The unanticipated
correspondence between ideology
types and segments of the left-right political spectrum posed an
unexpectedly difficult theoretical problem. The solution is now at hand: you
must consider not only what the types each tell
but also what they conceal. But
first, a review of the basics of construal-level theory and the theory of
ideology types.
Construal-level
theory from social psychology deals with abstract construal (or far-mode) and
concrete construal (or near-mode), where abstract
means lower granularity achieved by deeper cognitive processing and far means distant (primarily) in time. The
alternative names for these perspectives on reality correspond to two facets of
construal level, which are correlated but can diverge. Managerialism is
concrete and present-oriented, Utopianism abstract and future-oriented; but
Demagogism is abstract and present-oriented, Monomaniacalism concrete and
future oriented.
The
unexpectedly difficult problem is to explain why the far political right fits
the Demagogist pattern, the far left the Utopianist, the broad center
Managerialist. To understand why, first notice that construal-level theory can
seem to contradict an earlier
claim: ideologists view abstract or far components of ideologies as more
important than concrete or near components. How can this be, when
construal-level theory informs us that the concrete and near seem more important?
The key to resolving the apparent contradiction is that what’s ideologically most important isn’t the
same as what’s simply most important.
In fact, what’s most important ideologically serves to conceal what’s really more important to typical individuals espousing
the ideologies.
Explaining
the correspondence of each ideology type
In
Managerialism, the typical ideology of modern, stable regimes, the low
commitment to both components of ideology conceals the strength of its
nonideological commitment to practical policies favoring particular interests.
Managerialists portray themselves as flexible, as carrying their ideologies
lightly, because they want the population to think they are more open to input
and pressure than they are. President Obama, the complete Managerialist,
concealed his political commitment to the survival of the banking monopolies,
under a pragmatic rhetoric according to which the old bank “regulators” were
simply the most capable candidates available. Managerialism corresponds to a
broad centrism because powerful interests support the status quo and must look
flexible to appear less powerful than they are. The commitment to the status
quo is paramount.
Utopianism
shows the opposite pattern where intransigence is exaggerated rather than
downplayed. Utopianism is often the ideology of those of the downtrodden who have
the capacity to resist by collective action. While powerful individuals must try
to appear flexible, those in a position to offer contest should appear
implacable. They must downplay what is really most important to them, concrete improvements,
since by concealing their willingness to compromise they can extract better
compromises. The Social Democratic Parties of the Second International often
emphasized their Maximum Program, which was socialism, while in practice
pursuing concrete, less ideological concrete measures. The Maximum Program improved
their bargaining position in pursuing their Minimum Program.
Demagogists
are ideologically committed to abstract means and seem to choose issues
without concern for consistency, but their commitment to abstract means
conceals their opportunistic orientation to immediacy. Demagogists are on the
far right because Demagogism appeals to peasants and small businessmen who, in
their social isolation, flounder and are unable to resist. They lack the raw collective
strength of the workers or the individual power of the capitalists and high
managers, so they desperately want immediate relief. The issues may vary, but
they always deal with the immediate. The Tea Party campaigned under an abstract
ideology of privatization of government services, but when it came to their own
benefits, they were grasping; aged Tea Partiers wanted above all to preserve
their Medicare “entitlements.” Demagogists must conceal their real concern
about their narrow and immediate self-interest because even the transitory
political coalitions they enter would come apart if the narrowness of its
components was understood.
Monomaniacalists
are unique in spanning the ideological spectrum, and they correspond to amorphous
class interests. What they conceal is the rigidity of their very outlook, its obsessional
quality, which can preclude getting serious support. Ron Paul’s ideological
emphasis on abstract liberty concealed the primacy of his fetishistic support
of the gold standard and his mechanical negative votes on any tax bills.
The two
sources of ideology
Not one singly but
two bases in practical life jointly support ideologies: the interests of social
classes and the habitual thought patterns of occupations. These don’t always correspond. Engineers
are prone to Monomaniacalist thinking, but if an engineer becomes very wealthy,
Managerialist ideology will better express his interests. As his interests
won’t support his Monomaniacalist tendencies and his Monomaniacalism doesn’t
support his Managerialist interests, he is an unlikely ideologist.
