Dr. Frank's What's-it

Well, political activities in the Boston area are very liberal left, but spiced up by local loonies inhabiting the seats of power, in reality, pushed into 'stuff' by the behind-the-scenes power-retaining oldies. Makes life interesting, if not down-right bizarre, at times.

As a Canadian commie, I find Berkeley, despite its liberal trappings, to be...now sit down...very conversative. What passes for liberal is really the pasttime of those who are self-indulgent and moneyed enough to annoy the rest of the world in the pursuit of their own creature comforts. Legislating coffee? Having the cash to put itself on every frikking initiative in the California world? Considering oneself humanitarian because at the monthly church feed the homeless events, one prepares rich food because "the homeless deserve to eat well too"...never mind that they'll throw it up because their diet isn't used to cream and butter? And at the same time, personally serving the "guests", not because it's more egalitarian than cafeteria-style, but because "we can control portions"? Driving by the striking "People's Radio" employees in a BMW and shouting out "power to the people" while looking for a parking spot close to the Cheese Board?

Lots in Berkeley talk the liberal talk, but if it means giving up the eighteen varieties of heirloom tomatoes, I doubt many would walk the liberal walk. And that's neither liberal nor conservative...it's Walnut Creek without the tans and free parking.

"a recognition that nobody knows everything, and the truth is probably some synthesis of conflicting positions."

AKA "common sense."

So "centrist" just means someone who recognizes that no major or minor political party is correct one-hundred percent of the time... am I right? Like, the polar opposite of centrism would be "foolishness?"

I'm curious as to what else being a centrist encompasses, because it seems like that can't be the extent of it. Or, if that *is* the extent of it, I suppose you could just say "I'm a centrist," and then discuss whatever particular issue is at hand using common sense and reason.

The trouble is, sometimes there really is no middle ground between two conflicting positions, at least not in practical terms. The flip side of the tenet that "no side is ever 100% right" is "sometimes one side IS 100% (or very close to it) right." Now it may not ALWAYS, or even OFTEN be 100% right, but on some particular issue it may be. In that case, centrism falls apart as a viable way of determining where you stand on a particular issue. (What if both sides are basically wrong, as well.) I guess to put it plainly, sometimes one side is right, and sometimes another is, and having the wisdom and reason to know which is which is key.

Jane: that's like saying Rome is not really a Catholic town because so many people have premarital sex. I think if hypocrisy is your standard for political/ideological classification, you're gonna have a hard time labeling most places/people.

Yes, Geoff, that's exactly what I was getting at: I am indeed one of a tiny handful of enlightened souls who alone are capable of exercising common sense. ;-)

Seriously, what I was really getting at is the idea that it is worthwhile to seek to avoid ideological rigidity, indeed to eschew ideology entirely insofar as it is possible. Of course, no one thinks of themselves as ideologically rigid, but in practice that's how most people behave and in even in many cases how they really tend to see themselves. Ones crude ideological label becomes a kind of ersatz identity. There's a degree to which this can be a mere facon de parler, certainly, shorthand for denoting a tendency, a general, but not necessarily binding, way of looking at the world, or even (less justifiably perhaps) simply an aesthetically preferred manner or mode of behavior or way of speaking. That's its origin, presumably, and its legitimate application. But the figurative language can become reified, indistinguishable from that which it purports to elucidate all too often. In my experience anyway. And for my part, the only way I've discovered to guard against the tendency is a kind of active refusal to participate in it, and to object or mock when others do it. (Not that I'm holding myself up as a paragon of ideology-free living or anything. I'm a complainer, not a solver. But if you'd like to contribute to my Technique for Living Movement, I'd be happy to send out a brochure.)

"Centrism" literally isn't the best term, of course, but I find myself grasping for it when I feel the urge to distinguish myself from those who go around saying "Look at me! I'm a Liberal! Where's my medal?" or "Conservative! Conservative! We won the game! Gooooo Team!" That's a caricature, certainly, but you know people do it. For many people, most people I know really, it would not be possible to come up with a caricature more reductive than the one they live and breathe.

And yea verily, I am aware that there's an irony in seeming to embrace a label for the label-averse. But it's not really about labels, per se. Anyway, if this turns into a big discussion of the usefulness or true meaning of political labels, I'm afraid I must warn in advance that I probably won't be able to participate all that much because I'm going to be recording in a couple of weeks and I can't afford to hurt my brain too much till its over. But I think Steven den Beste's recent attempt at such a taxonomy is pretty good.

