The Foundation: Ideology

This blog seeks to comment on current events, both here and abroad. In order to do this, it is essential to understand some basic language in which to communicate. In this post, this author will address the topic of ideology. This is important to any discussion of current events, history, or international affairs because no event, no communication between parties, nothing dealing at all with politics happens apart from ideology.
Ideology, along with politics as we know them, emerged as a result of the Industrial Revolution. The Industrial Revolution changed the face of Europe, and one hundred years later, the States. The Revolution create extreme social and economic upheaval, with many moving into the cities, and living in conditions most would not cherish. The influx of economic capital gave new material wealth to European (and later the U.S.) powers. This created a need. People who trusted their leaders were living in conditions deplorable by any standards. The leaders were not feeling the same pinch, and not reacting to these conditions, instead they were helping to create them. This created an alienating feeling, and a need for new thought on politics.
The emerging thinking, called ideology, or political philosophy, can be seen as a response to the social upheaval and economic disproportion created by the industrial revolution. Within this we find many different strategies, from complete upheaval of the institution, to a reversion to the ways of old. It is in this context we find the most common ideological language, that of the political spectrum.
The political spectrum centers around the status quo, meaning current conditions in society and politics. Closest to the status quo we find the conservative, who thinks society would be well off with only minor tweaking to the establishment. To the right of the conservative we find the reactionary, the furthest right on the spectrum. The reactionary is the only position in ideology which sits on the right side of status quo. It is the reactionary who wishes to move society further backwards, to the point it reverts back to “the way things used to be”. This is very different than the rest of the system, which could be seen in various phases of progression.
To the left of conservative sits the moderate. The moderate overall is satisfied with government institutions, but thinks that it needs slight tweaking. They feel as though the political institution and powers that be can be successfully fixed to provide sufficient welfare for society. This of course, is more progressive than the conservative, who is satisfied with the status quo, but not near as progressive as the liberal. The liberal would feel as though the current make-up of the political system is ineffective. The only way to make it right is complete overhaul. It then seeks to do this either internally or externally to create a more beneficial political system. The liberal would call for immediate change, but not in the manner of revolution and armed coup.
On the far left, then, sits the radical, the only political position which says the current system of politics and government is so corrupt, that the only manner of fixing it is violent and immediate revolution: systematic, forced overhaul. This takes its most noticeable form in forced military coup de et’at carried out to depose a tyrant, or unpopular head of state.
There are many different figure heads associated with each of these positions, both contemporary and from history. These are not important now. What is important is the knowledge that there are standardized definitions to politics, to the extent that scholars and commoners alike know what they are. It is with this language that posts from here on will use, and these definitions which will be held.

Information for this post has come from:

Baradat, L.P. (2008) Political Ideologies: Their Origins and Impact. 9th Ed. New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall.