On Ideologies

     It has always been important to me that I drive out any inconsistencies and hypocrisies in my political views. For example, I hate cigarettes and I think that they should be considered at least on par with other drugs that are illegal and yet do not cause nearly as much damage to your health.

     The issue arose of a certain ballot proposition we will be voting on in California in November where, in order to finance hospital expansion of some sort, we were going to raise the tax on tobacco products by a large amount.

     At first, although I knew the destination of the money was simply to illegal immigrant pockets, I supported the initiative because I knew from economics 101 that if you tax a good, consumption will decrease. Which I considered to be a positive.

     However later on, the socialist Democrats in the California Legislature were trying to push an excise tax on the purchase of SUVs and Mini-Vans of $2,000 which would then be turned around and given as a subsidy to the purchase of “clean-air” vehicles. This bill seemed abhorrent to me on its own, but when coupled with my pleasure at taxing tobacco consumption into the ground I realized that there was hypocrisy in my political views.

     The essential question came down to whether or not it was acceptable for society to place a tax on a good simply because we do not like it. The answer I came to was a resounding no. I no longer support the cigarette tax proposition (Proposition 86 I believe). I feel that if society deems something as inappropriate, whether it be tobacco, alcohol or SUVs, it should outlaw it, not tax it.

     It was in the process of thinking through this issue that I began to ponder on ideologies and what drives them. I came up with three ‘levels’ that I wish to share with you. Bear with me because I use terms that have a colloquial definition with which I disagree.

     The first level is a summary of your views and stances on the issues, the second is what I call your “underlying philosophy,” and the third is your position with respect to the mainstream population of today.

     The first level is above all irrespective of your political party. If you would please envision a coordinate plane in which the y-axis is ‘economic issues’ and the x-axis is ‘social issues.’ Using these measures, you can be placed in a quadrant. Because “right-wing” lies to the right, I am labeling it as both positive x and positive y. Therefore, Quadrant 1 becomes ‘conservative,’ Quadrant 2 becomes ‘libertarian,’ Quadrant 3 becomes ‘liberal,’ and Quadrant 4 becomes ‘populist.’

     It is important to remember that these words may not have the exact definitions with which you are familiar. The colloquial definitions for ‘liberal’ and ‘conservative’ in particular are defined slightly differently.

     Whereas the first level dealt with your particular answer to the question of “what” you believe, the second level deals with “why” you believe a certain way. I refer to these designations as “under-lying philosophies,” and they provide an over-arching reasoning behind most of your views on the issues.

     For example, “Christianity” could be an underlying philosophy that would give an answer for many issues. Not every under-lying philosophy provides an answer to every issue however and so there could be secondary philosophies that fill in the gaps. Not everyone who subscribes to a particular underlying philosophy has to toe the party line exactly, everyone varies slightly.

     The particular view you have on an issue can be reasoned out in many ways and it is there that you show which philosophy you are relying upon.

     The final level is expressed in terms of ‘conservative’ and ‘progressive,’ referring to your position among the mainstream popular thought of the day. These terms are the only terms that change with time. A perfect example is that of the word ‘liberal,’ when it was used to refer to people who supported democratic government over autocratic rule. Royalists were termed ‘conservative’ and democratic thought was termed ‘liberal.’ The liberal used in this sense is better described as progressive in my system. Very few people today advocate the institution of a monarchy over a democracy in America and so everyone is progressive in terms of early 19th century thought.

     However, in terms of today’s thinking the Republican Party can be considered conservative, while the Democratic Party is termed progressive. This here is where the party definitions tend to lie; alongside contemporary fluid definitions on the issues.

     As a quick illustrative issue, let us look at abortion. At the first level, you are either pro-choice or pro-life, corresponding to the right or the left on the social axis, making you either conservative-populist or liberal-libertarian.

     Now if you were asked “why are you pro-choice/life,” there are many answers you could give. “Human life is sacred,” “A woman’s right to choose,” and “It is beneficial to society as a whole to allow parents who are not ready and/or able to support children to not have to do so” are just three of the many answers given.

     Each of these answers corresponds to an underlying philosophy of their own, with many philosophies even giving the same answer. For example, “A woman’s right to choose” and “…beneficial to society…” both bring themselves to pro-choice, but the latter could be considered a Social Darwinistic under-lying philosophy, whereas the former could be many things, of which feminist and civil libertarian are possibilities.

     As you can see, there are infinite possibilities when it comes to under-lying philosophies. However, it is important to remember that everyone has one or many, whether they know it or not and that everyone bases their decisions on the way the philosophies show them how to look at the world.

-Raphael Hythloday