"Moderation is rapidly disappearing in political life, with dangerous consequences for the American republic." Police at a free-speech march in Boston. Credit: Spencer Platt / Getty
![](https://unherd.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Peter-F-100x100.jpg)
Is ideology a bad thing?
Jerry Taylor of the Niskanen Centre thinks so and he used to be a libertarian:
“I have abandoned that libertarian project, however, because I have come to abandon ideology. This essay is an invitation for you to do likewise — to walk out of the ‘clean and well-lit prison of one idea.’”
It’s a superb essay and I’d urge anyone with a deep interest in political ideas to read it in full. However, I do have some disagreements.
Here’s the most basic one: without an ideology – or at least a set of moral principles – how would you recognise a bad thing when you see it? Or, for that matter, a good thing?
Taylor believes that ‘worldviews’, though meant to be clarifying, can be distorting:
“Even if we embrace ideology merely as a conceptual lens to help us better understand what is most likely to promote human well-being (ideology as a pattern-recognition device), we run into difficult problems. The incredible complexity of social and economic relationships, the heterogeneity of human beings, and the ubiquitous and irresolvable problem of unintended consequences will frustrate dogmatic shortcuts to problem-solving.”
I like this optical analogy. But the question is not whether one should have a worldview or not, but what sort of lens one’s chosen ideology provides. Is it a microscope – detailed patterns of light and shade revealing the “incredible complexity” that Taylor writes about? Or is it a kaleidoscope – rearranging the truth into patterns that serve no purpose other than to please the viewer?
To be clear, Jerry Taylor’s argument against ideology is not that we should abandon all idea of right and wrong:
“The better alternative is not moral relativism. The better alternative is moderation, a commodity that is rapidly disappearing in political life, with dangerous consequences for the American republic.”
But what does he mean by “moderation”? At some points in his essay, Taylor appears to suggest that there is a non-ideological, technocratic realm that we can step into if only we free our minds:
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
Subscribe