Ideological Statements of Political Parties - Essay Example

 Are Political Parties Becoming Less Ideological? Introduction In order to effectively answer this question, it is first important to understand what the term ideological actually means in contemporary society. The dictionary definition of this term is offered as “the body of ideas reflecting the social needs and aspirations of an individual, group, class, or culture” (American Heritage Dictionary, 1991, p.639). With this definition in mind, ideology represents either singular or group concepts which, through the actions of liberals, conservatives, Republicans or Democrats, attempts to transform scattered principles into a workable paradigm that best suits the whole of society or the needs of a single political party. This paper, using this definition of ideology, answers the question as to whether political parties have, indeed, become less ideological. Issues and Examples of Political Ideology In today’s political system, there are certain realities of government which tend to work against rapid deployment of ideological principles. There are “Democrats attempting to address the concerns of constituents in Republican districts and, to remain viable for re-election, Democratic congressmen are casting votes alongside Republicans in Washington” (Fields, 2009, p.A5). Simple demographics oftentimes place considerable demands on leadership when attempting to address the many different concerns of their constituent audiences, especially when their districts maintain a very split constituent group with seemingly divisible attitudes about social issues. These realities often force ideological Democrats to bow to the demands of a majority Republican constituency, and vice versa, therefore never accomplishing their ideological goals. At the same time, alongside opposite party conventions that continue to exert pressure for left- or right-wing politicians to bow to the opposite prevailing attitude, votes are cast that ensure re-election rather than satisfying their own ideological goals. This reality has pervaded the US political system for decades and only further solidifies much of the division that exists at higher levels of government. Today, there are people in society who accuse politicians of being too liberal or too conservative, oftentimes offering these opinions without fully understanding what it actually means to be a left- or right-wing extremist. Based on solid qualitative research findings, liberals are more likely to regard empathy and openness while conservatives tend to emphasize morality in terms of respect for the social hierarchy and allegiance to the in-group (McAdams, Albaugh, Farber and Daniels, 2008). Gone, it seems, are the days where the left- or right-wing agenda sits openly on the minds of politicians, instead these extremes have been replaced with more adaptable views on Republican versus Democratic values that suggests all political affiliates come to a point in the center where consensus can be reached by appealing to multiple constituent values using legislation that has, for lack of a better term, a little something for everyone. Much of the problem, in the event that one would argue that politicians have lost their ideological viewpoints, involves the generic citizen himself. A recent poll conducted by the Wall Street Journal and NBC News identifies that 24 percent of those polled considered themselves liberal, 37 percent moderate, and 35 percent conservative (Seib, 2010). Prior to these poll results, numbers have been and have remained virtually unchanged, again speaking toward the societal division that no longer sees extreme ends of the left- or right-wing agenda. When working amidst a system that has division at the constituent level, with peers in their own political party, and with members of the opposite political spectrum, it is natural that any ideological values that were once strongly held are lost amid the social and political discord that only serves to complicate an already difficult governmental system. Are politicians becoming less ideological? The evidence provided thus far would answer no to this question, as the system itself and the endless series of partitions between politicians and general society seem to make it difficult to hold strongly to any individualistic political or social ideologies. In terms of environmental policy, which often has politicians expressing their unique environmental ideologies, conjuring up legislation to support these attitudes often meets with same or opposite party objections. One publication in social sciences offers, “which environmental issues does the public think the government should spend the most time and money addressing?” (Konisky, Milyo and Richardson, 2008, p.1066). As representatives of their constituents, politicians need to first identify, before heralding ideological environmental policy, what their citizens actually value most in terms of the environment. However, with such a dramatic rift of constituent values always applying pressure, and essentially using their invisible arms to pull politicians in an inordinate amount of directions, understanding how to best meet the needs of the majority becomes next to impossible. Even though there are issues outstanding that reach far beyond that of environmental policy, a good deal of the problem with any potential lost ideologies is that the consumer audience, themselves, often create such a nuisance to their political leadership for failing to meet certain niche values that it is best to simply abandon their personal ideologies in favor of simply ensuring re-election. Coupled with these problems at the constituent level, at the same time mass media of multiple varieties, and their own ideologies, are often waiting in the proverbial wings looking to expose a single offering for new legislation that can devastate a political career. When former President George W. Bush was in office, many of his ideologies met with considerable Congressional backlash due to political differences or the phenomenon of left versus right-wing values from hardcore liberals and even some in his own party. Attempting to show more than dedication to Republican core values, Bush offered $5 billion in federal funding for the State Children’s Health Insurance Program. Attempting to gain Congressional support in the total of $35 billion, which Congress was largely Democratic at the time, they countered with a modest $10 billion in federal funds. Offers one author, “for