President Obama’s recently signed an order lifting the ban on government money funding embryonic stem cell research. USA Today reported,
The audience burst into applause at several points when Obama implicitly rebuked former president George W. Bush for what opponents have characterized as making decisions based on ideology rather than sound science.
I won’t comment on the order signed by Obama. I want to use this matter as an illustration of a fallacy in our thinking. Those who have criticized President Bush for “making decisions based on ideology rather than sound science” are not without an ideology themselves. Their beliefs of what constitutes “sound science” and how science should shape how the government funds research follow an ideology. Everyone holds ideologies, especially when it comes to areas of morality and politics. Ideology is a neutral term. An ideology comprises a set of beliefs, values, and doctrines that guide a person or group and I can think of no one who is void of ideology. I am fond of saying everyone has a theology because everyone has some beliefs about divinity. The person who does not believe in a divine being, or the person who says there is no way we can truly know if there is a divine being, hold as much a theological position as the Christian who recites the Nicene Creed. Ideology works the same way. The most pragmatic utilitarian position that seeks to do the least amount of harm for the least amount of people adheres to an ideology. To criticize someone for letting ideology guide their decision-making is a rather weak argument. The question is not will we let ideology shape our public policy, but what ideologies do we let shape our public policies?
We may disagree vehemently with another person’s ideology, but it gets us nowhere to criticize the person for being ideological. Each ideology has non-negotiable points and we can debate whether those non-negotiables do more harm than good. Even a total laissez-faire attitude comes from an ideology with strong non-negotiables. The amount of non-negotiables in an ideology, the positions of an ideology, how stridently that ideology requires adherence, all these matters are open to critique. So is the way in which a person chooses to conform to the ideology. In other words, to criticize someone or some position for being “ideological” does not get to the heart of the matter because there is no such thing as a non-ideological person or a non-ideological position. When people criticize others for being ideological, they are really criticizing the ideology’s non-negotiables for being wrong, or they are criticizing others for being unwilling to listen to different information. We should not strive for an ideology-free society—as if there ever could be one—but a society that values and adheres to good ideologies.
I agree with your main point, but I think that there’s more going on. When people talk about ideology or, more specifically, ideologues, it usually refers to more than a position such as the theology that everyone indeed has. Saying “Karl Barth is a theologian” is different than saying “Rush Limbaugh is an ideologue,” mainly because of the negative sense of the term. A person is usually referred to as an ideologue on account of the way(s) in which they hold a position and the way(s) in which they describe the opposition (usually in terms which suggest irrationality or wickedness). What is ironic is that, in pitting the stem cell debate as a conflict between ideology on the one hand and “sound science” on the other, those on Obama’s side are being ideologues in their descrpition of the opposition. Who wouldn’t want to be on the side of “sound science”? It’s an easy way of stifling debate: “I’m on the side of ‘sound science’ whereas you are an ideologue; heads I win, tails you lose.” As you note, this move does not get to the heart of the matter since every participant has a position and a unique set of non-negotiables. While it is great to hope for a society that values and adheres to good ideologies, people who are so very rigid in holding positions and so very uncharitable in their description(s) of opposing positions will be with us until the end of time. What I think I’m saying is that I agree with you that we all have ideologies and have to acknowledge this fact, but also that we should avoid being ideologues who mischaracterize the opposition.
Comment by Timbo — March 11, 2009 @ 7:40 pm
Amen, Timbo. It seems we need to be open and honest about our ideologies without becoming uncharitable ideologues.
Comment by Tyler Watson — March 12, 2009 @ 11:43 am
Charles Krauthammer picked up on the same thing:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/12/AR2009031202764.html
Comment by Timbo — March 13, 2009 @ 9:15 am