(Of course, there is a literal meaning of "centrism" that is more or less appropriate, when used to refer to the "broad center" between the loony extremes of the political continuum. I'd place myself there, too, of course, but that's another issue entirely.)

And Jane, you're right of course. Somewhere around 90% (rough estimate) of political identity is pretension and pure attitude (attitude in the literal sense of how, rather than where, you stand.)

Frank- I hope that winking guy means you know I wasn't trying to be sarcastic. =)

My question for you would then be, What if your ideology is based in reason, provable facts, and logic? That's not an ideology that I would seek to avoid. Granted, people are emotional and they sometimes base their decisions on something other than what they're conscious of, but I don't see the harm (nay, hehe, I see great benefits) in at least *attempting* to pursue logic and reason. Even emotions are ultimately rooted in reason, no matter if someone decides they got mad or miserable or elated "for no reason." There's still a reason, regardless of how easy it is to identify.

I say this as someone who's got friends whose ideology seems to be "Nobody is always right, because everybody is stupid" and they leave it at that. That's no ideology, or at least if it is, it's no more useful than not having an ideology at all.

My gripe isn't with the idea of centrism you're putting forth... it's more with individuals who don't pursue it beyond "Nobody can ever know anything, so why bother, whatever conclusion I come to will probably be wrong."

Dr. Frank by way of explaining why he's "centrist", writes:

"it is worthwhile to seek to avoid ideological rigidity, indeed to eschew ideology entirely insofar as it is possible"

Some people would say that this is the quintessentially conservative attitude (small-c, not in any sense necessarily connected with the Republican Party).

Wouldn't the quintessentially conservative attitude be conservation? To conserve things, as opposed to being liberal with them? In general? Hence the two different sides. Black and white, up and down, yin and yang, etc.? One protects the status quo, the other wants to change it?

Sorry for all the question marks.

Of course, it depends on what the meaning of "conservative" is. ;-) I refer to adages, which are embraced by at least some people who call themselves conservative, such as "conservatism is the negation of ideology", which may or may not be true but in any event expresses the same anti-ideology sentiment Dr. Frank did, which is why I made the comment.

The idea that "conservative" and "liberal" are simple opposite poles between which there is that happy "center" which Dr. Frank claims to seek makes sense if you define those words to mean, for example, "the ideology that wants to conserve the status quo" and "the ideology that wants to change things", or any other such pair, of course. I'm not sure I accept those definitions however. For example, I basically think of myself as both "conservative" AND "liberal". (But perhaps that simply means I am a logical impossibility and therefore don't exist ;-)

Frank makes a valid point in not affiliating himself with either of the major politcal parties. Politics in my experience, while interesting, are usually only useful when trying to start an argument or heated debate. In truth, politicians are 99% of the time not the true representitives of the people that they were intended to be. The politicians are usually wealthy lawyers who feed the lines to the public that they want to hear while all the while plotting ways to further advance their balance of power and political career. The politicians do not serve the people, they serve themselves and their lobbyists. Hopefully, one day the politicians can once again become civil servants and the common-man will be able to represent his peers as an equal, as someone who has been and perhaps still is in the same social and financial culture as the people who've elected him/her to serve them. Unil that time comes, if ever, we can only choose the one that we believe will do the least amount of damage to our way of life and our culture. The populous as a whole is too easily led and manipulated, so don't overthink it into being party-line voting or electing a natural born leader who will bring the country to the promised-land because neither will be true, the most we can do by electing the "correct" politician for us is damage control.

“The White Line’s in the middle of the road; that’s the worst place to be.”
-Roddy Piper as Nada in John Carpenter’s They Live.

The first time I comment in your blog, and I bring in an obscure pro-wrestling reference. I apologize for living in such a tiny and insular world, Dr. Frank, but at least, as you well now, I ride the White Line passionately.

For those who may not realize it I would like to point out that passionate White Line-rider Bobby J. is the current bass player of the MTX, and the only semi-professional wrestler I have ever known. And any comment on a philosophical question that rests on a quote from Rowdy Roddy Piper automatically wins the blue ribbon for Best Comment in my book.

There are a lot of interesting points here, and I wish I had time to do them all justice. To be clear: I wasn't talking at all about political parties. I don't think there is a "happy center" between "liberal" and "conservative," no matter what you define them as (if it's even possible). I certainly don't believe that all (or really any) questions can be answered and the truth found simply by finding the middle ground between two conflicting positions. Some things are all the way right, and some are 100% wrong. And as far as I can tell these are never the same things. (And Name is right: that does make me a conservative in a fairly real sense.)

Geoff, I hope you don't have such a low opinion of me that you place me in company with the nihilists you describe. (Here's the winking man again: ;-) I'm certainly not opposed to reason, or a reasoned, principled approach to sorting out life's problems in the way that you describe. I suppose my feeling that "having" an ideology is a bad thing is partly akin to, or in aid of approximating or enabling an approach to (though perhaps not quite identical with) the program of the man who aspires to be a lover of wisdom rather than a lover of opinion.

So, Bobby J is Gabe or is Gabe not playing bass any more? I'm confused.

No, Bobby J. is Gabe's successor.

I wish I had a dime for every extremist that claimed to be a centrist. Every pessimist that said he was a realist. Every dialectic antagonist that said he was a synthesist. I'm not saying that applies to you Doktor, just pointing out that labels and self-labelers skew around in the great funhouse. Too many dimensions like time and place, the coastal B cities for instance vs. the b-squared Bible belt. Victorian vs. Great Society Camelot best and brightest. Personally, I don't think we get to label ourselves except to make a future mockery of our own insight into ourselves when the inevitable relatively extreme position comes along. The looking glass self is cloudy at best, delusional and vain at its worst. To blatantly testify centrist! invites the sniggers of the rest of the continuum. ~mikey

I've never used the Centrist label - I prefer "independent." I know that's a political party of its own, so maybe they own the label, but I think it fits more than "centrist." I'm not actually middle-of-the-road, I'm closer to the left, I just think some of left is full of it and seriously see some things very differently (as for the right, I think a lot of them are full of it, although, like many others, I've been called "conservative" for views that I don't really think are conservative at all, it's just that conservatives may agree with me, but often for different reasons). It's more than politics, of course, but I think once you start getting partisan, not being able to see the bad on "your side" or the good on the other, you do lose a certain amount of objectivity, and, yes, common sense. I respect partisans on either side who can be objective, though, and I know that there are many. Maybe not as many as I'd like, but oh well.

Mikey, I'm sure you're right. Snigger away, foiks.

I have a *high* opinion of you, sir! =) For two reasons: 1) You make terrific records that I dig very much, and 2) you say things like "I'm certainly not opposed to reason, or a reasoned, principled approach to sorting out life's problems in the way that you describe." That's more or less what I'm saying when I go on about my own ideology-type-thing.

You semi-lost me with your last sentence about your feelings towards "having" an ideology, but my impression is that your skepticism towards "having" (in the sense of "sticking to like glue") an ideology is parallel to your reluctance to shut out more subjective things, like peoples' opinions. If I'm right about that, then I completely understand where you're coming from. (If I misinterpreted you though, feel free to tell me that I am a doof.) If I were to sum up my own take on this, it would go something like "Reality exists independently of anyone's ability to observe it. Given that, when you observe (listen to) 'End of the Century,' do you ever think about what it would sound like if someone other than Phil Spector produced it?" or something like that.

I hope that makes some kinda sense. In other words, my goal isn't to make myself adhere to any rules other than the ones found in nature (gravity, etc) and the ones that we as a society (a large group of individuals) have more-or-less agreed on obeying in order to have... well, order. So we don't all kill each other. Beyond that, my goals are just to do things that I like, and not impose my will on anyone else. (sounds overly simple, I know, but I'm trying to boil it all down to the basics, for the purpose of explaining how my ideology fits with what I think and observe)

My Rowdy Roddy 'They Live' quote has got to be: "I came here to kick ass and chew bubblegum. And I'm all outta bubblegum." Legend has it that he improvised that line right out of the blue... gotta love that guy.

Sorry this post was so long and batshit crazy. =)

It's true that there is no middle ground in some cases--during WWII it wouldn't make sense to be a little bit Nazi and a little bit democratic.

But in the American we live in today, I have enough respect for both liberals and conservatives to listen to what they have to say. There are smart people on both sides of the divide, so it's definitely not a case of one side being stupid. As for one side being "evil," that's a theological judgement, but in my experience, the left-right spectrum doesn't correlate strongly with the nice/jerk scale.

