• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

What defines an ideology for all practical purposes?

What defines and ideology for all practical purposes?

  • An ideology is largely defined by the philosophy of its founding intellectuals.

    Votes: 3 33.3%

  • An ideology is largely defined by the beliefs and policies of the majority of its current adherents.

    Votes: 6 66.7%
  • Total voters
    9
ALiberalModerate

ALiberalModerate

Pragmatist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Messages
32,449
Reaction score
22,676
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
For all practical purposes, is an ideology defined by its historical intellectual principles (otherwise its largely stagnant), or by the beliefs of the majority of people that claim to be its adherents (otherwise its largely dynamic).

For example, you constantly hear conservative ideologues (and to a slightly lesser extent liberal ideologues) claim that the policies advocated and enacted by current Republicans and conservative media pundits do not represent "true conservatism" or in the case of liberalism "true liberalism". In my opinion, conservatism for all practical purposes is what the majority of its current adherents believe it is, just like liberalism for all practical purposes is what the majority of its current adherents believe it is and thus both ideologies are fairly dynamic.

For example, when a conservative tells a liberal that Obama is a hard core liberal, that liberal might respond with "Obama is not a liberal, Franklin D. Roosevelt was a liberal, Obama is not nearly as liberal as he is." The problem with that argument is that it assumes that liberalism is a static philosophy that never changes. However, for all practical purposes even though Obama is not nearly as liberal in terms of an activist government as FDR was, Obama represents the left of center in American political discourse, thus Obama is a liberal.

Similarly, when a liberal tells a conservative that Bush was a solid right winger, the conservative might respond with "Bush is not a conservative, Barry Goldwater was a conservative, and Bush is nothing like him (or go into some Russell Kirk diatribe). The problem with that argument is that once again it assumes that conservatism is a static philosophy that never changes. Goldwater would not be a conservative today, he would be a right-libertarian. For all practical purposes, Bush represented the right of center in American political discourse, thus Bush is a conservative.

What do others think?
 
Well, I think political party identification and political ideology are overlapping, but not the same thing.

Because we effectively have only two viable parties, the parties each represent more than one ideology, if that makes any sense.

The terms 'conservative' and 'liberal' are referential, for me. For example, 'conservative' in 'conservative republican' and 'conservative democrat' don't mean the same things, to me.


I think political party identification means you support most of a party's political platform, and political philosophy qualifiers identify where within a spectrum you fall.
 
Last edited:
SouthernDemocrat said:
[....] In my opinion, conservatism for all practical purposes is what the majority of its current adherents believe it is, just like liberalism for all practical purposes is what the majority of its current adherents believe it is and thus both ideologies are fairly dynamic.
[.....]
Click to expand...

For all practical purposes? how exactly does this determine the substance of what an ideology is? what practical purposes?

The beliefs of the adherents do not change the ideology because failure to adhere perfectly to an ideology does not change the principles behind it. The belief that it does is just another ideology it itself--and a self-defeating one at that.

The first statement in the poll was closer to the truth. I would like to see an argument that proved ideologies were NOT static. Ideas don't change, although a person's opinion of them might. An idea that is "changed" is really just a different idea altogether. Variations of existing ideologies just create new ones, even if the difference is subtle.
 
Last edited:
other said:
For all practical purposes? how exactly does this determine the substance of what an ideology is? what practical purposes?

The beliefs of the adherents do not change the ideology because failure to adhere perfectly to an ideology does not change the principles behind it. The belief that it does is just another ideology it itself--and a self-defeating one at that.

The first statement in the poll was closer to the truth. I would like to see an argument that proved ideologies were NOT static. Variations of existing ideologies just create new ones, even if the difference is subtle.
Click to expand...

överens med but i thiink this is how media use it today. i f more people read books they will not beleive the media. now people hear somthing i n the news and believe this. people dont know what is true so they think media will give truth to them. :)
 
It's both, and more. Dynamic is the closer answer, and just using that word is probably closest.
 
Redress said:
It's both, and more. Dynamic is the closer answer, and just using that word is probably closest.
Click to expand...

no this is the right one

An ideology is largely defined by the philosophy of its founding intellectuals.
 
Redress said:
It's both, and more. Dynamic is the closer answer, and just using that word is probably closest.
Click to expand...

If you believe that they are dynamic, then you believe they are completely useless.

Here's why:

Ideologies are simply LABELS. They are meant represent something concrete (and therefore they are useful, as they actually distinguish one position/idea from another). Now, if one believes that the same label can be used for several different things, what is the point of a label in the first place? It is no longer useful.

Peoples' beliefs may be dynamic, that's why they often shift between or even create new ideologies. Ideologies themselves are not.
 
Optimally, I'd say option one.

Realistically, it's option two.
 
Kalle said:
överens med but i thiink this is how media use it today. i f more people read books they will not beleive the media. now people hear somthing i n the news and believe this. people dont know what is true so they think media will give truth to them. :)
Click to expand...

This is one reason why ideologies are useful. People who don't take time to understand and adhere to one are more susceptible to manipulation. Whether or not you believe this is good, bad, or neither is up for debate, but I believe that people should stand for something concrete, otherwise they are prone to be manipulated by others who do.
 
other said:
If you believe that they are dynamic, then you believe they are completely useless.

Here's why:

Ideologies are simply LABELS. They are meant represent something concrete (and therefore they are useful, as they actually distinguish one position/idea from another). Now, if one believes that the same label can be used for several different things, what is the point of a label in the first place? It is no longer useful.

Peoples' beliefs may be dynamic, that's why they often shift between or even create new ideologies. Ideologies themselves are not.
Click to expand...

I disagree. Labels don't always mean the same thing they used to. The democratic party was founded in 1792, the modern democratic party is 1828. I don't think that the label "democrat" means much like it did at either of those dates. The world changes, and ideologies have to change with the world.
 
