Ideology seems to be a topic of renewed interest in the United States at present. While ideologues on all sides have long reveled in their exagerated banter, it seems that the media is now involved. Nonetheless, the press too fails to capture the essential realities of contemporary American political life.

On the left and the right today, there are grandiose motivations offered as to the hidden ambitions or backgrounds of political opponents. Much as some Tea Partiers have accused the current administration of being socialist in outlook, commentators on the left have been throwing around the term fascist to criticize those opposing the policies of the Obama administration. The irony is that fascists would accuse their opponents of socialism, and socialists would accuse their staunchest critics of fascism. Commentators in the employ of  reputable newspapers ought to be smarter than to confuse the legitimate qualms many have with the current administration for the bellicose ideology that dominated Europe in the nineteen thirties. If recent polls are an indication, Tea Partiers too, as a whole, ought to know better than to deride their political opponents in some of the ways that they have.

In reality, there is nothing fascist about expressing concerns over runaway spending in Washington. Though it is curious that on specific costly programs, there is support from Tea Partiers for their continuation, indications are that Americans in general who are concerned about spending are reluctant to alter the cost burdens of Social Security and Medicare in any serious way. Interestingly, those maligned as fascists also seem to be content with present levels of federal income tax if recent polling data is correct. The immediate response to this could be itself frustrating. However, as a group concerned over long-term fiscal policy, Tea Partiers are right to worry about the hidden costs of health reform and financial reform down the road, regardless of how they feel about present levels of federal taxation. Except for differences in overall wealth, education level, and racial composition, Tea Partiers may well be within the American mainstream after all. Indeed, Republicans are not alone in their concern over the fiscal health of the United States in the coming years and decades.

Press accounts offering a fairer representation of the citizens demonstrating peacefully around the country still don’t get the story entirely right, however. While it is true that the Ron Paul supporters have been visible critics of this administration, it is incorrect to identify the socially inclusive and fiscally conservative among Tea Partiers as in any way affiliated with the rather more paleoconservative movement championed by the Texas physician. In that sense, identifying Tea Partiers with Sarah Palin is equally as ridiculous when considering how polling has found them to stand on the question of a potential presidential bid by the former Alaska governor.

Much to the chagrin of some, President Barack Obama cannot accurately be portrayed as a Socialist. In one recent attempt to dispell the myth regarding the ideology of the present U.S. President, CNN failed abysmally. Political ideology is far more complex a picture than mere party identification, particularly in the United States where party discipline is low, and the parties themselves are relatively weak when compared to parties internationally. Nonetheless, CNN reached an accurate conclusion despite making a lousy case for it. President Obama is not a revolutionary, and is committed to maintaining private industry as a significant force in the U.S. economy. Barack Obama, like the allegedly fascist Tea Party set, is committed to the democratic process, in the sense of being firmly committed to  electoral politics.

Pegging the political ideology of Presidents of the United States is a daunting task, though most are pragmatists, governing with only nominal commitments to a party base. George W. Bush presents an interesting example. While not pragmatic in his foreign policy, the latter President Bush sought a middle course in the most significant of his domestic policy pursuits. A national crisis early in his administration put on hold some of the policy priorities of George W. Bush. The most sweeping of Bush-era reforms came in the area of national security policy, reacting directly to the crisis faced. Despite the bipartisan support offered to his domestic reforms, and the similarity of his platform to that of his principal opponent in 2000, George W. Bush increasingly came to be seen as a partisan figure, in no small part due to congressional leaders.

With this in mind, analyzing the Obama administration thus far becomes rather interesting. While not a socialist, the current President of the United States is not exactly a pragmatist either. Nothing in the policy priorities nor approach of the Obama administration thus far suggest pragmatism. While it is true that President Obama has continued the Iraq policy of his predecessor, Bush had committed to a tentative draw-down of U.S. forces in Iraq. If something goes wrong in the coming months of years regarding Iraq, the Obama administration is in the clear to blame it on Bush.

While socialism is the wrong label, so too is liberalism. Just as it is not pragmatic to overhaul one-sixth of the U.S. economy merely to provide insurance to ten percent of the American people, it is not liberal to establish new business monopolies. Republicans are not wrong that the new health care law practically amounts to a government takeover of healthcare with respect to the sheer levels of regulation imposed on insurers. Indeed, insurance companies are to remain in the private sector, however nominally, under Obamacare. While this would ordinarily seem to be a bad deal for any business, the effect is to prevent potential new competitors from entering the market, and prop-up existing businesses as costs inevitably rise. In essence, the health insurance industry now constitutes a federally-managed, regulated utility.

Thus, Barack Obama is perhaps best characterized as a proponent of the Third Way, that trend in politics popularized by Tony Blair and Bill Clinton. While billing itself as “centrist”, the Third Way is better described as a progressive acceptance of the realities of globalization. The problem with the Third Way approach is that it retains all of the wrong assumptions made by champions of stronger state control over the economy while also seeking the benefits of the free market. Indeed, the third way is an ideology in which no crisis can be allowed to go to waste. However, the Third Way is an idea which seeks progressive ends through crony capitalist means.

What makes the free market strong is not private ownership alone, but its coupling with private management. Bailouts render private businesses little more than government-sponsored enterprises like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The United States Senate this week is tackling the topic of financial reform. Lacking in these discussions is a narrow, precise focus on the causes of the housing bubble that triggered a worldwide economic slump. Instead of focusing on a narrow problem, Democrats are once again using a crisis to try and get their pet causes put into law. It is this that will make elections in 2010 and 2012 so interesting, and that has diminished the credibility of President Obama with the American public.

Last 5 posts by James Kane

• A November to Remember - November 8th, 2010
• On hope and fear - October 18th, 2010
• Expecting Different Results - September 12th, 2010
• A glaring omission on Iraq - August 31st, 2010
• Employing a losing strategy - August 7th, 2010