People have different life experiences and they make some good people conservative and some liberal. The "truth" is in the summation of all these different experiences.

That said, I'm a sucker for all the lefty university towns like Cambridge, Berkeley, or Ann Arbor.

Rick, this is right on, and as usual well- and economically-put.

Absolutely, Rick. Wise, and well-said, and I agree wholeheartedly.

But at the risk of beating a dead horse here... those words can't be considered an ideology. (Though I realize you didn't preface them with "Here is my ideology.")

Now, I only bring this up in order to clarify a certain concept. Like I said, I agree 100%, to-the-T, A-plus, thumbs-up with Rick's statements. The reason I want to bitch and moan about such statements falling short of comprising an ideology is because I myself have personally dealt with people who *do* attempt to make a worldview out of no more than such statements, and in doing so, fail to come to any conclusions whatsoever; they get lost in simply saying "Everyone has good points. Everyone has good points."

Etc.

An ideology isn't just a realization that no one side is correct about everything and that every side has valid points; it has to entail actual, concrete views that the holder is basing on some kind of principle. "I like the color red" isn't an ideology, any more than "I don't like the color blue" is. For an example: In general, libertarians believe in the principle of self-ownership, and base their lassiez-faire ideology off of it. At any rate, a skepticism towards "taking sides" does not preclude one from having a coherent ideology. I guess that's the point I'm taking forever to try and make.

Tell me to shut up, tell me I'm just arguing the semantics of the word "ideology," and I'll happily shut up and apologize for belaboring this point that seems to get more minor with every word I write about it.

Heh, I gotta jump on the "being a centrist is a cop out" bandwagon.

The best rule of thumb is reflect and opine on issues with sincerity and you will categorically end up on one side of the aisle or the other, to some varying degree. Certainly more respectable to picking teams and swearing by them.

Of course, then you get the Ben Stein-types, loyal to the cause, but ineffably kind. With sincerity! I think Dr. Frank said it best that an ideology that spends more time seeking out heretics than converts deserves to be kicked in the balls.

"an ideology that spends more time seeking out heretics than converts deserves to be kicked in the balls."

Absolutely, yes. =)

I still like the term 'contrarian' but it has a less appealing connotation for me since I read Hitchens' contribution to the "Letters to a Young..." series.

Anyway, this post/comments made me think of Isaiah Berlin's fox/hedgehog conceit from his amazing essay on Tolstoy. There's a pretty strong Aristotelian/Platonic component, but it's not exactly that as Berlin expands the metaphor. I think this might get at an aspect of Geoff's questions too.

The line that starts Berlin is from the greek poet Archilocus: "The fox knows many things, but the hedgehog knows one big thing."

"...there exists a great chasm between those, on one side, who relate everything to a single central vision, one system less or more coherent or articulate, in terms of which they understand, think and feel...and, on the other side, those who pursue many ends, often unrelated and even contradictory, connected, if at all, only in some de facto way...lead lives perform acts and entertain ideas that are centrifugal rather than centripetal..."

Anyway, just to separate the psychological and ideological...

A They Live quote not involving chewing bubblegum or kicking ass...*whistles*

Geoff, insofar as we have a disagreement here, it is indeed a semantic one. You're using the word "ideology" as it is often used colloquially, to mean a general outlook or attitude toward life, which may be good or bad depending on its usefulness or applicability.

I'm using it in its original and strict sense: a massive system of attitudes, prejudices and pre-ordained postures, spun into seeming coherence through sophistry, designed to exert control over the thought and behavior of the mass of humanity, to punish, ostracize (and in not-so-rare instances murder) heretics/dissenters, and to function in effect as an ersatz political religion. Even in the diluted and relatively harmless tribalism embodied in the sectarian allegiances of contemporary American mainstream political culture, a more benign form of this ideological impulse is widespread and easily detectable. And, I think, extremely undesirable.

Essentially, it reflects a desire to have your opinions handed to you in toto by the administrators of your chosen sect rather than arriving at them through careful analysis of actual experience, and to avoid the difficulty and inconvenience of an honest, inherently frustrating, engagement with reality. I'm not saying, of course, that ideology always presupposes an eventual essay at mass murder (though it did over and over in the last century); but at minimum, the work of the ideologists has been a major cause of the inanity and vacuousness of what passes for political discourse in our contemporary culture. Regardless of the relative seriousness of the consequences, I think it is perhaps understandable, but still quite literally insane, to contrive to place oneself voluntarily in an ideological straight-jacket.

