« The Swifties are dominating the Electoral Conversation. | Main | Terry McCauliffe's Fatal Error »

September 29, 2004



You hit the nail on the head, I think. You should have mentioned Libertarianism, Liberalism, and Born-again-ism too though. All of them are used to disassociate people from their normal thought processes


What bullshit.

It isn't "ideology" which is the threat; it's the fundamentalist notion that ideas don't have to be tested against real-world circumstances. This makes leftist notions such as "communism" or even "socialism" just as dangerous as rightist notions such as "fascism" or even "supply-side economics". These examples are not bad ideas in and of themselves; they have good things within them, but need testing against real-world circumstances to find their limits ("communism", for example, works in small communities which themselves have the reality check of open immigration and emigration).

Thus other ideologies such as "libertarianism" or "anarchism" also need tests to find their limits, strengths, and weaknesses.

It's when you take an ideologist and allow them to run fundamentalist that things get dangerous. "The fundamentals are more important than your suffering."


To: AdrianSpidle

Your definition of ideology (and the premise of your whole piece) is horrendously wrong.

You might as well write about the evil of verbs because without verbs people couldn't actually do anything evil.

Adrian Spidle

To: blanknoone

Could you explain that? PLEASE.


To: AdrianSpidle

From dictionary.com:

1. The body of ideas reflecting the social needs and aspirations of an individual, group, class, or culture. 2. A set of doctrines or beliefs that form the basis of a political, economic, or other system.

Ideology is a body of ideas. The concept of bodies of ideas is not good or evil or a danger. Particular idealogies can be good or evil or dangerous, but ideology is not and cannot be. Capitalism, conservatism, and even Christianity can be construed as ideologies as much as communism, nazism or Islamism. Ideology is not the problem. Particular ideologies are.

Adrian Spidle

To: blanknoone

There is a certain sense to your answer but you are missing the point I'm trying to make, which is -

Ideas are only useful when they are are based in reality, and ideologies are only valuable if they actually work and produce results.

Therefore, I believe that ALL practitioners of ALL ideologies are out of touch with reality. They confuse the picture of the hamburger on the menu with the actual hamburger.


I agree with your first point, and fail to see how you get to your second point, despite your use of 'therefore'. Your (false) presumption is that no set of ideas is based in reality.

Adrian Spidle

To: blanknoone

"I agree with your first point, and fail to see how you get to your second point, despite your use of 'therefore'. Your (false) presumption is that no set of ideas is based in reality."

Ideologies are based in syntax not reality.

By contrast, scientific theories are tested against reality and are only accepted if they are confirmed in the lab.

I assert that there is a science to economics and governance that has evolved in the real world and can be discovered and applied with experimentation.

Failed concepts should be discarded and successful concepts need to be incorporated in Economics and Governance. This is the opposite of ideology wherein practitioners "hold the course" long after it becomes obvious that their ideas are failing in the real world.

BTW, I am certain that Lassez-faire market economics is the "natural" state of human affairs that has evolved over human history and is not an ideology.

The comments to this entry are closed.