Ideology Can’t Explain Everything

But What Explains Ideology?

by Patrick J. Shanahan
10/16/03

I find it fascinating that in spite of the many ideological, cultural and ethnic divides that separate Americans, there still exists a parallel universe of sorts in which “class” continues to exists as a common bond between otherwise disparate folks. And as is usually the case, it is not so much about actual class as self-perceived class. It’s about status.

The best example of this is the SUV. Most liberals profess to hate them because they are “bad for the environment." Gas guzzling behemoths which serve no useful purpose have no place in their universe, and they would like to see them banned. They also have the underlying fear that an SUV could squish their puny electric hybrids without even knowing it. On the other side of the political aisle, I have listened to a shocking number of conservatives spew hideous invective at SUVs and their owners. Despite the fact that absolutely everyone seems to hate them, SUV sales continue to climb, with even Mercedes and (gasp) Porsche coming out with their own models. The only difference I can see between the different flavors of SUV haters is that the liberals would use government force to ban them, while conservatives - with a proper understanding of the limits of government - prefer to just grumble and pout.

How can this be? What can be the cause of this convergence of taste between ideological opposites? It is because dislike of SUVs is not a political or ideological issue, it is a class issue. SUVs represent the pinnacle of conspicuous consumption in contemporary American culture. It is the current means of “keeping up with the Joneses.” The sight of a soccer mom going about her daily chores in a four wheeled, gas guzzling overpriced tank is enough to drive some people wild. Those who perceive themselves as “classy folk” of any ideological bent see this as Babbitry run amok. They see nightmare images of the excesses of American and especially suburban American culture. So they do what such people always do in these situations. They sneer. They mock. They roll their eyes, safe in the knowledge that THEY are way too classy to do such lowbrow things.

Oddly enough, these reactions are not prompted by minivans, or pickup trucks, or even monster V-8 9-miles-a-gallon conversion vans like the one parked in my driveway. All of these vehicles use the same frame as SUVs, and are just as susceptible to poor gas mileage. Nope, it’s just SUVs. (Although hints of the same snobbery can be seen in battles over snowmobiles and ATVs.) All of these things are ways the lower middle class shows its wealth as it moves into the middle class. They are the self-conscious opulence of the nouveau riche.

Another interesting phenomenon that seems to defy conventional ideological lines is telemarketing and the federal “do not call” list. I have been shocked by the reaction of many stout conservatives to this issue. I would expect for Liberals to find it necessary for the federal government to get involved in the issue of who should call whom. But Conservatives? How did this become a federal issue? The fault lines on this issue seem to be libertarian v. non-libertarian, with liberals and many traditional conservatives generally coming together in defense and support of the need for such a list.

From my own point of view, I find it hard to justify the need to spend government time and money on this silliness. I have my own “do not call” methodology. When a telemarketer calls, I listen politely for 10 seconds, then I say, “Don’t call me anymore,” and hang up the phone. Why is this hard? When I was a child my Dad would sometimes unplug the phone during dinner so that we would not be bothered by calls. This isn’t rocket science. Why do we need the federal government involved in this?

I will not argue that telemarketers aren’t annoying. But they pose no danger. They break no law by calling us. Just hang up! It worries me that so many conservatives seem ready to use government power to get in the middle of private commerce to halt what is surely no more than an inconvenience. It seems to be selective invocation of the Nanny State. That certainly flies in the face of how I define conservatism. Once again I have to ascribe this at least in part to class. Telemarketing is seen by many as crass salesmanship of the worst sort. Hucksters in polyester jackets and no conscience seeking to talk us in to buying that timeshare. They probably own SUVs, too. Many folks feel that they just shouldn’t have to deal with these hucksters, and are entirely comfortable with the using the government to make their dinner time a little quieter.

I believe that our concepts of left and right are quickly becoming passé. The whole idea of “left wing vs. right wing” is several hundred years old, and the left/right dichotomy was reinforced by the totalitarian wars of the 20th Century. But whatever social/class distinctions these divisions once reflected, they have little meaning in our post-Cold War time. The fault lines are shifting. This is clear when one looks at the complete lack of positive ideas and a positive agenda on the left. Their raison d’etre has evaporated. But do not be surprised if much of what we see as “right wing” is also redefined. Pat Buchanan certainly has staked out a unique “conservative” position. Others will follow.

Look for more and more issues that refuse to fit neatly into our preferred ideological buckets. I suspect we will see evolving coalitions of “left and “right” who will band together on specific issues against other subsets of the left and right. Grand political theories offer little competition to the social details of everyday life. In the long run, how one feels about telemarketers may well have more of an impact on our political landscape than all the think-tanks and opinion magazines put together. Eventually, given 20 or 30 years, our ideological categories will be recast completely. It may be red state/blue state, anti-SUV/pro-SUV, free trade/protected trade. But it will change to reflect our social attitudes.