In more practical terms, Spacetoast's Isaiah Berlin reference and quotation is extremely apt. (Thanks very much for the reference, ST, which I think is going to come in handy in future.) Next time someone asks you "what" I am, don't say "Dr. Frank is a centrist." Say: "Dr. Frank is a fox." I like that a whole lot better. Seriously, though, those who get their ideas only from one place (I repeat: most people I know, read and have met, though I've read Geoff's blog for some time now and I wouldn't place him in that category) are, to put it as kindly as possible, not taking full advantage of the gifts God has granted them. And those who strive to behave in this fashion, who see such behavior itself as being somehow inherently virtuous and praiseworthy (a great, great many, in my experience) probably deserve the limitations they place upon themselves.

Looking over my original post, I believe my mistake was the careless characterization of Rick Heller's admirable formulation about centrism as a "definition." That was the wrong word. Still, I think it's true, and quite a good thing to consider the next time you're trying to figure out whether you want to "be" liberal or conservative.

I think it's pretty true, at least in the U.S., that many folks (maybe most) don't have a clear idea of what a "centrist" is. They might be more familiar with the term "moderate", but even in that case may not associate it with an actual political perspective -- an alternative to other approaches to politics.

That's probably less true in other democratic countries, especially parliamentary democracies where there is often a very active centrist party.

Let me share a few personal thoughts about what this word "centrist" might mean.

First of all, there are a variety of ways to be a centrist. If you mix a lot of views from one side of the spectrum with a lot from the other side, you're a centrist. If you try to find a "middle ground" on most issues and kind of "split the difference" between both sides, you are also a centrist (but I would argue a weaker centrist than the first type).

I'm a centrist because I follow the left, generally, on cultural issues like abortion, gay rights, and church/state separation ... but I follow the right generally on fiscal and economic issues.

One can be a centrist by adopting the opposite perspective -- culturally conservative but fiscally liberal -- and many do. There's a fairly significant strain of thought among many Catholics that runs along those lines -- folks who are strongly pro-life, but also supportive of a lot of social programs that they consider "pro-family".

However, there is also what I think of as a leading, or perhaps dominant, strain of thought among centrists in the U.S. It's reflected in the fact that most of our leading centrist groups have a similar overall perspective.

On the Democratic side, the leading centrist group is the Democratic Leadership Council. The leading Republican group is the Republican Main Street Partnership. And there are various other centrist groups, like the Republican Youth Majority or the Concord Coalition. I can point you to a more complete list, with links, if you're interested.

These groups tend to phrase their overall views using phrases like "fiscally responsible but socially inclusive" -- something that indicates their tendency to swing to the right on fiscal/economic matters but the left on cultural matters.

Thus, the DLC is often referred to as the "pro-business Democrats". They largely agree with other Democrats on issues like abortion and gay rights, but diverge from liberal orthodoxy on economic matters. Conversely, the single most common issue of divergence between conservative Republicans and centrist Republicans is abortion. The RMSP is chock full of pro-choice Republicans, many from northeastern states.

That is what I view as the "main" thread of thought in the centrist movement, and it's the part I identify with personally.

Some, by the way, have tried to use the word "libertarian", or perhaps even "moderate libertarian" to describe this perspective. And it is directionally similar to the libertarian philosophy. But the libertarians are so much more radical in their views regarding the role of government that, to me, it seems more sensible and fitting to have our own basic label -- centrist.

If I gave the impression that I meant to use "ideology" in colloquial sense, then I apologize. Throughout writing stuff in this thread, I've been thinking of "ideology" in terms of its dictionary definition, which is "the body of ideas reflecting the social needs and aspirations of an individual, group, class, or culture" or "A set of doctrines or beliefs that form the basis of a political, economic, or other system." Let's say I'm going with definition Number Two there.

In other words, I think it'd be a little more than just a general way of leading one's life, but somewhat less than what you put it forth as (as far as a set of rigorous doctrines designed to control entire populations, etc.) Yes, any given ideology can (and often does) end up being viewed that way by its proponents and skeptics alike, but I don't think that this fact renders useless the entire concept of having an ideology. At all.

I much prefer forming my own opinions on things, based on whatever information I can gather, to be sure. As I understand it, your (for lack of a better word) 'gripe' is not with anyone who claims to have an ideology, but rather with people whose need to take ideological sides *takes precedence over* their willingness to gather information from *all* sides. On this we agree.

