An Ideology of Logic

A person's idiosyncratic ideology is formed by their experiences and socialization in life. Typically, if someone is raised in a background of poverty, they are more likely to view the world as unfair and weighed against them than someone who was brought up in relative affluence. Ideologies are always deeply entrenched because they are essentially the identity of the person in question; to question their ideology is to question their existence.

Thus, because questioning someone's ideology is construed as a personal attack, it becomes incumbent upon the individual to analyze his own beliefs based on whether or not they are grounded in fundamentally logical principles. As one would expect, almost no one willingly analyzes the root of their beliefs in an attempt to find inherent logic, and thus when confronted with an opposing ideology, the average person finds it quizzical and, in some cases, barbaric.

As with any line of logical thought, one must always analyze the premises behind the conclusion being drawn, i.e. whether or not they are fallacious.

A simple example is one's belief in government-funded social welfare programs such as social security, medicare, medicaid, etc. A belief that these programs are necessary is not necessarily rooted in altruism for-its-own-sake as many would believe, but is instead believed to be necessary because the covenant between the electorate and the government implies that the government has a standing responsibility to give a modicum of care to those who are unable to care for themselves. Some may believe in social welfare because they are naturally altruistic (though some would argue egotism, a tangential point), or some may believe in social welfare because of the belief that all people should be given a fair chance to succeed in society; others believe that ensuring the welfare of a segment of society would embolden society as a whole.

One who believes in a notion of "rugged individualism" would dismiss social welfare as enabling poor people to become slovenly and comfortable in their lives. This ideology comes with the belief in the "self-made man" and that those who want success have the means to achieve it. Essentially, this is a belief that there is a culture of poverty, in that it is a "community" of people who seek to take advantage of the social welfare system in order to continue a life of licentiousness.

Look at these two options. The one that you disagree with is likely to elicit some kind of reaction from you, which may be in the form of a facial expression, a snort, or a feeling of anger while reading it. This is perfectly natural; you are defending your viewpoint, your world. Before reading on, however, think about the position you favor, and answer these questions: From where does your belief originate? Are there overwhelming facts to support your belief? Does your belief follow a strict set of morals? If so, how are those morals defined? Why do you believe in this set of morals, i.e. why do you believe this set of morals to be superior to another?

These are tough questions to ask oneself, and it is quite understandable. My attempt here, though possibly irrelevant, was to open your mind to opposing ideologies and understand the reasoning behind them. Once the reasoning behind an opponent's ideology is understood, one's own ideology is better understood. This occurs because you would be able to parallel the underlying premises of the two ideologies. You may find, however, that you don't agree with the premises, in which case, don't blame me for anything at all. Please. I'm just a poor college student.

That's all for now,
Das Flüg

Victory for Democracy

This past Election Day, Americans sent a clear message to their representatives and senators: we will exercise our support of democratic principles by voting for the other guy rather than the incumbent. After all, the best way to ensure a stable, functioning government is to vote for someone whose positions are unknown to you. I mean, all that has been done by the previously Democratic senate and house has been health care reform, children’s health care, credit reforms, veteran’s relief, a tax cut for 90% of Americans, opened up avenues for stem cell research, appropriated an unprecedented amount of money for non-military scientific research, halted the CIA torture program, gave tax cuts to small businesses, student loan reforms, and they were attempting to end the Bush-era tax cuts, which gave tax cuts to the upper echelons of wage-earners. But, who really cares about that anyway?
The newest representatives, many of whom are conservative Republicans, want to cut the deficit and cut government spending. Great! Finally, a relief from the burgeoning debt and all those social services that poor people use, like social security, welfare, Medicare, Medicaid, public education, police departments, fire departments, libraries, and prisons. And who needs research on stem cells anyway?
I assume that in two years when the next election cycle comes around, each and every eligible voter will look at the accomplishments of the now-Republican house and their individual representatives and make a vote, not based on actual action, but rather on personal chagrin. Who needs to make an informed vote when we can just vote for the other guy?

That’s all for now,
Das Flüg