Everything begins in mysticism and ends in politics. Charles Péguy
One of the lesser curses of our Age, ranking behind our materialism and worship of the self, has to be that hydra-headed monster we call Ideology. It is a pernicious passion, seeping into our brains and hearts, soiling all it encounters. At this time, my specific annoyance revolves around my having subscriptions to two journals which, to any objective observer, would seem to have succumbed to the ideological lure long ago. I was slow to perceive it, apparently. I no longer wish to receive them, and certainly do not intend to renew my subscriptions. But as each of them has the better part of a year to run, and will continue to arrive at my door for quite some time, I will have to substitute writing this rant until such time as I can have the satisfaction of not renewing my subscriptions.
Through the years, either on this site, or others, I have been quick both to scorn and to pontificate against Ideology; or more accurately, its practitioners; those ideologues who must force situations through the grinder of their particular “ism,” which explains all and everything in their telling. The example that most readily comes to mind is, of course, Marxism, where otherwise brilliant historians have foundered on the rocky shoals of economic determinism and class struggle, which end up actually explaining very little. A bit harder for us to see on our side of the aisle are the twin sisters of Progressivism and Americanism (as in American Exceptionalism), equally as obtusely wrong-headed in their analysis, skewering conclusions in a predetermined direction.
My close friends and family have come to expect periodic diatribes from me along these lines. I spelled it out for my sons in what I entitled, a bit tongue in cheek, as my Cowanist Manifesto. In my history classes, whenever I characterize anyone as an ideologue, I am quick to point out that I am not being complimentary when I tag them as such. Suffice to say, it is a real thing with me.
It is quite easy to fall into such lazy lines of thought. It can be much harder to climb out of the deep, rigid ruts of ideological thinking. At least recognizing the danger is a first step. I hope I can always see things as I see them, in other words as they truly are, without first reducing them to abstractions which can be run through the ideological grinder. But I am also the first to admit that absolutely doing so is a near impossibility. But, we do the best we can.
The easiest place to test the fallacies of ideological lockstep is in the realm of foreign policy. For example, what is your reaction when you hear of some new tension in the South China Sea? To most Americans, the reaction would be some variation of “We have to do something to stop the Chinese aggression/menace.” Liberal American interventionism and conservative American interventionism dovetail quite nicely (for they are in fact exactly the same thing.) What indeed is the “Chinese menace,” if not the only competition on the horizon to global American hegemony? The typical American reaction is prefaced on the assumption that we are the global hegemon and it is right and good that we are. All responses flow out of this foundational belief. The realist, rather, might look at the crisis and observe that the operative word in this particular geographical hotspot is China. Whatever China may or may not be doing in the South China Sea is well within the scope of what would come naturally to her considering where she is and where this body of water is located. Whatever we would be doing in the region would be in our capacity as interlopers projecting American power and hegemony.
Some of my more astute sparring partners might counter that I am just “blaming America first,” and that my position itself is ideological. I think that fails the test, however. Realism is a stance. Restraint is a temperament. Both are ways of behaving. Neither is an ideology.
The non-ideological realist takes the long view of events, instinctively knowing that in some sense we have been here before, and probably we will be here again. She factors in history, culture, geography, and a whole host of other real considerations long before considering the particular abstract ideological presuppositions at play. Today, realism is in some disrepute in light of the Ukraine war, as if to question how anyone could conceivably view this struggle as anything other than naked Russian aggression, with spunky Ukraine freedom fighters holding off the Russian thugs? The struggle is broadly characterized as one of Democracy vs. Tyranny. But the fact that there has indeed been naked aggression does not discount a more nuanced view. For the realist understands, for example, the history of Crimea, the demographics of the Donbass, the actions of the Ukrainian government and certain American neocons post-2014, etc., knowing this is but the end game of a decades-long projection and weaponizing of a particular ideology in which Ukraine, NATO, the West, and particularly the US are complicit as well as Russia. While none of those understandings justify the Russian invasion, they do help one understand the consequences of particular choices made on both sides of the frontline. Eventually the war will grind to a close, or at least a cease-fire. The ideologue will insist on pre-war boundaries. The realist understands that this will never happen.