Maybe what I haven't been able to articulate adequately here is that "my" ideology allows for and encourages exactly what we're talking about: critical thinking, objective listening, etc. If I said that my ideology is great but that I'm also open to other ones, it would be exactly like saying "I believe that reason, rationality, and applied critical thinking are the best ways to go about solving problems... except for sometimes, when you should just throw a dart or flip a coin" and that would pretty much negate the entire idea of reason and rationality being what they are.

I'll always agree that automatically assigning oneself to any particular left or right, liberal or conservative, Democrat or Republican "side" is indeed condemning oneself to not being able to know all that one *could* know about a particular issue.

With all of this comes the wisdom in realizing that if someone says "I'm a Republican," they don't also HAVE to be a Bible-thumping redneck moralizer, and that if someone says "I'm a Democrat," they don't also HAVE to be a tree-hugging hippie flea farm, and that anyone who DOES come to conclusions like those is probably being blinded by their own ideology, as per the way you defined the word.

There are those people who *do* want their opinions handed to them, people who will say "my ideology is STRICTLY the liberal/conservative/whatever one," but these people aren't the kinds of folks who were gonna do a lot of thinking on their own in the first place. I'll echo what Matt-from-Vegas said, that if you "reflect and opine on issues with sincerity... you will categorically end up on one side of the aisle or the other, to some varying degree." These are people to whom *having* an ideology comes second to *figuring stuff out for themselves.* I like to think I'm in that category.

(I'm unsure as to what you meant, Frank, as far as which category you wouldn't place me in-- people who get their ideas from only one place, or people you've read for a while)

The only limitations I place on *myself* are the ones that I have observed as being universally true: If I let go of something heavy, it falls to the ground. Etc. From there, I feel secure in drawing my own conclusions: "Don't let go of things that will break if you don't want them to break."

That's how "my" ideology works. Why do I think that such a stunning example of what should be common sense is an "ideology" to me? Because lots and lots and lots of people don't even think *that* far. Lots of people refuse to let go of things just because their mom, or their favorite celebrity, or the Bible, or the President simply told them not to.

*That's* what I don't buy into, and *that* is the problem that I'll venture to say that we both have with people who claim to subscribe to ideologies.

Geoff, I'm sorry my tortured syntax failed to make my meaning clear: I was trying insert into that sentence an indication that, though you raised the issue, you are clearly not anything like the doctrinaire idealogues I was discussing. I just wanted to be clear on that, in case I'd left any doubt. I guess I messed that one up pretty good, didn't I? ;-)

I suppose what it boils down to is still a semantic issue, though perhaps one with a psychological angle: for you, the word "ideology" has neutral to positive connotations it just doesn't have for me. When I hear someone say with pride "let me tell you about my ideology," I have roughly the same reaction I'd have if he were to say with pride "let me tell you about my degenerative skin condition": surprise, puzzlement, perhaps a faint tinge of revulsion. I think your dictionary's definition leaves out the element of coercion that I believe is, to a greater or less degree, a more or less essential feature of modern ideologies in their pure form, from National Socialism on down. Of course, nothing in mainstream American political culture is anywhere near as bad as National Socialism. Of course. Not even remotely close. Yet, though I concede I may well be wrong, I believe I can detect a hint of the desire to coerce/be coerced even in the banal, vapid mutual condemnation ritual between the cartoon "liberals" and the cartoon "conservatives" that populate our cartoon television news networks and cartoon "non-fiction" best-seller lists. And in their ditto-heads. This negative reaction to "ideology" is more visceral than analytical, I concede, though I believe I can defend it on either basis. But I recognize that mine is the more idiosyncratic view round these parts.

I've noticed that people who advocate or propound this or that ideology tend to sound more reasonable in inverse proportion to how many of its "principles" they insist upon, or how strident they are in requiring adherence to the ones they do insist upon. That is, ideologies fare better, and seem less threatening and more applicable to reality, in the hands of the less ideological. I draw no conclusion from that observation, but it seems to me that when an instrument or mechanism is of more use the less you use it, it's worth considering how much you gain from using it at all.

Of course, there's absolutely nothing objectionable, and a great deal to admire, in your flexible world-view based upon reasonable principles derived from common sense application of conclusions drawn from observable facts. I just wouldn't call this an "ideology" as you do.

