Why ideology is bad for politics

Reform Party of California Commentary

Why ideology is bad for politics

A key criticism the Reform Party of California (RPCA) has repeatedly leveled at the two-party system is its heavy reliance on rigid ideology as a guide to inform and evaluate competing policy choices.[1] That flaw is a key driver of fantasy, failure and waste in governance. The RPCA is not alone in seeing ideology as a major bad actor in politics.

The magazine Scientific American published a commentary on ideology in its October 2013 issue (page 95; online at http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=why-we-should-choose-science-over-beliefs). The piece was written by Michael Shermer, a hard core libertarian who argues that when reality or science does not support belief or ideology, then the ideology needs to give way. Mr Shermer described simple but powerful examples of how ideology distorts reality.

One example was Mr. Shermer's slow realization that in the gun control debate he saw himself engaging in "the cherry picking and data mining of studies to suit ideological convictions." He further explained that "We all do it, and when the science is complicated, the confirmation bias (a type of motivated reasoning) that directs the mind to seek and find confirming facts and ignore disconfirming evidence kicks in."

Another example Mr. Shermer described related to global warming. The RPCA has used the same topic to illustrate the same corrupting influence of ideology on reality that Shermer sees.[2] There, Mr. Shermer was attending the libertarian 2013 FreedomFest conference in Las Vegas, NV. At the meeting Mr. Sherment made the unremarkable observation that "between 90 and 98 percent of climate scientists accept anthropogenic global warming, someone shouted, “LIAR!” and stormed out of the room."

Conclusion

The reasonable conclusion is simple: Ideology is bad for smart, efficient politics. As Mr. Shermer put it in his commentary: ". . . not all libertarians deny science, but all of us are subject to the psychological forces at play when it comes to choosing between facts and beliefs when they do not mesh. In the long run, it is better to understand the way the world really is rather than how we would like it to be." Those comments reflect exactly the point about ideology that the RPCA has been making over and over.[3] The RPCA is not alone in rejecting a major role for ideology in politics. However, if you want waste and inefficiency, stick with your ideology and you will get more waste and inefficiency. If you want something better, the RPCA is offering centrism grounded in non-ideological pragmatism. Take your pick.

Footnotes:
1. Links: http://reformparty.org/reform-party-of-california-essays-what-is-the-proper-size-and-scope-in-government/; http://reformparty.org/reform-party-of-california-essays-6-what-is-the-public-interest-and-how-is-it-best-served/.
2. Link: http://reformparty.org/reform-party-of-california-essays-6-what-is-the-public-interest-and-how-is-it-best-served/.
3. It is not the case that science has all the answers to everything. It doesn't. For example, science cannot prove the big bang theory. However, religion cannot prove Creationism. Nonetheless, there is scientific evidence that accords with the big bang. For Creationism there is religious faith, which is perfectly fine for personal religious belief. But when it comes to governing, which intellectual framework do you want to rely on: one grounded in scientific evidence or one grounded in religious faith and/or political ideology?