most congressional Democrats and many Republicans, it was (simply) an opportunity to embarrass Bush” (Burda, 2007, p.22). Whether this funding was actually to satisfy the needs of ill children or whether about political ideology and cash, having members of the same party or the opposite party lurching in the proverbial underbrush to undermine these efforts again identifies the division of individualistic or party-specific ideologies that seems to pervade government. This is especially noticeable in old school politicians that are being rapidly replaced with more moderate and considerate leadership. However, again, in the face of this type of political contempt, it is a natural conclusion that some ideologies will be lost so as to avoid social ransacking of reputation or associated political affiliations. When comparing liberals to hardcore conservatives, “liberals oscillate between modest appeals to self-interest and gargantuan appeals to global obligation” (Schmitt, 2007, p.9). One need only turn on the television and watch the many different commentators of varying political affiliation to witness that today’s leadership is often accused of being far too liberal in their policy formation and ideologies. However, a very recent quotation from current President Barack Obama reinforces that as the world becomes more centralized, especially in the face of foreign nation development and mass media, that “what is required of us now is a new era of responsibility – a recognition on the part of every American that we have duties to ourselves, our nation and the world” (Brooks, 2009, p.A17). Some hard-nosed conservatives might consider this attitude to be overtly liberal, however it is a logical conclusion in an age where the borders of geographic constraints are being quickly closed by mass transportation, renewed social awareness of global problems, and growth in education in multiple domains of study. Besides this, at the consumer level, growth in global trade, most notably attributed to the efforts of former Presidents William Clinton and Ronald Reagan, foreign consumer interest in Westernized living provides unique opportunities to expand the American and European lifestyles into the homes of under-developed nations or those foreign territories that are emerging peacefully from decades (or even centuries) of war and misconception. Those that might accuse Mr. Obama of being too liberal fail to recognize the realities of today’s global society, and the opportunities that a centralized world creates for business, society, and even politics when making these accusations. Modern political ideology does not appear to only be about self or same-party interests, it is about a having on the forefront of consciousness a sense of duty for fellow man regardless of their point of origin. In this case, some ideologies are actually brought to life by having a global agenda and very little is lost, at the ideological level, in the process. Old school politics, especially those in the Republican agenda, tends to believe that any government intrusion into areas of economic growth and development can, due to “some mysterious law of freedom physics” produce a shrinking of personal liberty (Frank, 2009, p.A23). This is an ideology in itself that suggests limited government in areas of business as part of a free market mentality. However, when faced with problems in the economy that do not seem to work themselves out when businesses are given free rein to make improper business or investment decisions without considerable self-interest, government intervention is not an ideology, it is a necessity to regulate waste of investor funds or simply poor business decisions. In this case, regardless of whether the views on governmental influence in business decision-making, nothing is ideologically lost when the best interests of the societal whole are at stake. In this case, ideology is supported substantially when even politicians have grown tired of companies or other economic machines that seem to have lost touch with their own obligations to a variety of different stakeholders in society. Conclusion All of the evidence provided that reinforces the definition of ideology tends to suggest that politicians have not lost their ideologies, but are forced to work within a system that does not allow for immediate, positive return on investment for supporting their personal ideologies. There looks to be some entity always waiting in the wings to reinforce their own personal agenda and suggesting some form of consequence for failing to adopt different values or goals. Society, also, and their lack of unity about a multitude of important issues, makes representing constituency a proverbial merry-go-round of lost opportunities, tarnished political reputations, or just frustrated conformity to the majority to ensure they are not booted out of their political seats at the time of re-election. In the face of this kind of chaos that comes at politicians from all directions, meaningful ideologies are often replaced with a similar attitude as that of young girls in social cliques proclaiming Whatever! and then casting their once-ideological vote to the wind. References American Heritage Dictionary. (1991). “Ideology”. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, p.639. Brooks, Arthur C. (2009). “Conservatives Have Answered Obama’s Call”, Wall Street Journal, New York. January 22, p.A17. Burda, David. (2007). “Bush veto was the right move”, Modern Healthcare, Chicago. 37(40), p.22. Fields, Gary. (2009). “Vulnerable Democrats Juggle Districts—Representatives Targeted by Republicans Cast Votes against Party to Stay Viable for Re-Election in a Challenge to Party’s Priorities”, Wall Street Journal, New York. November 28, p.A5. Frank, Thomas. (2009). “The Tilting Yard: Liberals and Civility”, Wall Street Journal, New York. September 23, p.A23. Konisky, D., Milyo, J. and Richardson, L. (2008). “Environmental Policy Attitudes: Issues, Geographical Scale, and Political Trust”, Social Science Quarterly, Austin. 89(5), pp.1066-1086. McAdams, D., Albaugh, M., Farber, E. and Daniels, J. (2008). “Family Metaphors and Moral Intuitions: How Conservatives and Liberals Narrate their Lives”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95(4), p.978. Schmitt, Mark. (2007). “The Moral Equivalent of Optimism”, The American Prospect, Princeton, 18(11), p.9. Seib, Gerald F. (2010). “Capital Journal: US Shifted Party, Not Ideology, Wall Street Journal, New York, Jan 19, p.A2. Read More