The Ideological Box
The talks between President Biden and British Prime Minister Boris Johnson (as opposed to upcoming talks with Vladimir Putin) seem to involve something we did not see for the last few years, two leaders with, not all, but many common goals, yet with different ideas on how to attain those goals. Johnson is a conservative and Biden a liberal. Johnson, I believe, had to campaign as more populist than he probably is and Biden more progressive than he probably is. I believe that their talks can actually end up being productive as long as neither of them locks himself in an ideological box.
The ideological box is a place where people of all persuasions may go to purposely retard their thinking, a place where they are not required to deal with practical realities. It is a place where ultraconservative fanatics recently spent four years disengaging with their most trusted partners and making believe that anti-global rhetoric can magically cure all of our ills. It is a place where simply severing treaties and relationships with one's most responsible international partners, instead of improving them, will somehow fix all the problems that the deals were designed to fix. It is a place where quite important problems can be discussed with people who have no idea how to solve them or how to pursue and execute legitimate attempts to solve them on the world stage. It is a place where the generation of wealth can be encouraged and accelerated while ignoring equitable distribution of that wealth. It is not a restricted place and one may sometimes be accidentally locked inside. In some ways, the box can even be compared to the one into which the Carter administration entered, years ago, without a key. Because so many experienced Dems refused to work for him, he was forced to start with many inexperienced state employees, many of whom, by the time they had gained requisite experience, were already out of office.
Meanwhile, Mr. Trump, apparently feeling that, possessing the necessary business experience, he could oversee and directly supervise unqualified panderers in developing mandates as opposed to negotiations, not only lost valuable international and neighboring allies’ trust, but their respect as well. As a result, he was left with his desired, but futile “mano a mano” military and economic relationship with China, no effective economic relationship at all with Europe and no real economic or any other relationship with Russia! Campaigning against “globalism,” Trump followers blamed all of our problems on the “other guys.” Johnson, as a populist, of course, did much the same thing. Great way to get elected, but advocating changing to a diametrically opposite policy as a magical cure, sounds miraculous at first, but eventually all but the most simple minded, chauvinists, or outright bigots see it for what it really is: sleight of hand.
No country or culture can survive without being, in some way, “progressive,” yet a person who calls himself a “Progressive” is probably admitting to being an ideological twit if he advocates what he, himself, calls “progress” at any cost as so many seem to do. Similarly, being “conservative” is, in itself, a genuine attribute in the sense of conserving the best of our values, freedom, democratic government, meaningful foreign relations..., but, if calling oneself a “Conservative” means forcing one’s own religious beliefs, stereotypes, and biased version of history on fellow citizens, one is not only admitting to being an ideological twit, but to being far more cruel and evil than any of his equally psychotic “Progressive” colleagues.
Ideological boxes, I think, would be much more practical if they were instead put to proper use as virtual padded cells for only hopelessly deranged ideologues on both sides of the political aisle.
Al Finkelstein 6/12/21