Power and Ideology

After talking about the Constitution and the Federalist Papers (and hopefully having a good understanding of American political institutions) it is important to question, critically, how democratic are these institutions? It is no secret that the founders were skeptical of the idea of "direct democracy" and sought to limit the power of popular majorities (or what Madison called majority factions), but believed in the idea of the "consent of the governed" and that the public should at least approve of the directions taken by the government. This approval or lack of approval would be signaled by how the public votes in elections. 

Of course, power is to a large extent hidden under the surface of American institutions which are supposed to limit power, and achieve a consensus among political actors. If we turn to the days leading up to the Civil War, we can see how power hides under the appearance of consent. This is known as "ideology" a term first associated with Karl Marx, but now used more commonly. In Marx, he defines ideology as ideas, whether political, economic, moral, religious, legal, etc. that make the class relations of domination appear normal and natural, creating "false consciousness." In the more general use of the term, ideologies refer to political beliefs and a worldview that different groups have. In this usage, Marxism itself can be seen as an ideology since it provides a coherent worldview in this sense, though it has very little to do with normalizing class domination.

Webster

Daniel Webster's famous speech defending the Compromise of 1850 is a prime example of ideology in the Marxist sense, although it does also provide a worldview. Webster, who represented the North in Congress, uses his impressive gifts as a speaker to argue for the passage of this legislative compromise in order the preserve the Union which already showed signs of breaking apart. In the name of national unity, Webster is willing to support the Fugitive Slave Act, which would have made it a crime to aid escaped slaves and empowered slave hunters. The concession made by the South would be to admit the state of California as a free state. Legislative compromises like these were common in the years leading up to the Civil War, and shows the lengths Congress was willing to go to preserve unity:

And now, Mr. President, instead of speaking of the possibility or utility of secession, instead of dwelling in those caverns of darkness, instead of groping with those ideas so full of all that is horrid and horrible, let us come out in the light of day; let us enjoy the fresh air of Liberty and Union; let us cherish those hopes which belong to us; let us devote ourselves to those great objects that are fit for our consideration and action; let us raise our conceptions to the magnitude and the importance of the duties that devolve upon us; let our comprehension be as broad as the country for which we act, our asperations [sic] as high as its certain destiny; let us not be pigmies in a case that calls for men...Let us make our generation one of the strongest and brightest links in that golden chain which is destined, I fondly believe, to grapple the people of all the states to this Constitution for ages to come. We have a great, popular, constitutional government, guarded by law and judicature, and defended by the affections of the whole people. No monarchical throng presses the States together, no iron chain of military power encircles them; they live and stand under a government popular in its form, representative in its character, founded upon principles of equality, and so constructed, we hope, as to last for ever. In all its history it has been beneficent; it has trodden down no man's liberty; it has crushed no state. Its daily respiration is liberty and patriotism; its yet youthful veins are full of enterprise, courage, and honorable love of glory and renown. 

 Like many political speakers, Webster is so convinced of the goodness of American institutions that he is willing to protect slavery, but how can a system be good that allows slavery in the first place? The obvious contradictions are covered over by the eloquent rhetoric of Webster, just as other social contradictions are obscured by many obviously talented, even brilliant speakers, whether it be Lincoln, Kennedy, Theodore Roosevelt, Franklin Roosevelt, even Obama. This tendency to romanticize American institutions makes it harder to change these institutions, and one very important reason why culture plays an important role in politics.

John C. Calhoun, on the other hand, representing the South, ironically is much more blunt than Webster and not blinded by the romanticism of freedom and inequality in America. As a hardened defender of slavery, Calhoun sees no need to pretend that America is the land of the free. 

Calhoun

What is truly astounding about Calhoun is that he takes the further step of actually defending slavery as a good system, that is the best possible social arrangement between whites and blacks, quoting historian Richard Hofstadter here:

Slavery, he affirmed in the Senate in 1837, "is, instead of an evil, a good–a positive good." By this he did not mean to imply that slavery was always better than free labor relations, but simply that it was the best relation between blacks and whites. Slavery had done much for the Negro, he argued. "In few countries so much is left to the share of the laborer, and so little exacted from him, or... more kind attention paid to him in sickness or infirmities of age." His condition is greatly superior to that of poorhouse inmates in more civilized portions of Europe. As for the political aspect of slavery, "I fearlessly assert that the existing relation between the two races in the South...forms that solid and durable foundation on which to rear stable political institutions." (pp. 79-80).

Calhoun's extreme defense of slavery, ironically leads him to being very honest about the economic exploitation that occurs in every society. Here, he does not shy away from history like Webster. He also sounds very similar to Marx on the labor theory of value and class conflict, the theory that all value, and thus wealth, is produced by the laborer, and that the profits produced by the capitalist system are only possible by extracting a surplus from the laborer, meaning paying the laborer less than the value of their work. Marx regarded the idea of surplus value as the "secret" of capitalism and is the foundation of his whole analysis of capitalism, so it is strange that such a conservative as Calhoun would express such views:

He was sure that "there never has yet existed a wealthy and civilized society in which one portion of the community did not, in point of fact, live on the labor of the other." It would not be too difficult "to trace out the various devices by which the wealth of all civilized communities has been so unequally divided, and to show by what means so small a share has been allotted to those by whose labor it was produced, and so large a share to the non-producing classes (p. 81).

