Does Ideological Purity Really Exist?

I have been think a lot about the state of the world lately. In the past I was very vocal regarding what I thought was right and wrong with this country and the world at large. I was very critical of those who I felt acted only out of self-interest ignoring the negative effects their actions had on the rest of us.

I found that approach only caused a lot of heartache and damage to me both personally and professionally. I withdrew from any kind of political commentary on LinkedIn and tried to only comment on non-controversial topics.

I have no interest in wading back into some sort of shouting match where insults take the place of ideas. However I thought that perhaps I could dispassionately look at my own views and see where I personally was guilty of the same behavior I accused others of.

By trying to look at all sides I found it gave me a clearer understanding of why some might disagree with what I support, while still reinforcing many of the core principles I believe in. With that in mind I want to share the following. It is meant to provoke civil discussion not arguments. Not all of these ideas are are original to me, but I have tried to be balanced. Still, being human, I am sure some of my bias shows through so I hope that you take this for what I meant it to be – a conversation starter.

Some thoughts on political/economic theories:

Democracy:

A government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly, or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections.

Capitalism:

Capitalism is an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state. It is characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market.

The pillars of free market are entrepreneurship, capital goods, natural resources, and labor. The owners of capital goods, natural resources, and entrepreneurship exercise control through companies. In simplest terms, the individual owns his or her labor. They can in turn sell that labor to the companies, using the proceeds to buy capital goods and services.

Fascism:

Fascism is a political philosophy, movement, or regime that exalts national interests and national purity above the individual. It functions through a centralized autocratic government headed by a leader with near total authority, strict economic and social regimentation, and suppression of opposition i.e. “enemies of the state”.

Benito Mussolini outlined three principles of a fascist philosophy:

1. "Everything in the state". - The nation and its leaders are what protects and maintains society, and all within it must conform to the laws of the state for their own benefit.

2. "Nothing outside the state". - The well-being and growth of the nation is all. Other nations or forms of government are inherently inferior and those countries would actually benefit from the rule of the fascist state.

3. "Nothing against the state". - The government is always correct and all decisions made by the government and its leaders are for the benefit of the people. Questioning this is treason and cannot be tolerated.

In general fascist countries claim, harmony and lack of internal strife ss there are no conflicting parties or elections in fascist countries.

Both capitalism and fascism allow private ownership of businesses. Capitalism gives those owners free rein to produce goods and services demanded by consumers. Fascism follows nationalism, requiring business owners to put national interests first. Companies must follow the orders of the central planners.

Socialism:

Socialism evolved from Marxism, a political theory derived from the works of Karl Marx advocating the elimination of private property He proposed in a system in which goods are owned in common and each person works and is paid according to their abilities and needs.

Today socialism can be considered any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods. An economic system in which the production and distribution of goods are controlled substantially by the government rather than by private enterprise, and in which cooperation rather than competition guides economic activity.

Communism:

Communism also had its roots in Marxism. It was the founding principle behind the formation of the Soviet Union. However the political and economic theories of Vladimir Lenin provided the guiding doctrine of the Soviet Union, and modified many of Marx’s ideas. Lenin’s Communist Party saw itself as the leaders of a socialist revolution committed to ending capitalism and instituting socialism in its place. He expected that, with the triumph of the proletariat, class rule would end as class conflicts would also come to an end. After having achieved political power, Communist rule supposedly existed to force this transition. Instead this simply resulted in power concentrated in the hands of “the party” and vastly increased power of the state, creating a dictatorship that in practice was exercised not by the workers but by the leaders of the Communist Party. 

As other communist nations, such as China, came to power, many of their leaders followed Lenin’s approach. An approach taken to even greater extremes by leaders such rise of Josef Stalin and Chairman Mao.

Anarchism:

Anarchism is society without government and in fact believes that government (the state) is unnecessary and harmful. Anarchists believe our ancestors lived in anarchism in what was a completely voluntary, highly individualistic, yet cooperative society. They consider those who believe in government; be they liberals, conservatives, socialists or fascists as “statists.”

Other Forms of Government:

Some may argue this is not a complete list and that there are other forms of government such as Theocracies, Monarchies, etc. That is a fair point, but I would argue that most of those other forms of government generally follow some sort of model similar to those I have already explained above. It is simply the leaders of those government and how they come to power that tend to differ.

So is there such a thing as a pure Ideology?

While many may consider Iran a Theocracy I would also argue it is primarily a fascist state (it has a Supreme Leader), with some elements of democracy (it also has elected leaders). While England is technically a Monarchy, it is truly a democracy in that power exists in the hands of elected representatives, with an economic system is a mixture of capitalism and socialism.

