1.3.1: Developing Your Political Philosophy: A Closer Look

Choices 

How should you approach politics? Should you think about each political issue individually, or should you categorize yourself as liberal, conservative, Democratic, or Republican? In this section, let’s consider each approach's pros and cons and examine some of the political science that provides guidance about these choices. 

There are three choices to make:

1. Develop opinions about issues based on your values. Do not seek to categorize your opinions as comprising a particular ideology.

2. After developing your opinions, categorize yourself as having a particular ideology, such as conservative or liberal. 

3. After developing your opinions and identifying your ideology, find a home in a political party and characterize yourself as having a partisan identity, such as Republican or Democrat.

Choice 1: Political Viewpoints Without Ideology or Party

The first choice invites you to treat each issue sui generis, as unique and distinct from every other issue. Do the following: consider the relevant values for each issue you may wish to consider. Apply them to the issue and then develop your opinion. For example, consider your belief about borrowing money. If you believe that a person should be careful to borrow money only when necessary, perhaps you would like the government also to spend no more than it collects in revenues, unless it is needed to respond to a national crisis, such as a war. Developing opinions does not have to be a solitary endeavor; you can discuss your opinions with friends and family as you might deliberate about a particular personal dilemma. 

There are two advantages and two disadvantages to this approach. First, there is a cognitive clarity to considering each issue individually. Every issue has its own unique set of characteristics arising in particular times and circumstances. For example, consider the virtues and vices of taxes and spending using the specific context, needs, and political demands of the moment. Second, the specificity of the issues helps us better come to agreements with others. We can listen to how each of us understands an issue, reflect on the values in common, and come to an appropriate course of action. 

However, this choice does have its problems. Is it wise to focus on issues individually rather than seek a more general approach to politics? Aren’t we likely to actually have an implicit general approach to politics anyway, and we should simply be more aware of our own thinking? Secondly, politics is very much a social activity; how do we organize politically to mobilize people to favor candidates, parties, or issues if we reject any broader brushstrokes to characterize our identities?

Choice 2: Adopting An Ideology

The second choice asks you to categorize or label yourself with a political ideology. Ideology refers to a world-view regarding politics, establishing a descriptive, analytical, and evaluative framework for understanding politics and your place in the political world. Underlying this choice is the question of whether you like to categorize or label yourself in any area of life. Some types of categories seem ascriptive or fixed; you are a particular nationality, race, ethnicity, etc., But then in many ways these categories resemble labels and beg the question of what does it mean to be…an American, to be African-American, Latino, Asian etc., or to be a Christian, or a Jew, etc.? Nevertheless, other categories are more adopted or perhaps achieved as a designated role; professor, student, engineer, nurse, etc.

Because we can choose our ideology, we may treat political ideology as an achieved category, the result of thinking and generalization about ourselves. Drawing on the discussion in the previous section of this chapter, do you have a consistent set of political values that you apply across many issue areas? Consider different issues and see if your beliefs have an internal consistency. For example, perhaps as you think about the minimum wage, taxes, and government regulations, you would prefer the government to be less intrusive. You may realize that, at least with regard to economic issues, you are a conservative. Use an online survey to help categorize yourself, such as Idealog.org, the Pew Research Center political typology quiz, and Political Compass. 

Is this how most people learn who they are, through thinking about their viewpoints and completing surveys? Political scientists have asked voters how they decide issues, and only about 20% actually use ideological terms such as liberal and conservative to help them make judgments. Instead, voters often consider the benefits and costs of particular platforms and positions, the nature of the times, or simply no issue content at all, such as evaluating the personal attributes of candidates (Lewis-Beck et al). 

Yet recent Gallup polls show that most Americans identify themselves as liberal, conservative, or moderate. So, how do we develop our ideologies? Perhaps the adoption of an ideology is not an individual effort at all, but is instead far more ascribed to us by our social circumstances. A mosaic of demographic factors (family, class, location, heritage, etc.) teaches us how to think, value, and vote. We may not be explicitly aware of these influences or understand our own thinking because we’ve passively absorbed so many attitudes and issue positions over time. 