Ideology can be enticing and charming. And deadly. Scrolling back a few years to Russia’s 2008 invasion of Georgia–there is simply no one more sympathetic to the plight of Georgia than I am. I agree with their desire to identify with the West to the extent possible and to break free of Russian heavy-handed oversight and interference. And yet, I can also look at a map. And I have seen the Russian positions on the border–before 2008 and the new border afterwards. And yet, I recognize the folly of Mikheil Saakashvilli, who allowed himself to be enticed by the siren song of late Bushist American neocon ideology. As a result, they now have Russian positions within sight of the Batumi highway. A bit of realism would have served the Georgian government well at that juncture. And it is partially a pay-back, or at least a consequence (according to Putin), of an earlier ideological projection when we carved-out and created a “Kosovo,” almost from whole cloth.
But taking a position like this opens one up to the accusation from ideologues of being nothing more than a pragmatic cynic, without principles, without an overriding telos. This is an unfortunate and false assumption. The non-ideological are hardly unthinking nihilists in this scenario. Indeed, the irony of the situation is that it is the very ideologues themselves who open the door to the destructive whirlwinds of nihilism. At least that is how it has worked out for the last 250 years or so.
Humans who give any sort of thought at all to things—of their place in the world, of their relationship to the rest of mankind—understand that there must be guideposts to govern our lives; a telos, to use that wonderful word. This, however, is not ideology. Non-ideological realists adhere to principles, and are dispassionate, grounded in humility rather than hubris, unswayed by sentimentality or political rhetoric.
My own framework of belief is that of an Orthodox Christian. The ideologue might accuse me: “Aha! So you do have an ideology!” Except that it is not that at all. Orthodoxy theology is broad and as deep as you want to go with it, but it is not a neat set of propositions to which adherents ascribe. That, rather, seems to be the Protestant approach since 1517. The Orthodox phronema is instead, a way of behaving.
As is so often the case, my friend at Tipsy Teetotaler seems to sense when I am about to post something, and obligingly supplies just the right quote, to-wit:
Orthodox theology defines only what is necessary and always leaves unspoken that which cannot be explained. This approach was part of the Christian faith from the beginning. But the Western phronema often suppresses, dismisses, minimizes, or ignores this stance. The Western mind is compelled to define and explain everything (emphasis mine), since without a rational explanation a concept or fact cannot be considered true, or, conversely, all truth can be proven rationally. (“Thinking Orthodox: Understanding and Acquiring the Orthodox Christian Mind,” by Eugenia Scarvelis Constantinou.)
The natural home for Ideology is in the various forms of political expression. So I suppose that is where my ire is specifically directed, for as everyone must know, at least deep down, that Politics Ruins Everything. I am neither politically conservative nor liberal. The two terms have been so abused as to now be mere labels for particular factions, without any real meaning. I have no home in the camp of either side who identify themselves thusly. On economic issues, I am thoroughly leftist in my sentiments. But in so many ways, my basic instincts—my temperament—is to protect, to conserve, to preserve. Such instincts once had connectivity with the idea of being a conservative; but I do not think that that association holds true on any level any more.
A better term might be traditionalist. I hate waste and destruction. I mourn when things are needlessly torn down or when nature is abused in the pursuit of temporal gain. I am suspicious of the New. I do not believe in Progress–more particularly, what is labeled as such is actually nothing of the sort. I abhor revolutions–even perhaps our own–as they never proceed according to script, and the generational consequences are unknowable and the potential for harm incalculable.
And so, given my particular temperament, I have retained two journal subscriptions that would appeal to someone like myself, without being (at least heretofore, I thought) so overtly political in tone. They are Modern Age, and The New Criterion. The first perpetuates the legacy of Russell Kirk. The latter, I associate with the traditionalism of people like Roger Scruton.