Sorry to jump in here after so much dialogue (polylogue?) has gone on. It seems to me that this discussion is exposing the problem of using "left-right-center" descriptions: all the terms are relative, and the position of all 3 can shift over time. William Swann accurately describes the DLC and calls them "centrist," which is how they describe themselves. This is accurate, but only because the general scope of American politics has become so very conservative in the past 30 years. Republican presidents like Nixon and Eisenhower proposed policies that would be considered cooky-left these days: Nixon introduced price supports, the Earned Income Tax Credit (which current GOPers denounce as welfare), and the EPA. Ike warned the nation in his farewell address about the military industrial complex and, more radically, gave a nationally-broadcast speech in 1953 calling for international treaties limiting the size of national military budgets, establishing UN inspections for "weapons of great destructiveness," and famously characterized the "way of life" during Cold War-era military budgets as "humanity hanging from a cross of iron." Just 20 years earlier, FDR spoke of "malefactors of great wealth" and created the New Deal, which originally included direct Federal control of wages and prices -- and he was denounced by the socialists, who ran Debs for president, and by Communists for being a centrist!

In 1970, the centrist position on Medicare and Social Security was to keep the status quo. Privatising either or creating individual "retirement" accounts in Social Security would have been an extreme right wing stand. Now, the DLC supports both formerly "right wing" positions. Obviously, anyone is free to change their mind based on changing values or evidence. (I personally feel that the DLC's position are based on pure (and misguided) political opportunism, which they basically admit by calling themselves the "electable" wing of the Dems.) And if your personal beliefs happen to put you in the present center of the American political spectrum, then for now you're a centrist. But it doesn't make much sense to me to just say that everyone's ideas have some validity and the truth is just in principle always in the middle -- to say that means you'll probably be changing your position constantly, not because of what you think, feel or believe but just because of the platforms of the major parties.

The key question seems to me to be, "Does having a positive vision of how you think our society should be make you an inflexible ideologue?" I think that the best politics always involves such a vision, and that it's possible to be pragmatic while practicing politics this way.

Dr. Frank-

Ahhh. Now I think I getcha. The way you explained the coercion factor that's present in most ideologies, that's what made the "I understand" light bulb finally flicker to life above my head. And this-- "I've noticed that people who advocate or propound this or that ideology tend to sound more reasonable in inverse proportion to how many of its "principles" they insist upon" is right-on as well. I might (well, I won't, but I think it's possible that I'd be able to) contest the second part of that (the part about people being adamant about reality sticking to their principles) on behalf of ideologies whose only principles are ideas rooted firmly (firmly!) in provable facts, reality, etc.

But at any rate, I think I'm pickin' up what you're puttin' down, at last. =) I'd have grasped it sooner, but I think I got lost in my own verbage here and just ended up confusing myself. Reading over your comments now, you were being clearer than I originally thought (with the exception of that one sentence... thanks for clearing that up, hehe).

And you're right-- from everything I've said here so far, I wouldn't call what I'm saying an ideology either; due to a combination of lack of time and my own inability to articulate what I mean in this case, I just haven't put my thoughts forth in a solid or coherent enough way for them to rightly be called an ideology. Worldview is more like it, indeed.

I hope this doesn't read as a cheap cop-out, but I *will* say that it's my belief that there is a way to expand on the worldview I've clumsily put forth here and form it into what could be considered an ideology, a consistent system of ideas and ways of looking at things, but... I don't think I'd be able to do so here and now. I've got a lot more reading (philosophy, economics, metaphysics) to do before I'll have enough faith in my own ability to outline this stuff.

Yeah, that kinda reads like a cop-out. I dunno what else to say, though. =)

Wait-- I can say one other thing. I'll preface it by saying that I'm in *no* way an Atlas-Shrugged-regurgitating "Randroid" incapable of having feelings or considering other possibilities, but... Objectivism is the closest thing I've read about to what I think I'm trying to say, as far as a philosophy rooted in rational principles, etc. My question to you is, are you at all familiar with objectivism? Mr. Weasel mentioned on his blog recently that it's been his experience, more or less, that self-proclaimed Objectivists are more cold-hearted robot than warm-blooded human, and I've been trying to put my somewhat limited knowledge of Rand to use in explaining that objectivists just wanna have fun, like everyone else. I'm just having trouble trimming it down in my head to less than a quadrillion words, give or take. =)

Anyway: Objectivism-- yay or nay?