from an overconfidence in the rationality and morality of both markets and democracy.”
I think this is a kindly attempt to defend Paul on the most favorable possible terms, but it falls flat. Paul doesn’t care about abstract outcomes such as morality and rationality, he cares about specific things, like getting to create the kind of world that he wants. And in his world, there’s no due process for people who are discriminated against, which Paul presumes will not be himself and his voters, but “other people”. If it were Paul and his family who were forced into segregated housing, crappy jobs, or slavery, he’d be singing a different tune, and we all know it.
The general suspicion when people like Paul start railing on about libertarian reasons to not interfere with the marketplace when it enforces cultural and ethnic discrimination is that it’s merely a cover for a lack of moral interest in the plight of those who are being discriminated against. It’s rather obvious that morality is not Paul’s primary concern, his primary concern is being able to do what he and his “people” want, regardless of the moral consequences. In Kentucky, this is a very obvious message that everyone who hears it “gets”, and it will undoubtedly be popular. In New York, not so much, but Paul isn’t running for Hillary’s senate seat. He knows his supporters, and this is excellent “coding” to rally them around him. There’s a kind of “morality: in that, to be sure, but not of the kind I find appealing. People outside Kentucky know quite well how to interpret this code, it’s just that they have a different moral code of their own that finds this repellent.
This doesn’t mean that Paul is a racist. It just means he’s signaling to his electorate that he’s rather indifferent to racism, and certainly wouldn’t let the government lift a finger to stop it if he had his way. But he’s also signaling, that since he doesn’t get to have his way, he’s not about to call for the repeal of the CRA. Just that, if it weren’t already the law of the land, he’d be against it. On “principle” of course.
RedPhillips:
Well I see the PC jihadists are out in force on this thread. How dare anyone question the constitutionality of the CRA. . . . The CRA WAS UNCONSTITUTIONAL on enumerated powers grounds. Period. End of discussion. If you disagree then feel free to point me to the Article and Section or Amendment that authorizes federal regulation of private businesses in such a manner.
That’s actually not what was under discussion. Rand Paul criticized parts of the CRA on private property grounds which would also have applied to similar enactments at the state or local level.
In the Maddow interview Paul analogized property rights to First and Second Amendment rights, and made a murky allusion to the Commerce Clause. But he never clearly expressed the view that the CRA is unconstitutional, on enumerated powers or any other grounds.
Perhaps Paul did ‘question the constitutionality of the CRA’ in some other venue, but he did not in the Maddow interview, nor the earlier ones with NPR or the Louisville Courier-Journal.
But repetitive . . . posts along the lines of “Oh the horror! . . . Someone had a stray un-PC thought on the Civil Rights Act” is being a PC thought policer and a good little Cultural Marxist.
Well, then, the first Cultural Marxist thought policer on the list would be Rand Paul himself. He can’t seem to discuss this subject without expressing a bit of horror at his own opinions.
In the Courier-Journal interview, Rand said ‘You had to ask me the “but”‘, with an embarrassed laugh. At the beginning of the Maddow interview he seemed displeased at being confronted with recordings of his own words, calling them ‘quite a collection’.
The entire Courier-Journal interview can be viewed at
http://hotair.com/archives/2010/05/19/npr-to-rand-paul-would-you-have-voted-for-the-civil-rights-act/
It’s an hour and six minutes. The discussion of the CRA is between 1:00 and 1:03.
What, for God’s sake, is a “cultural marxist”? It’s not in my dictionary, so if it means something specific, by all means let’s hear about it.
Is it something like “from each according to his cultural abilities, and to each according to his cultural needs”? If so, sign me up.
Daniel – the tone on this comment thread is not up to the usual standards here. I’ve noticed that this happens a lot when you talk about the controversies of the moment. I think it had much more to do with political tribalism than your contribution to the discussion.
conradg:
Is it something like “from each according to his cultural abilities, and to each according to his cultural needs”?
I think its that cultural conflict replaces class conflict as the driver of social evolution.
“What, for God’s sake, is a “cultural marxist”?”
Put what is Cultural Marxism into Yahoo and you will get all the information about it you want. Here is a good start.
http://www.marylandthursdaymeeting.com/Archives/SpecialWebDocuments/Cultural.Marxism.htm
David, I understand that Paul was not primarily making a constitutional argument, although it was an implicitly anti-federal power argument. I am primarily making a constitutionalist argument. Paul was primarily making a libertarian freedom of association argument. If people don’t agree with his freedom of association argument, then reasonably and rationally argue against it as many have. (But usually only after they were done with their feigned “I’m outraged” silliness.) But “OMG, Paul had an un-PC approved thought” hysteria is just PC grandstanding.
