Sciences >
Sociology
Get a Widget for this title
RSS FeedIs political ideology used to manipulate the masses?
Results so far:
| No | 8% | 43 votes | Total: 552 votes | |
| Yes | 92% | 509 votes |
No
Write now
Print
Invite a writer™
Add to FavoritesPolitical ideology is less significant in U.S. elections than religious ideology. Whether or not a given American claims to be Christian, each of us has been influenced by this country's history of Christian thinking, and this influence plays a role in how we think, how we communicate, and how we vote.
It's difficult for any political party of wealthy elites to retain its power in a democracy. After a while, the people will begin to realize that their quality of life is either stagnant or declining, and they will stop voting for politicians who say one thing and do another. But suppose a politician claims that he represents God's will? Suppose he panders to those who believe, either actively or passively, that offending God's delicate sensibilities will result in harm to their country?
A ridiculous tactic, and one that has served both Republicans and Democrats quite well. The specifics of political ideology are not that important to many voters. Social norms, including how candidates dress, what sorts of hairstyles they wear, and whether they behave in a sober and calm fashion, have repeatedly determined the outcome of elections, over and above any serious discussions of policy.
Where do these social norms originate? Some of them are innate. Global evaluations, such as whether a person is likable, dominate our assessments of people, and our minds make such determinations faster than we are consciously aware. Does a political candidate smile a great deal? Well, then here we have a likable, confident person, who we can trust to occupy a position of power. Having nothing to do with any specific ideology, what psychologists refer to as the "halo effect" has elected numerous politicians who were, by any serious measure of their policy positions, wholly ignorant of the proper role played by government in human affairs.
But some social norms are culture-specific. In America, many people are preoccupied with essentially religious notions of virtue. Does a candidate use a swear-word? An atheist wouldn't mind, so long as that candidate appeared to be educated enough to implement rational policies. Does a candidate have a nose ring? Again, a secular person would look at that candidate's policy positions, not his or her jewelry.
Some policies work, others do not. It should be clear, in light of the collapse of the U.S. subprime mortgage industry, that government regulation is necessary to prevent capitalists from harming themselves and others. But a large number of lawmakers, and at least three presidential candidates, retain the support of those who judge political figures by their haircuts, their American flag lapel pins, and labels like "conservative" or "liberal," instead of by the utility of their policy positions.
Just as many Christians believe that "impure" behaviors, such as homosexuality, contaminate entire communities, maybe even entire countries, inviting God's judgment, many American voters believe that policies such as government intervention in free markets contaminates the economy, inviting corruption and poverty. Because these voters continue to believe such things even when unregulated markets are naturally, and all by themselves, vaporizing trillions of dollars in wealth, it is safe to assume that such beliefs are extensions of Christian ideas about purity. The indisputable fact that a perfectly competitive, "free" market is impossible, considering human nature and the inevitability of cronyism and favoritism, does not seem to trouble the faithful.
Conservativ e or liberal, Puritan or heathen, we can all look at various charts and numbers and arrive at a consensus regarding the present-day competitiveness of the U.S. economy. The dollar is tanking, personal and business bankruptcies are at record levels, government and consumer debt are dangerously high, home foreclosures and car repossessions are breaking records, and, most shockingly, CEOs are getting fired left and right. Our economy is not doing well. Should we continue blundering along with the same government policies in place? Should we assume that capitalism is self-regulating?
Ther e are useful policies, and there are self-destructive policies. Preemptive war is not useful. Kidnapping and waterboarding terrorism suspects is not useful. Massive subsidies for coal-burning power plants are not a good idea. Massive subsidies for already profitable farming industries are not helpful. A U.S. military budget surpassing the combined military budgets of every other country on the planet is not a good idea. Failing to provide proper combat gear to soldiers is not helpful. Failing to provide adequate healthcare to soldiers, and to Americans in general, is not a good idea, not good for the economy. Failing to provide adequate funding for education, especially college, is not good for American competitiveness.