I am not saying that liberalism and conservatism today are not based in concrete beliefs. What I am arguing is that the concrete beliefs they are based in today are not all the same concrete beliefs the ideologies were based in 30 years ago, or 70 years ago.

For example, there are those that make the claim that if a "true conservative" were to run, that it would awaken the masses and they would all vote for them. (Liberals said the same thing when they were out of power)

In my opinion the problem with that argument is that politicians largely reflect the beliefs of their base they are trying to appeal to. Thus, if the base "modern conservative adherents" really wanted a "true conservative" in the same vein as Barry Goldwater, then Ron Paul would have had the Republican Nomination. So for all practical purposes, conservatism today is different than what it was in 1964.
 
Redress said:
I disagree. Labels don't always mean the same thing they used to. The democratic party was founded in 1792, the modern democratic party is 1828. I don't think that the label "democrat" means much like it did at either of those dates. The world changes, and ideologies have to change with the world.
Click to expand...

same party yes, but their ideologies have changed drastically. Arguably, the party structure and name was kept for mere convenience.

Does this mean that the ideology of Jefferson, jackson, breckinridge, etc. no longer exists? No. It means modern democrats (mostly) adhere to completely different ideologies, not the same one that has changed over time.
 
Last edited:
other said:
same party yes, but their ideologies have changed drastically. Arguably, the party structure and name was kept for mere convenience.

Does this mean that the ideology of Jefferson, jackson, breckinridge, etc. no longer exists?
Click to expand...

In so far that very few people still adhere to their ideologies, yes, Jefferson's classical liberalism is largely a purely academic ideology today. Today both liberals and conservatives quote him, but that's about it.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
I am not saying that liberalism and conservatism today are not based in concrete beliefs. What I am arguing is that the concrete beliefs they are based in today are not all the same concrete beliefs the ideologies were based in 30 years ago, or 70 years ago.

For example, there are those that make the claim that if a "true conservative" were to run, that it would awaken the masses and they would all vote for them. (Liberals said the same thing when they were out of power)

In my opinion the problem with that argument is that politicians largely reflect the beliefs of their base they are trying to appeal to. Thus, if the base "modern conservative adherents" really wanted a "true conservative" in the same vein as Barry Goldwater, then Ron Paul would have had the Republican Nomination. So for all practical purposes, conservatism today is different than what it was in 1964.
Click to expand...

I do not believe the politicians reflect popular sentiment quite so much. The US is a 2 party system and for all intensive purposes many vote based on who they disagree with the least, not someone who is in total or even near-agreement with themselves.

That's why candidates always pretend to be more moderate than they actually are, and why, for example, in the decade prior to the civil war the democratic party tended to nominate northern democrats for president.

I see the overall trend you point to, however, but I believe that this just shows the that peoples' beliefs are dynamic while ideologies are static, but people still cling to the same labels. Many "conservative" politicians today do not adhere to a conservative ideology at all--they're just "not-liberal," but this doesn't mean there will be no more "truly" conservative politicians. The actual ideology has not changed. That's why that sort of language is used (truly, psuedo, etc)-- to distinguish between the original ideology and new ideologies that have arisen (they are not the same, although the new ideology may try to ply the name for political purposes). Conservatives are trying to bring the republican party back into their ideology, and away from other ideologies that have crept into the party under the guise of conservatism--in reality they are new (sometimes similar, sometimes radically different) ideologies.

Also, take the word "liberal" for a prime example. Modern liberals are not the same as classical ones, the label has just been taken to make their agenda more palatable--the actual ideologies are drastically different, but the original, now deemed "classical" still exists unchanged.
 
Last edited:
SouthernDemocrat said:
For all practical purposes, is an ideology defined by its historical intellectual principles (otherwise its largely stagnant), or by the beliefs of the majority of people that claim to be its adherents (otherwise its largely dynamic).

For example, you constantly hear conservative ideologues (and to a slightly lesser extent liberal ideologues) claim that the policies advocated and enacted by current Republicans and conservative media pundits do not represent "true conservatism" or in the case of liberalism "true liberalism". In my opinion, conservatism for all practical purposes is what the majority of its current adherents believe it is, just like liberalism for all practical purposes is what the majority of its current adherents believe it is and thus both ideologies are fairly dynamic.

For example, when a conservative tells a liberal that Obama is a hard core liberal, that liberal might respond with "Obama is not a liberal, Franklin D. Roosevelt was a liberal, Obama is not nearly as liberal as he is." The problem with that argument is that it assumes that liberalism is a static philosophy that never changes. However, for all practical purposes even though Obama is not nearly as liberal in terms of an activist government as FDR was, Obama represents the left of center in American political discourse, thus Obama is a liberal.

Similarly, when a liberal tells a conservative that Bush was a solid right winger, the conservative might respond with "Bush is not a conservative, Barry Goldwater was a conservative, and Bush is nothing like him (or go into some Russell Kirk diatribe). The problem with that argument is that once again it assumes that conservatism is a static philosophy that never changes. Goldwater would not be a conservative today, he would be a right-libertarian. For all practical purposes, Bush represented the right of center in American political discourse, thus Bush is a conservative.

What do others think?
Click to expand...

Surely it is a bit of both. Conservatism is built around figures like Edmund Burke and Benjamin Disraeli but it takes on slightly different hues at different times and places. Also one has to remember the difference between the political and pre-political level of ideology. Ideology must be adapted to circumstance by politicians.

You don't really score many points by making the bastardised version of an ideology out to be the pure one because one can still differentiate between them and usually there is still that affinity for the original ideology. One must differentiate between genuine, necessary adaptions and degeneration. Obviously there is some vagueness and subjectivity in this but it is usually discernible enough.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom