Blogora Classic: U.S. Political Ideologies, February 13, 2005

February 13, 2005

U.S. Political Ideologies

Here's my entry as the first discussion of useful concepts in rhetoric for teaching; I posted an earlier version of this on the Blogora in November, and people seemed to find it useful. This version has the links better integrated into the text:

Ideologies in U.S. Public Discourse

In teaching courses about political rhetoric over the years, I have discovered that students do not have a clear sense of the differing political positions out there in the world of partisan politics. If they listen to Rush Limbaugh, they believe that anyone who takes a position somewhere slightly to the left of George H.W. Bush is a "liberal." Most students don't know that the most cogent arguments against the Iraq War have generally been made from the "paleoconservatives" such as Patrick Buchanan and Justin Raimondo. Raimondo's website is an indispensable source of worldwide commentary on the war and on Middle East policy.

One beef I have with many rhetoric texts, especially argumentation textbooks, is their "formalism." That is, they provide checklists for tests of evidence, fallacies, argument patterns, and so on, but do not start with naturally occurring public argument. In recent years I have been working on the following handout, which lays out the main political ideologies in the U.S. from right to left, differentiating them primarily in terms of their views on three core issues: Culture, the Economy, and Foreign Policy. Feel free to make use of this as you wish; suggestions for improvement are welcome.

A. Traditionalists or “Paleoconservatives” (Buchanan, Schlafly, Eagle Forum, Mises Institute, League of the South, American Conservative, Chronicles of Culture)

CULTURE 1. Cultural conservatives (religious, regionalist,anti- immigration, anti-abortion)
ECONOMY 2. Pro-free market but Anti-big business against free trade, for economic nationalism)
FOREIGN POLICY 3. More isolationist/Against Iraq War/anti- Israel

4. Useful websites:

Buchanan's American Conservative

Chronicles of Culture

B. Libertarians/Classical Liberals (Milton Friedman, Cato Institute, Reason)
1. Culturally indifferent (often secular, pro-choice, pro- gay rights)
2. Economic liberty comes first (vouchers, deregulation)
3. Strong defense but noninterventionist (some opposed VN War)
4. Useful websites:
Reason magazine
Cato Institute

C. Fusionists (Frank Meyer, Wm F. Buckley, Jr.; mainstream Republicans, National Review): so-called because try to combine A and B
1. Moderate cultural conservatism
2. Free market economics
3. Strong anti-Communism/internationalist, although with a strongly "realist" approach to foreign policy, as opposed to the more "Wilsonian" (export democracy) approach of the neocons
4. Useful websites: National Review

D. Neoconservatives / “National Greatness conservatives” (Norman and John Podhoretz, Bill Kristol, Weekly Standard, Commentary)
1. Moderate cultural conservatism (more on education than on abortion/religion--appeal to Jewish intellectuals)
2. Moderate welfare state
3. Fiercely anti-Communist/internationalist/pro-Israel; "neocons" in Bush Administration were primary partisans of Iraq War
4. Useful websites:
Weekly Standard

Commentary

E. “New Democrats” (Clinton, Gore, Kerry, Democratic Leadership Council, New Republic)
1. “Socially liberal”: Moderate feminist, gay rights, etc.
2. Pro-market, strong free-trade, but defend stronger "safety net" for the poor; relatively indifferent to the labor movement; in favor of "Reinventing government": more efficient military and federal government.
3. Highly “moral” tone to foreign policy; "Wilsonian" interventionists
4. Useful websites: New Republic

F. Social Democrats (Kennedy, Wellstone, American Prospect; Nation)
1. Strongly feminist, gay rights, etc.
2. Strong defender of welfare state: national health insurance, etc.; strong ties to labor movement
3. Internationalist, but skeptical of American interventionism
4. Useful websites:
American Prospect
The Nation

G. “Greens”/Naderites (ZNet, CounterPunch, Progressive)
1. Strongly feminist, gay rights, etc., but have an emphasis on localism that at times unites them with paleoconservatives
2. Economic views defined mostly by hostility to big business and free trade (WTO protests)
3. Highly critical of US foreign policy, bordering on isolationist
4. Useful websites:
CounterPunch
Progressive magazine
Z magazine

Posted by jim at February 13, 2005 07:15 PM

Alternet and Mother Jones might be good additions to E. or F.

Posted by: Clancy at February 14, 2005 01:54 PM

The Mises Institute, if that's Ludwig von, belongs in category "B."

I think of, perhaps wrongly, Chomsky and Albert as being the main intellectual forces behind Z, and I wouldn't define their politics as "localist" or them even being against free trade, though they're certainly against "free trade."

Posted by: Jonathan at February 14, 2005 06:39 PM

I'd keep Mises in A, even if they are classical liberals, because they have a lot of pro-Southern supporters and, in my experience, mainstream libertarians (Deirdre McCloskey, even folks I've met at the Liberty Fund) think of them as a bit extreme. Various Mises Institute publications have referred to me as "Commie" after I cast some alleged aspersions on them a few years ago, so I know whereof I speak.

In re Z, I'm just trying to map out what a position to the left of social democracy might be. I see no particular coherence in their views, so I'm not the best representative; although Albert and the whole parecon movement seems "localist" to me, a la Murray Bookchin. I am, no surprise, a Habermasian social democrat, so my frames may be biased, although if my handout is to work, it needs to be "fair and balanced."

Posted by: jim at February 14, 2005 10:03 PM

The Mises folks are undoubtably ideologically extreme libertarians, but they do not share the other "paleo" aspects of the folks in category A, particularly in the culture and economy sections, so maybe just listing a spectrum within each category could be useful. I don't know how much detail is necessary, but I suspect the protectionist Buchanan would be as horrified by von Misesites as he would by a Habermasian social democrat.

"Localism" has, perhaps inappropriately, to me a primitivist connotation, and Albert's explicitly not a primitivist.

Posted by: Jonathan at February 14, 2005 10:57 PM