I am more ideological than political. I recognize that
participation in the political world is necessary in order to prevent those
with opposing ideologies from imposing them on me. But I do not enjoy the
political game. I am much more content to talk about ideas, and I would like to
trust that wording things well so that everyone can make informed decisions
will lead to the right outcome. That is, in large part, my mission here at the
Spherical Model.
Meanwhile, what politically minded people know is that
ideology only wins if the politics win—if the movement of public opinion is
handled like a well-advertised business. Not enough people are thinkers. Not
enough people pay attention. Yes, it’s important that I explore the ideas and
think clearly, for my own sake and for sharing with others. But that is not
enough.
This is an off-election year, so I don’t feel as pressed to
engage politically. But maybe that makes it a good time to explore a discomfort
zone without undue pressure.
I came across a discussion of this dichotomy over the
weekend. The spelling (and bio of the author, Stephen Masty) show a British or beyond-American
perspective, but the conversation applies to America nevertheless. The overall
piece makes a few main points:
· Progressives don’t engage in truthful
ideological discussion; instead, they claim a desire to serve mankind and other
untruths that sell.
· Politicians, whether they claim progressive or
conservative ideologies, are about building power; that is the profit they seek
in their peculiar market-view.
· Because growth of their circle of power is the goal,
cutting back big government isn’t going to get done by politicians.
But the piece ended with the challenge I find I face:
Real conservatives, noble and reflective for the most part,
usually debate an idea on its merits and avoid stooping to conquer. They ought
to reconsider. It is not to say that conservatives should stop dissecting the
misdirections and false hopes of the Progressives, but they must also engage in
real-politik and expose the political agendas behind the platitudes; some
groups do this already. How the bureaucracy and politicians benefit by
department and function and overall, will reveal their greed for their own
kinds of profit.
But exposure requires research, which is harder work than
sitting in the study with Aristotle, Jefferson and even Russell Kirk. Both
tasks are essential; one to provide cultural bearings and civilisational
direction, the other to sell the product to a cynical multitude that is already
suspicious of politicians.
It might be true, then, that we need to learn or discover
ways to “sell” the truths of freedom, free enterprise, and civilization, rather
than just “convey” them.
If we were to look at the last presidential election, we’d
find this challenge laid out. Romney conveyed conservative ideology—always. He
had done so consistently for many years before even his first run. You can’t
find non-conservative ideas, unless you parse a phrase here and there during
his challenging effort to convey the ideas to people who don’t understand conservative principles. The enemy portrayed him, successfully and completely untruthfully,
as privileged and out of touch with real people, to build class envy against
someone who knew, through experience, how to fix complicated problems—in business,
in government, in volunteer organizations; combining brilliant business sense,
strong use of data, and unerring integrity. Everything I knew about Romney
before the election, and what I have continued to see since, is that no
candidate has ever been better qualified, while also being a completely
honorable individual, to be our president in our times. The difference between him and our current president is stunningly stark. [I wrote about Romney here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.]
But on the conservative side, he is still spoken of as the
wrong candidate, because he wasn’t conservative enough—according to the
arguments of only his enemies (primary opponents, followed by final election
opponents) instead of actual known facts about the man.
I don’t think he ran a bad campaign. But I think there may
be some truth in the assessment that honorable conservatives go into the debate
assuming it’s about ideas. The enemy goes in assuming it’s about grabbing
power, any and every way possible, and any means to that end are justified in
their minds.
I don’t know the answer to how truth tellers can move the
masses. When we look at Reagan, that is what he seemed to
President Ronald Reagan 1981 official portrait |
I don’t think you’ll find significant ideological
differences between Reagan and Romney. I think in Romney you would see peace
through strength as a guiding principle, and limited government as designed by
the Constitution a guide for economic recovery. Both men can be described as
resolute and consistent in their conservatism. But Reagan had power over the
message in ways we haven’t seen since.
I don’t know why Reagan had power over the message. I believe
there are many today who articulate the message well, and often with similar
plainness and boldness. It is the selling of the ideas to the masses that I
fail to understand.
I don’t think we’ll find a candidate more perfect than
Romney was. A more experienced and better human being is unlikely to appear
again in a generation. So what we will need is someone conservative enough,
resolute enough, articulate enough—surrounding by an army of people who not
only understand and believe in ideological truth, but also know how to connect
that truth to an attention deficit public. We need honorable idea salesmen.
No comments:
Post a Comment