Russell Kirk was an intriguing American intellectual, who, in his rediscovery of Edmund Burke, did more to place Conservatism within an explicit historical context than perhaps any other American. This “thinking man’s” Conservatism was a counterpoint to the Buckleyite Chamber of Commerce/Country Club variety, much less the sunny sanctified selfishness of Reaganism. I would like to think that were he alive today, Kirk would be appalled by whatever it is that Trumpism is. But perhaps I give him too much credit, as he certainly had no trouble playing a highly partisan role with either Nixon or Reagan. But he lived an exciting life of the mind, ensconced within a spooky family manse in Mecosta, MI. In addition, Kirk was also a gifted writer of fiction, producing three unforgettable novels and a host of supernatural short stories. Modern Age is the journal he founded, and I subscribed to tap-in to what I hoped would be a rooted traditionalism, with more attention given to the larger cultural trends than the particularities of American partisan politics. And to some extent, that was so.
Recently however, I was driving along, listening to podcasts as I do, when I heard an interview between Freddy Gray of The Spectator and the current editor of Modern Age. Said editor is still the Editor-at-Large, I believe, of the once respected The American Conservative. For years, TAC was a voice in the conservative wilderness, crying out against Bush’s neo-Wilsonian foreign policy. In early 2020, having paddled around in those shoals for over fifteen years, they pushed themselves off into the swifter mainstream of formerly Republican, now Trumpian, partisan politics. The realist writers whom I had followed for years were quickly jettisoned. Others writers remained onboard, deftly maneuvering the intellectual leap into these new, turbulent waters. TAC tried to be hip about it as well, cultivating associations with Matt Geatz and Tucker Carlson, for example. No doubt it’s circulation is somewhat greater, but it is now just a partisan mouthpiece, one among many.
The editor was not exactly going to receive hard-hitting questions from this particular podcast. Both were simpatico with the other. But Gray did pose a number of probing questions about the nature of today’s Republican Party, the former President, and January 6th. The Modern Age editor was a smooth as silk, skillfully evading all of the sharp-edged questions. Some of his responses were slightly qualified, but none of them were of such a nature that they would be rebuked at the local Grassroots America monthly meeting. Everything was cast in purely partisan terms, presenting a stark, binary choice, with the alternative being those demon Democrats. My illusions of this journal floating above the ugly partisan fray evaporated into the mist.
The New Criterion is a stuffy British journal dedicated to the preservation of an unabashedly Western culture. Yes, there is politics, to be sure, but also literature, history, music, art, dance, etc. Increasingly, however, their editorials have drifted into lazy extreme partisan characterizations of the American political scene. I was able to dismiss all that and concentrate on the book reviews until a recent editorial. The editor addressed the outrage of prosecuting participants in the January 6th attempted takeover of the Capitol. He casually stated that they were merely expressing their First Amendment rights. That is when it snapped with me.
We can disagree about whether that event was a good thing or a bad thing. We can debate the motivations. But do not tell me that what I clearly saw with my own two eyes was something else altogether. That is the problem with political ideology. It can force you to reject what you know to be true and accept what fits with the ideological narrative. To be fair, I can think of examples on the other side of the aisle as well. But for right now, this is where the battle of delusion is being waged. These two editors tried their spin on me, which of course, is their right. I just do not have to help pay their salaries.
In short, Ideology asks too much of us. It requires us to believe a Lie.
Flight from the Isms
I'm curious what other serial publications you still follow. Nowadays, I subscribe to Plough and The Front Porch Republic and not much else.
Thanks for the shout-out. For the record, I disclaim psychic powers.
When I first encountered the expression Isms, it was in the title of a book "Today's ISMS." It took me a while to get around to reading the book, and in much of the meantime, I thought ISMS was the initials of some professional organization.
I must have gotten over that before reading it, though, or I surely never would have read it at all.