An Ideological Crisis

Why are we at a political impasse?  Why has it proven so difficult for politicians to arrive at a viable consensus?  Part of the reason, I submit, is that we are in the midst of an ideological crisis.  Our ideas about where society is headed are seriously out of whack.

Think about it.  All of the theories guiding our political decisions were created centuries ago.  None of our current ways of understanding our problems were developed in our times, for our times.

Liberalism is at least two hundred years old.  Even in its Marxist formulation, it is one hundred and fifty years old.  Developed in opposition to the Industrial Revolution, it aims to return us to the rural villages in which our medieval ancestors once lived.

Thus liberals expect us to know and care about each other as if we were intimately acquainted.  Unfortunately we are not.  Because our society numbers in the hundreds of millions, most of us are, and will remain, strangers to one another.

Meanwhile conservatism is about as old.  In its economic guise it celebrates the advent of capitalism.  Conservatives want to promote economic progress, but often in a manor that was appropriate when most businesses were small.

Actually, in its religious guise, conservatism is far older.  In this, it asks us to return to a social condition that is millennia old.  We are essentially being requested to join a single family of humankind, despite the fact that families are emotionally close, whereas strangers are not.

Even the libertarians have a hoary lineage.  Their idea of freedom is grounded in a marketplace composed of independent competitors.  Massive corporations and representative democracy are therefore not part of their calculations.

But we are not returning to village life, or Mom and Pop storefronts, or an old-time religion.  These are nostalgic fantasies that have nothing to do with how we live or are going to live.  They cannot guide us in making political choices because the problems we face are very different from the ones they address.

And so we are adrift.  Cast at sea, unsure of what is happening, we cling to that which is familiar.  Although we are secular, not religious; urban, not rural; and specialists, not generalists, we pretend that we are simple folk, who, if we only make the right choices, will return to a virtual Garden of Eden.

But guess what, complete equality is not in the cards.  Nor is complete liberty.  Our mass techno-commercial society demands much more of us than that we hold hands and sing Kumbaya.  At the very least, we must be honest about our situation.

Here, however, is the tricky part.  A new, more appropriate, ideology will not be found in a box of Cracker-Jacks.  Social ideas do not appear fully formed as enunciated by a charismatic leader.  They evolve.  They emerge slowly from our combined social experience.

In this regard, our current gridlock is part of the learning curve.  Sometimes people have to experience discomfort before they are motivated to seek an alternative.  Sometimes things must go seriously wrong before they are prepared to contemplate a novel answer.

What that answer is, is a good question.  While I suspect that we are on course to become a more professionalized society, I do not control events any more than does anyone else.  This no doubt is scary, but then again life is scary.  There are risks we must take merely because we are human.

I know, however, where we must begin.  We must start with courage.  We must first admit that we are confused about our situation.  Instead of following ideologues who insist that they know the answers, we must accept reality for what it is.  We have to be candid about our problems.

Then we must accept the fact that no solutions will be perfect.  We are human and human societies are always fraught with complications.  To imagine otherwise only confuses an already difficult task.

Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.

Professor of Sociology

Kennesaw State University