Calhoun, also correctly, points out that class conflict in the North, between industrialists and workers, is growing and will become more intense with the end of slavery. He was right, and the end of the Civil War sees the beginning of some of the bloodiest struggles between capital and "free" labor (more so than in Europe) and continues all the way through the 1930s, where the New Deal administration of FDR begins a different kind of relationship with labor, supporting them instead of capital (at least for the most part).

Lawrence, Massachusetts Textile Strike, 1912

Calhoun goes so far to propose an alliance between the plantation owners and the industrialists to hold down the laboring classes in both systems. He also proposes what he calls the "concurrent majority," basically a theory of a dual executive branch, in other words, a President for the North and another for the South. Naturally, these ideas would not come to pass but it is amazing that he even proposes them.

The legacy of Calhoun raises important questions of how we deal with American history. Many historians try to smooth over, or de-emphasize, the history of slavery and many other aspects of American history. Another point of view is to speak openly and honestly about these aspects of history to remind people of how things have changed over time, and how the legacies of the past still impact the present.

As mentioned, one of the ironies of Calhoun, given he did not subscribe to the idealized version of American history, he was able to speak honestly about key aspects of social life, those like Webster, and many others, would gloss over, or conceal, being so consumed with America's own righteousness. Even today, this sense of righteousness blinds people to what Sheldon Wolin called the inverted totalitarianism of American politics.

In the current era, one important ideological debate is why has neoliberalism (or free market, or "trickle down" economics) been so durable among political elites, even ten years after the economic crash and slow recovery?  The importance of ideology here, again, comes into focus.  Understanding the material basis for ideology is important, in other words, how corporate and government sponsorship of research, influences research, and ownership of the media, but so is the ideology itself, or content. The sociologist Alvin Gouldner spoke of a "culture of critical discourse" (CCD) influencing modern ideologies. That political ideologies like liberalism, conservatism, socialism, anarchism, etc. follow certain rules a discussion should follow, like presenting evidence, listening to counter-arguments, and so on. Fascism would be unique in that it rejects rationalism outright, where all the other ideologies at least try to present themselves as rational. Neoliberalism is an ideology that is shaped by this culture of discourse, and so has the appearance of a scientific discourse based in economics which is in turn based on mathematical models.

All modern ideologies share in this culture of discourse, to some extent. In the past, there were religious ideologies based on dogmatic beliefs that did not depend on evidence. This is not to say religion as an ideology does not exist today in various forms: the Christian Right, Zionism, Wahabism, the Supreme Leader in Iran, there are extremist Hindu and Buddhist sects as well. These ideologies exist, and, like fascism, reject the norms of critical discourse, but have embraced modern technology.

Gouldner's work is similar to Habermas in many ways. The major difference between the two is Gouldner seems to argue the culture of critical discourse developed under specific conditions in Western culture at a certain period of time in history (18th-19th century), and are in a sense "native" to that culture, where Habermas argues these norms have a universal basis. Still, Gouldner would have to concede that consensus, or the appearance of consensus, is a major part of ideology as well. The goal of any ideology, as he say is to make particular, or specific, interests appear as if they are the general interests of all, e.g. bailing out Wall St. banks, or invading countries to "make the world safe for democracy." There is also a critical difference between an "elite consensus" shared by policymakers, and a "democratic consensus" concerning the vast majority of people. There does seem to be an elite consensus over neoliberalism, as neither political party in the US, or any other developed country, seriously questions the basis of neoliberalism.

Besides understanding the norms for discourse, understanding ideology helps frame complex issues. To understand issues, people require cognitive frames that help them interpret and make sense of things in the world, using metaphors and narratives to do this. American media and politicians frame its drug epidemic as a "war on drugs" (demanding punishment). http://www.drugpolicy.org/issues/drug-war-statistics

Even "drugs" is a frame, a word that has a very negative stigma attached to it. What one person considers drugs, or "narcotics," may be medicine to someone else, even something sacred. Political campaigns attempt to frame life in America, to gain support among voters, "Make American Great Again," or "America is Still Great," and these frames either strike a chord, or resonate with people, or they do not. Framing is an important part of our cognitive process, and linguists like George Lakoff say framing is crucial in our understanding of basic reality, let alone complex issues.

Neoliberalism provides frames to interpret reality, whether its the free market, free enterprise, entrepreneurship, social capital, etc.,  However, to paraphrase the writer Upton Sinclair, it is difficult to get someone to understand something, if their job depends on not understanding, and, of course, many academics, journalists, even artists and entertainers, are well compensated and rewarded by the system, while even a decent amount who are rewarded, are still critical of the system. In effect, neoliberalism provides an easy to accept view of reality that does not require challenging many basic assumptions people have. That, self-interest, and the superficial appearance of critical discourse, probably helps best explain why neoliberalism is still accepted by many, and most political elites.