Originally, the concept of ideology was not very alarming.  The National Dictionary of 1939 defines ideology as “the science of ideas.”  But since that time, ideology has taken on other connotations, specifically of dogma and of a rigid, doctrinaire, black and white understanding of the world.
    After the Second World War, both communism and fascism were said to be ideologically driven, but the same could easily be said for a wide variety of political beliefs.  Ideology, as I will use the term, constitutes a rigid set of doctrines and ideas that frame a black and white view of the world. 
    Ideology substitutes conscious reflection and careful consideration with easily supplied axioms that are supposed to apply to all situations.  To an ideologue, ‘X’ will always supply an answer or explanation for every problem.  “One simply turns to the ideological vending machine,” Daniel Bell once wrote, “and out comes the prepared formulae.”
    For instance, an ideologue might argue (hypothetically) that Hilary Clinton will not (or did not) win the election because she is a woman, while ignoring any number of other reasons she may have not been appealing to the voters.  Similarly, ideologues would argue that Barack Obama did not win because he is black, or that John McCain did not win because he is old and unattractive.
    Everything is reducible to one convenient excuse that confirms the ideologue’s previous beliefs about the nature of the country’s voting population.  America is sexist, America is racist, or Americans don’t respect the elderly.  These explanations draw on certain facts about America--some Americans certainly are sexist, racist, ageist, or all three--and turn them into convenient universalisms that can be called upon to explain everything about society.
    Ideologues believe in an interpretation of history that places them as the culmination of a great historical project; as the sum total of enlightenment and progress.  Anyone who doesn’t agree with the ideologue is either ignorant, simpleminded, or dangerous.  They are unable to see how anyone could interpret history or current events in any other way.
    When their explanations fail, as they inevitably do, they fall back on conspiracies to explain why things haven’t gone their way.  It is never their own failings, but the result of an evil boogieman that confirms a need to purify the ideology and take it to even more extremes. Because this boogieman must always exist to justify the need for any particular ideology, the ideologue will dismiss any progress that is made toward their larger goals as evidence that those stride-making individuals have sold out, been co-opted by the system, or that the change itself was meaningless.  But of course, despite their criticism, they would never consider surrendering these advances.
    The ideologue will never admit that he or she could be wrong.
    The real problem with ideology, as I see it, is that it closes a person’s mind to other possibilities and solutions.  In some instances, this can be dangerous, as in the case of people who refuse all medical care or who refuse to feed certain foods to their infants that are essential for their healthy development.  A blind adherence to ideology could result in unnecessary death.
    “But Mike,” you say, “isn’t your anti-ideology an ideology?”  No. Remember our definition of ideology: a rigid, doctrinaire, black and white understanding of the world.
    To suggest that we should be flexible in our approach to the analysis of problems and in our solutions to those problems, and that we should view every situation with a multifaceted lens, is in itself inherently unideological.  It is the negation of ideology, and therefore cannot be the same.
    I am not saying that ideologies are never appealing, convenient, and therefore useful to some people.  Given their prevalence, many individuals have clearly chosen ideology as the governing influence over their thoughts and beliefs.
    I am saying that we must choose otherwise.  If we are ever going to find solutions to the problems that we face in the Midwest today, we must jettison black and white thinking and grasp onto what works.  As Franklin D. Roosevelt tried one idea after another to alleviate the pains of the Great Depression, so too must we find solutions that work and apply them where they are needed.  One solution need not apply to every area, nor does that solution have to be maintained if it ceases to be useful.
    In my column “Cast Down Your Bucket Here,” I praised Booker T. Washington as a great American.  I did so not just because of his devotion to his country, but because he was willing to work with people he did not agree with in order to help his locality prosper.  He did not point fingers or blame others for his own problems.  He taught that hard work and self-responsibility would elevate his people.  He knew that his situation demanded a moderate course, and so he did what he could with what he had.  There is nothing contemptable in that.
    Likewise, we must not succumb to extremism or ideologies that seek to divide us into neatly opposing categories.  We must chart a middle course.  We must be open to a wide variety of ideas from a diverse pool of thought.  We must not close ourselves off to anything that might help us simply because it seems distasteful.
    On the other hand, we must be careful not to slip too far over the edge and embrace a course that is wishy-washy and lacking in substance.  That is how we got into this mess in the first place.
    We must be firm in our convictions.  In the spirit of pragmatism, we must be ready to compromise at certain times and be steadfast at others.  There is no contradiction or weakness in possessing a variety of tools from which to draw.
    To fix a complex machine, an engineer must be able to draw from a full tool belt.  It would be insane to suggest fixing a computer when your only tool is a wrench.  Ideologues, on the other hand, would tell you that a wrench will always be the best tool for any job, no matter how multifaceted the job might be.
    My friends, like many periods of history, we face difficult times.  Should we tear society apart with ideology, or should we go a different way?  The choice is ours.

--------------------------------
www.blackoakmedia.org