Political Ideology is Not the Way to Solve America’s Problems

American Eclectic posts articles twice a month, on the 1st and 15th. This is the third year of publication; previously published articles can be found on my site.

June 1, 2025

In the movie, Conclave (2024, starring Ralph Fiennes, Stanley Tucci and John Lithgow) which focuses on choosing a new Pope after the death of the current Pope, Cardinal Thomas Lawrence (played by Fiennes) who is the Dean of the Cardinals, gives a speech, which deviated from the homily that he started to offer as the Conclave is gathering to begin the process of choosing a new Pope. Lawrence says:

St Paul said that God’s gift to the Church is its variety. It is this variety, this diversity of people and views that gives our Church its strength. In the course of a long life in the service of our Mother the Church, let me tell you that there is one sin I have come to fear above all others. Certainty. Certainty is the great enemy of unity. Certainty is the deadly enemy of tolerance. Even Christ was not certain at the end.

“My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” He cried out in His agony at the ninth hour on the cross. Our faith is a living thing precisely because it walks hand in hand with doubt. If there was only certainty, and if there was no doubt, there would be no mystery, and therefore no need for faith. Let us pray that God will grant us a Pope who doubts. Let Him grant us a Pope who sins and asks for forgiveness. And carries on.

A Monsignor present says to Lawrence after he is finished:

Dean, your homily... I’m not entirely clear whether or not it should be placed in the Vatican archive or not? As it was not the homily you... actually...delivered?

Lawrence replies:

I’m not sure either.

This is an excellent observation on the problems of political ideology, particularly the influence of the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025 on the Trump administration. Political ideology is much like the certainty Lawrence addresses. His reference to “Certainty is the great enemy of unity” is a good way to address the problems of political polarization.

Reading the chapters in the Project 2025 book made me wonder whether the authors held a conclave to find everything wrong with the American government and replace it with everything and anything that supports a specific ideological bent.

Political ideology is a set of beliefs. As one writer puts it regarding ideologies:

Since the birth of modern civilization, human beings have been creating stories that capture their theories about how the world works and how they should act within this complex world. These narratives both describe and prescribe human action and exist in a kaleidoscope of forms—from religious doctrines to political manifestos and from racial supremacy to authoritarian nationalism. These accounts are broadly termed “ideologies” and envelop humans’ personal and social lives to a considerable degree.

Political ideology, in its harmful form, is a set of blinders that prevents one from recognizing contradictory information that challenges one's beliefs. It allows people to believe that they are above or separate from the politics in which they are engaged. Politics is messy; it requires dealing with inconsistencies and moral dilemmas. A conundrum is at the center of so many political issues.

Years ago, when I was a vice president for legislative affairs for a medical association, I remember walking into a state legislator’s office prepared to discuss a bill before the state legislature addressing the medically uninsured. He had a picture of Rush Limbaugh that must have been eight feet tall. He proudly pointed out that Limbaugh was his hero, but then he shut the door and started a conversation that sounded more like a politician struggling to deal with serious problems. The radio babble of Limbaugh was comforting for so many to hear since he could ignore the complexities of life around us, which was not reflected in how we talked. He raised issues addressing the need for health care centers in his district that could focus on single mothers. He wondered how people he knew who lacked health care coverage could function for themselves or their families during personal medical emergencies. I realized the bigger-than-life picture of Limbaugh was “cover” so he could present himself one way in public, but understood in private, he needed to deal with the messiness of life in how he looked at politics as a path to confronting issues.

I was working on an article at the time about the state’s medically uninsured and kept hearing the number 400,000 for the state’s number of uninsured. That was a very nice rounding-off number, which led me to question different people, both elected and not, who worked for the state government, about such a precise number as 400,000. As a state official said, “It was the number we could agree upon.” Was the real number 340,000, or was it 460,000—a difference of 120,000? Suddenly, the comforting precision of using one number went out the window.

I discussed this issue with the CEO of a national health insurance company and several researchers associated with different organizations. Part of the problem was that none of these people could clearly define “uninsured” or which way of looking at the uninsured mattered more than others. If someone was between jobs and once vested in a new position, would they become eligible for a company’s health insurance plan, should they be counted as uninsured? Was a person who went six months without insurance not to be counted as much as a person who went more than a year without insurance? And, in looking at these different people and their statuses regarding being uninsured, what was learned about health insurance in America, and what government policies could do to address the problem?

The federal government needs to address a broad range of issues. As the unemployment rate has risen at different times and TV news has referred to a precise number, this creates the illusion that one number needs to come down; variations across the country show a more difficult path to a drop in the unemployment rate. During the Great Recession of 2007 and 2008, caused by the bursting of a housing bubble, the national unemployment rate peaked at 11.1 percent by October 2009 for men and 9 percent for women by November 2010. Black unemployment reached 16.6 percent by March 2010, while white unemployment reached 9.2 percent by October 2009. By April 2010, workers between 16 and 24 had an unemployment rate of 19.5 percent, but workers between 25 and 54 had an unemployment rate of 9 percent by October 2009. Apache County, Arizona, had an unemployment rate of 16.3 percent in October 2009, yet two counties away in Coconino County, the unemployment rate was 8.9 percent. Baraga County, Michigan, had a 23.6 percent unemployment rate at the same time, but Marquette County next door had 9.4 percent. As one study put it, in ways that would not be seen on a TV news show:

The recession was associated with increased inequality between county labor markets within states, but declining between-state differences. Counties that experienced disproportionate recession-related increases in unemployment were spatially clustered and characterized by large shares of historically disadvantaged racial and ethnic minority populations, low educational attainment, and heavy reliance on pro-cyclical industries.