Thes e are all examples of policies that represent, if you'll excuse the expression, the absolute zenith of American stupidity. This is not intended to be insulting to America: this is a pretty good country, after all. But it could be a much wealthier, much happier, and much more stable place if American voters stopped believing, as a matter of faith, in the sanctity of lapel pins, military spending, and "free" market economics. We have so much money, so many opportunities to create something good for future generations, that it would amount to an unprecedented human tragedy if, as a matter of blind faith, we were not able to abandon such absurdly ineffective policies.
Is the perpetuation of such policies a question of ideological manipulation? Maybe for those willing to be manipulated. But if the rest of us don't like the consistently disastrous results of such manipulation, we can always man up and kick the bums out by exercising some common sense and voting our interests. This is a free society, after all: we have the option of breaking away from the herd anytime we please.
Learn more about this author, Jonathan Young.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
Yes
Throughout history, political ideology has been used by all cultures to manipulate the belief systems of the citizens of that culture. For example, in war, each side is taught that its cause is the just one, and that the cause of the other side is unjust.
The ideology known as American Exceptionalism has influenced the belief systems of the American people since the earliest settlers began making their way from east to west.
In his book Philosophical and Ideological Voices in Education (2004), G. L. Gutek described American Exceptionalism as a specific type of nationalism that emcompasses the ideology that Americans and the United States are different and superior, unique and extraordinary. As settlers moved westward to inhabit the territory between the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans, the belief arose that God had favored Americans above other peoples.
Americans were granted the physical safety from attack that was provided by residing on a vast continent situated between two oceans. The topography of the land itself offered many natural resources.
In spite of the fact that the land was in actuality already inhabited, it seemed to the early settlers that they had been given this land by God for the purpose of establishing a country devoid of the religious, political, and social tyrannies faced by many European countries of the time. This thought process is the basis for the political ideology of American Exceptionalism.
While in other countries national identity is based largely on history and birth, in America national identity is based solely on the sharing of a common ideology. In his book American Exceptionalism: A Double Edged Sword (1996) author S. M. Lipset pointed out that while an Englishman is always an Englishman regardless of personal ideology, an American is considered "un-American" if individual ideology differs from the common ideology of the American political machine.
At no time in American history has this mindset been as evident as in our post-9/11 era. In the months following the attack on the twin towers, anyone who dared voice an opinion that was in opposition to the majority was quickly labeled "un-American." In extreme cases, public figures were fired and recording artists were banned from appearances.
As pointed out by Gutek (2004), however, the ideology of American Exceptionalism operates on a collective selective memory. The history of the United States as taught tends to de-emphasize events that portray the United States in a negative light. Incidents such as the atrocities committed against the Native Americans, the enslavement of African Americans, and the state of the working poor are often glossed over in the teaching of American history, because they are incongruent with the ideology of American Exceptionalism.
The current Bush administration continues to invoke this ideology in order to manipulate American perceptions to this day. In his article The Empire Has No Clothes: U. S. Foreign Policy Exposed (2004), author I. Eland discussed current evidence of the ideology of American Exceptionalism, citing the similarities between the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in 1990 and the current U. S. invasion of Iraq.
In both cases, the mitigating factor was the suspected harboring of weapons of mass destruction, yet the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait was seen by Americans as a horrible injustice, while the American invasion of Iraq is seen by many Americans as morally and ethically just.
Because of the political ideology that we are inherently superior, we feel justified in imposing sanctions on other countries, yet we are often in violation of those same sanctions ourselves. For example, we impose sanctions on other countries for collecting nuclear weapons, yet we have the largest cache of nuclear weapons and are the only country to have ever used such weapons. In the collective American definition of itself, we are champions of human rights, yet at the same time we abuse prisoners at Abu Ghraib.
This dual belief system is readily evident to other countries around the world, yet we are collectively unable to grasp it. The political ideology of American Exceptionalism that is promoted by our politicians does not allow us to admit mistakes, and it encourages us to act with hypocrisy. In closing, Eland (2004) advised that the United States should lead by example rather than by force. By using military action to force our own belief system upon other countries, we are acting against our own ideals, and are ourselves creating the very tyranny our forefathers sought to escape.
Learn more about this author, Melinda Clayton.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
Difference of opinion? Debate now.