I make the constitutionalist vs. freedom of association distinction here.
http://conservativetimes.org/?p=5455
“I think its that cultural conflict replaces class conflict as the driver of social evolution.”
If Marxism is defined as seeing class conflict as the driver of social evolution, how can anything which doesn’t see class conflict as the driver of society be called Marxist? It would, by definition, not be Marxist. So if that’s the definition of “cultural Marxist”, it’s an oxymoron.
conradg:
You are obviously well-spoken and well-read, but a few comments if I may…
“Paul doesn’t care about abstract outcomes such as morality and rationality, he cares about specific things, like getting to create the kind of world that he wants.”
Actually, assuming he is close to being a libertarian, no, that’s not entirely correct. Libertarians are in favor of each individual having the right to create the kind of world they want, within the abilities they have been granted and/or cultivated. That would mean we would have to deal with a great many things each of us may not agree with personally (e.g. living next to a pot smoker or having to listen to the mad ravings of Bill Kristol.) One’s morality should truly be measured more by what one does voluntarily and/or charitably, and not by virtue of governmental demands.
“And in his world, there’s no due process for people who are discriminated against, which Paul presumes will not be himself and his voters, but “other people”.”
Is it impossible for someone who has been discriminated against to recognize that private discrimination, while completely wrong, should not necessarily be illegal?
“If it were Paul and his family who were forced into segregated housing, crappy jobs, or slavery, he’d be singing a different tune, and we all know it.”
Who is suggesting anyone be ‘forced’ into “segregated housing [or] crappy jobs?” And slavery? Who the _____ said anything about slavery?!
Peace be with you.
Note to PainfullyAware:
Capitalizing All Your Words Distracts From Whatever It Was You Were Trying To Say.
Peace be with you.
RedPhillips -
Lind is a genius in terms of military analysis, but his political and social analysis is generally odd at best, and downright laughable at worst (the man is an outright monarchist, which I suppose takes balls, so there’s that.)
In the case of the piece you linked to, it only takes until the second paragraph for him to leave the conventional bounds of analysis, with this line:
” From its beginning, the promoters of cultural Marxism have known they could be more effective if they concealed the Marxist nature of their work, hence the use of terms such as “multiculturalism.””
If I wrote a line like this…
“From its beginning, the promoters of the Tea Parties have known that they could be more effective if they concealed the fascist nature of their work, hence the use of terms such as ‘libertarianism.’”
or….
“From his beginning, Barack Obama’s self-promotion has been more effective by concealing the Secret Communist Muslim nature of his work, hence the use of terms such as ‘hope’ and ‘change.’”
…then I could rightly be dismissed as, at the least, taking a complex whole and distilling it into an overly simplistic stereotype. Perhaps more accurate would be simply stating that lines like that are straightforward tribalist hatemongering.
“Who is suggesting anyone be ‘forced’ into “segregated housing [or] crappy jobs?” And slavery? Who the _____ said anything about slavery?!”
We’re talking about the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which was enacted in the context of a century of forced segregation after two centuries of slavery before that. And yes, black people were forced into segregation, it wasn’t their choice.
The point being that if Paul and his family were facing the kind of discrimination that black people faced in 1964, he’d be singing a different tune about “liberty” and “libertarianism”. Do you disagree?
Blacks are inarguably worse off now than they were in the bad old days of the early ’60s. They might be better off than they were during the wirst years of segregation.
The problem with people like conradg is that for them the constitution is a nicety, to be dispensed with in the case of something that really rubs them the wrong way, like discrimination.
Private discrimination is generally wrong, but the problem is that using the government to correct it basically gives the government power over whom one chooses to associate with, which is a far worse evil than private discrimination. Public discrimination and the creation of an oppressed class of citizens who do not enjoy full protection of the laws, is another matter, and private discrimination, like monopolies, is generally ineffective if it is not backed by government, which is why the abolition of race-specific laws is enough.
In other words, I do not like racists, but I recognize that I have no right to use government to compel a racist to change his views. Someone becomes a liberal when he crosses this line, which is why liberalism inevitably leads to totalitarianism.
Oh, please, rbc & red: Has the U.S. really been a gulag of forced associations since 1964? What specifically about prohibiting businesses from discriminating has created inhumane problems for you?
And next, where does this feds-have-no-right philosophy stop? Should the free market determine our food and drug safety? Should we let banks plunder your accounts because if you’re not satisfied with their performance you can just bank elsewhere? Should BP clean up its oil spill only if it fears a consumer boycott? Is prohibiting child labor an unconscionable restraint on trade?
And “liberalism inevitably becomes totalitarianism”? Good grief, was the problem with history’s evil regimes that they wanted universal health care and a reasonably strong social safety net? I guess that’s why the U.S. is overrun with people trying to emigrate from Sweden.