Democratic Values and Ideology

                                                                            Politics, Ideology and Self-interest

       Ideology and the realm of ideas give substance to the beliefs and values of particular groups, cultures and organizations. The ideology of democracy gives us the foundation of ideas that support the values upon which our great nation was founded. And, these are the ideas that are the basis of many great debates, discussions and collaborative forums that can help to build greater democratic participation and spawn new ideas and resolution to our nation’s many problems. However, when so many interest groups put there own self-interest before the principles and values that serve as the foundation of American democracy, conflicts of interest and contradictions arise that can undermine what is most important in our system and our way of life.  

       So, ideology in itself can be a basis for healthy discussion that serves to resolve differences while it is the “ideology of selfish interest” and ambition that we need to be most concerned about. The ideologies of democracies can help us to develop a collaborative approach to a new transformative vision in every area of American life from the economy to health care to business and education. However, it is the “ideology of selfish interest” and ambition that is the most destructive force in our democratic system. And, this selfish ideology is often the basis for many of the worst political decisions of the past half century by politicians and bureaucrats who appear to be working for the interests of the country, but are instead working to further their own political agendas and ambitions at the expense of the American people.

       This selfish ideology is evident in every decision that is made for purely political reasons at the expense of the larger mission or purpose of the organization or society. Recently, on Bill Moyer’s Journal, Lynn Sherr interviewed Rory Stewart, the Director of the Carr Center for Policy at Harvard University. The interview involved a discussion of the culture and history of Afghanistan and the problems with the existing American policies and increasing involvement of American troops in Afghanistan. Mr. Stewart proceeded to give an interesting and important summary of his experiences walking throughout Afghanistan and his strong belief that a policy of nation building would be certain to fail without the impossible commitment of more than thirty years and hundreds of thousands of American troops on the ground. Since such a huge commitment would be a practical impossibility for the United States, Mr. Stewart seemed to be suggesting a total reconsideration of U.S. policies there by the Obama Administration. Yet, when he was asked by Ms. Sherr what he would advise President Obama to do about the recent request for 40,000 more American troops by the American General in Afghanistan, he responded by stating that Obama had no choice but to commit the new troops. All of this he recommended to a cause that he already clearly described as a failed policy.  

       What is going on here? Why is Mr. Stewart making such a huge apparent contradiction and recommending such a significant increase in the investment of American lives and blood to an apparent lost cause? His answer to Ms. Sherr when she asked him why was to say that an Obama change of policy now would make him appear weak and threaten his entire foreign policy agenda. However, this was a politically expedient and very contradictory answer to what he had already described as being necessary in Afghanistan which included a complete change in policy from nation building to a more focused strategy of pursuing Al Qaeda and fighting terrorism. If Obama seeks to achieve short term political gain by sending these troops when it is clear that it is a doomed strategy, he will be committing the nation to another Vietnam with no end in sight and no hope for success. This is exactly how the U.S. became mired in both Iraq and Vietnam. Once a large commitment is made it is much more difficult to withdraw. Also, Americans would understand a reconsideration and change of policy now. However, later would be more difficult for everyone. Yet, Mr. Stewart, who clearly understands that the existing nation building strategy is hopeless, would recommend, for primarily political purposes, the commitment of 40,000 more troops to this lost cause sacrificing many more American lives in the process. What can he possibly be thinking? Why contradict himself? The answer lies in a form of self-serving ideology that seeks to preserve political power in the short term while sacrificing lives and ultimate success in the long term. This is a classic example of the kind of political expediency that has been so destructive over the past fifty years in American politics.

       It is time for this approach to politics based upon this short-sighted, self-serving political ideology to stop. If Mr. Obama chooses to pursue a policy that has no hope for success as Mr. Stewart has clearly described, he will be doing so for all of the wrong reasons and it would certainly not be worth the sacrifice of so many American lives. Also, for Mr. Stewart to recommend the continuation of a failed policy for political reasons, or any other reason he may have, is also both short-sighted and possibly self-serving if his objective is to become some sort of political advisor to Obama. I hope neither is true and that President Obama will follow the advice of Vice President Biden and refocus American Policy in Afghanistan on Al Qaeda without any further commitment of American troops. Or, pull all American troops out of Afghanistan. Finally, short term political gains are never worth the risk of American lives, especially when it has been shown that there will be no long term benefit for the safety and stability of America or the future of Afghanistan.

 Copyright 2009, Global Leadership Resources: For teaching or classroom use only.

                                                                                   Discussion Questions 

  1. Discuss the relationship between values and ideology. How are values supported by ideology? What are benefits and problems of ideology in a democracy?
  2. What is the “ideology of self-interest” and how does it undermine the mission and the will of the people in a democracy?
  3. Discuss decisions that are politically expedient and short-sighted? Why are such decisions made and how can they be avoided?
  4. What are the policy options for America in Afghanistan? What does Mr. Stewart believe is the best long term policy for America in Afghanistan?
  5. Why did Mr. Stewart recommend sending 40,000 more American troops to Afghanistan when he states a long term commitment by the U.S. is a “practical impossibility” considering the length of time and the number of troops needed?
  6. Why does Mr. Stewart appear to contradict his own ideas for a successful American policy in Afghanistan? Does he use good political judgment? Why or why not?  What would you recommend to President Obama?
  7. Discuss a methodology for decisions by government leaders that is consistent with Democratic Values and the long term safety of the American people?



Make a Free Website with Yola.