Two advantages become evident upon adopting an ideological approach. First, you can see the forest for the trees, the big picture. Just about everything can fit together in an overarching view of the world: what is, and what should be done. An ideology becomes a tool when you confront new issues. If you believe that the government’s role in the economy should be small, then you will greet a new tax proposal with skepticism. Second, common labels create the basis for social bonding; groups form to work together to elect candidates, promote agendas, and mobilize voters.

However, ideology has its drawbacks. Cognitively, imposing an ideological lens on a new issue may distort details and be a poor guide for policy prescriptions. Perhaps, a reflexive attitude against taxes may not be practical in a given situation. It can become too rigid, substituting dogma for analysis. Second, our ideological labels may alienate us from each other. Announce that you are a liberal or a conservative at a social gathering and see how many friends you make. Perhaps half the party reacts negatively to you. On the other hand, if you don't use ideological labels and just grumble about taxes or pollution, popularity may come your way!

Choice 3: Joining a Party

We categorize ourselves as members of parties in both an informal and formal way. Informally, a party is just an identity, like a religious identity without necessarily joining a specific house of worship, or who you consistently root for in a particular sport. Formally, though, when you register to vote, your party registration determines which party ballot you receive (state and national elections are a two-step process in which voters, in party primary elections, choose among candidates within their parties, and then the winners of each party primary run against one another in a second general election in November). Treat joining a party rationally: after determining your issue positions and selecting an ideology, choose the party that most closely fits your ideology.

There are two problems with this approach. Is it accurate to characterize joining a party as a rational choice? Are we explicitly considering preferences when we register to vote? For political scientists, the choice is more accurately characterized as party identification, a lifelong attachment learned from family, and that is likely to be passed on to the next generation. The strongest predictor of your party affiliation is that of your parents (Jennings and Niemi). 

There is another problem with selecting a party as a vehicle to promote a particular set of issue positions and ideologies. We are assuming that a party will remain consistent in its ideological approach. However, what if a party is nothing more than an organization that helps its members attain and retain elected office (Downs)? Then, issue positions have no intrinsic value to parties, and they will often shift positions to attract voters. Loyalty to the party and the candidates of the party becomes the primary purpose of parties. Consequently, rather than reflecting your opinions, parties are persuading you to adopt issue positions as a strategy to win elections. You are not thinking independently. 

Nonetheless, there are two advantages of joining parties. First, to fully participate in all elections, one has to be a member of a party. However, California and several other states allow non-party members to vote in most, but not all, primary elections. Second, if one takes an idealistic standpoint, parties remain a potent vehicle to elect candidates who want to implement one's policy preferences.

The disadvantages of joining a political party are also evident. Parties may be part of a larger problem, groupthink. Instead of actually pondering the issues, you may be quite passive in your approach. First, for better or for worse, your opinions are shaped by how family, friends, and media socialized you, and then they are manipulated by party leaders to gain your support. Parties no longer represent your values or interests over time; they become vehicles for the ambitious to obtain office. Secondly, like ideology, party membership may alienate us from others. Would you marry someone from a different party? According to a survey by the Institute of Family Studies, only 21% of US marriages are between individuals who don’t share the same party affiliation. 

Conclusion

In short, it’s complicated. We can develop opinions idealistically, connect them with ideologies, and select the party that best suits our viewpoints. On the other hand, political science has taught us that our beliefs may be less a matter of choice than of circumstances; and the primary goal of parties may be just to win, diminishing their fidelity to consistent policy positions. Nevertheless, while recognizing the limits of ideology and party, the very act of reflecting on our viewpoints, their origins, and how we want to organize them helps us learn more about ourselves. Ironically, recognizing our limitations gives us greater freedom to alter our personal and political circumstances.