In fact I would argue that every one of those definitions of government I are essentially irrelevant in today’s world. While we are in a time where different factions preach ideological purity, closer examination shows that it really doesn’t exist. Even China, the last great Communist power in the world is not purely Communist, owing much of its power to the adoption of Capitalist principles, while maintaining authoritarian rule.

In the United States we have a government that is generally considered a Capitalist Democracy. Is it? Well yes and no. First, is it Capitalist?  To a degree yes, but not purely so. While the majority of the property in the country is privately owned there are still large portions of the country that are owned and maintained by the state for the benefit of its citizens (national parks, highways, etc.). While most of us survive by either producing services/products or owning the means of production there are many who receive government assistance in the form of Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Food Stamps, Welfare, Unemployment Compensation, etc. Also many of our fellow citizens are actually employed by the state. Our police, firemen, military and many others are supported by the taxes the rest of us pay because we value these services. Like England, I would argue our economic system is a mixture of both socialist and capitalist principles, although we certainly lean more towards capitalism.

So is the United States a Democracy? Of course we are a Democracy! I think to state otherwise is ridiculous. Having said that are we a pure Democracy – No. In our presidential elections we do not have true majority rule due to our Electoral College. While in most cases the majority and the Electoral College have been in agreement, recent elections have shown this is not always the case. We can also not ignore the issue of Gerrymandering, which allows political parties to consolidate power by creating district maps that allow candidates to win elections by excluding some voters from those districts, while adding others. Finally, while we are all allowed to vote in this country, economic circumstances and even certain laws make it more difficult for some of us to exercise that right.

I am not interested in arguing whether this system is right or wrong. What I want to argue is about how we label ideas and then use those labels as weapons to invalidate the views of those we disagree with.

I think it fair to say the most conservative Republican, who derides those “liberal tax and spend Democrats and their socialist agenda”, would never vote to cut spending on what is by far the largest socialist program in our government – the United States Military. And before you tell me that it is not a socialist program, I would like you to explain why. It is under the control of the government, paid for with our taxes, and exist to protect the citizens of this country. Soldiers are paid by the government, have healthcare through government programs, receive subsidized education, housing, and other benefits – all paid for with tax dollars.

Now before you think I am trying to beat up on Republicans, let’s take a look at some Democratic examples of hypocrisy. In this case we do not have to look further than some examples set by our previous president, Barack Obama. We all know how much Democrats decry the influence of money in politics. How corporations and the rich can buy elections. How Republican money has prevented the establishment of a ‘level playing field”.

Yet here are two Obama quotes:

"If I am the Democratic nominee, I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election."

- Barack Obama, fall 2007

"We've made the decision not to participate in the public financing system for the general election."

- Barack Obama, June 19, 2008

Why the flip flop? Very simple, Obama vastly out-fundraised McCain and participating in a publicly financed election would have limited what Obama could spend. It would have created a “level playing field” when Obama had a significant advantage. So much for ideological purity when it comes to winning elections.

Now I ask you, go back and look at those definitions of political and economic theories. Can anyone claim 100% allegiance to any of them? I can’t. Can anyone deny there are elements of all of them in our current political landscape (yes even including Fascism)? If so, I would love to hear your explanation of which ones are missing. Furthermore, with perhaps the exception of fascism, I would like someone to explain how a society can thrive without elements of each of them.

Yet we continue think the way to make a point is to call each other “socialists”, “communists”, “fascists”, or whatever label we think will do the most damage to the other side - as if those over-simplifications actually mean anything. Why not consider dropping the labels and actually discuss who the policies we support benefit? Why don’t we actually look at what proposed legislation does and then decide if we think it is good or bad for our country? Why consider proposed policies, instead of who proposed them? Why not consider facts instead of rhetoric?

We have to learn to move past these tribes we are all falling into and think for ourselves before it is too late. Take a moment to really consider the politicians you support. Then really look at the policies they propose:

Do those policies really benefit you?

Do they benefit those you love?

Do they benefit the causes you hold dear?

If the answer to all three of those answers is no, then ask - Who do they benefit? If you don’t like the answer perhaps it’s time to change your position.

Patrick Logan's professional experience covers a broad spectrum of experience: executive, clinician, consultant, manufacturer, manager, educator, marketer, lecturer, athlete, motivational speaker, and even an actor. He has over 25 years of leadership experience in the healthcare field at all levels including budgeting, administration, and project management. He is a recognized expert on the healthcare market, with specialization in the integration of ancillary care models into hospital systems, facility design, and the development of best practices for national, regional and local organizations. He firmly believes in the concept of "doing well by doing good" can be contacted through LinkedIn.