Political ideology can avoid all this messy reality and simply provide aid and comfort to people who need a way to escape the confusion around them. Politics and policy-making can be chaotic, but political ideology offers order and a way forward that seems clear-cut. Going through the Project 2025 book, I assume that the various people writing the chapters understand that policy-making can easily go off the rails. One policy analyst wrote elsewhere without the ideological overtones that permeate the Project 2025 book, “As is often the case with public policy, it was not clear if the expected benefits for individuals and communities were actually materializing.” I feel that the Project 2025 folks will be busy looking for scapegoats if their designs fall short of providing a better life for Americans.

When the Los Angeles Rams were coming to St. Louis, I discussed the financing of the Rams stadium in downtown St. Louis with several people intimately involved in the funding. There was one aspect of the financing I was confused about, which addressed how revenue collected from a specific source over twenty years would contribute to financing the stadium. One person said, “We all wanted the Rams, so we didn’t look too closely at that, but what we presented to the public conveniently fit what we wanted.” No extensive public discussion was held about the intricacies of stadium financing; St. Louis wanted the Rams, and a way was found to bring them to town.

Governing is messy, and precise knowledge is often a problem, sometimes because the way people might be lumped into different categories lacks precision. Political ideology can avoid the struggles of governing and the unforeseen difficulties that will emerge.

Aristotle wrote, "Man is a political animal,” and that “politics is the master science.” Politics is that we have goals we want to achieve, and we want our issues to be the most important, receive the most attention, and the lion’s share of the funding. Trying to struggle through a myriad of competing priorities always poses challenges.

A public wanting to live according to a political ideology misses much that is happening in politics.

Hillsdale College, often considered a conservative-oriented school, presents itself with ideology as a guiding principle. I periodically receive surveys from them filled with political ideology in its most absolute form.

A recent survey started by loading their questions with an introduction that set the stage for where they were guiding the people taking this survey. As the introduction stated:

A majority of Americans today support a return to limited constitutional government, rejecting the administrative or bureaucratic state that has come largely to replace our Constitution over the course of the past century.

For many decades now, unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats have ruled American citizens without their consent. Today, through the work of the DOGE, we are able to see more clearly how these bureaucrats wasted and misspent our taxpayer dollars and drove our nation into unsustainable debt.

This administrative state has completely undermined the constitutional separation of powers and the rule of law.

It will take a sustained effort over a long period of time to undo the damage and restore fully constitutional government. Resolute public support will be critical. That’s why we want to know what your views are on this issue. Please give your opinions below.

The first paragraph's reference to “over the course of the past century” technically takes us back to the 1920s, so this survey’s sudden concern about what they see as a threat to American democracy has been a regular feature of our government for, give or take, 100 years of our 236 years of existence. One of the questions in the Hillsdale survey went:

Do you agree that the far-Left will not take defeat lying down and will become ever more active as they defend bureaucratic agencies like USAID?

• Yes

• No

• Not Sure/Undecided

I assume that many at Hillsdale see some absolute separation in America with two sides clearly defined. Political ideology can create a prism through which to see people, making it challenging to learn how to interact with a cross-section of Americans. I recently listened to a Republican give a speech where he expressed concerns about the destruction of the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) by the Trump administration. He described how understanding the present and long-term effects of what the Trump administration has done to this agency will affect people around the planet. I did not feel I could easily fit him into a “far-Left” category.

I know in private conversations with both Republicans and Democrats in elected offices, they have seen surveys such as the Hillsdale one put out by several organizations, where these surveys are filled with loaded questions. While Republicans, in looking at a Hillsdale survey, might say something kind in public, in private, many of them understand not to take these surveys seriously. Does a politically ideological stance permeate courses at Hillsdale? Teaching involves more than introducing students to new knowledge and different perspectives; it also involves uncertainty. It is perfectly acceptable to say “I don’t know,” and to be neutral in one’s values as you seek to learn and explore an issue. Political ideology that provides a framework, a worldview of how to look at life around you, can be detrimental to being open to new information, insights, and perspectives.

A writer who wondered about too many ideologues that were being brought into the Trump administration during his first term wrote:

The changes that are happening on a global and domestic scale are having ripple effects everywhere. In response, many people are scared and find themselves attracted to ideologues. Certainty brings great comfort during times of dramatic change.

But ideologues are the opposite of what we need right now. Not only do they espouse certainty, they cling to the past with absolutist ideas that grant no room for curiosity or questions. They also tend to require a hero to conquer the identified villain, rather than a pluralistic coalition that values diverse thinking. Those who refuse to fall in line are attacked for a lack of character and their motivations are questioned.

What does an ideologue do when presented with data that doesn’t fit their beliefs? They challenge the data or call it an anomaly. In other words, the circle of certainty isn’t just large, it is impenetrable.

The second term makes Trump’s first term look like a walk in the park, as ideologues and true believers are welcomed more than in the first term. Trump’s lawyer during his first term characterized the uniting feature of those entering Trump’s service in his second term as “What you see here is a wholesale contempt for government.”

Here is a point I have seen in politicians I have known, from governors to members of Congress to state and local elected officials. The good ones, Republican or Democrat, understand that political ideology cannot permeate all their thinking and actions in office. The dangerous ones have difficulties knowing when to put their ideologies aside. I listened to Republicans and Democrats I respected, who expressed that some of their colleagues were too wound up in using political ideology as a guiding light to govern how they participate in politics. I remember talking with several Republican legislators and how they looked at a colleague who believed in creationism as opposed to evolution, and that particular legislator aggressively pushed for legislation to enshrine creationism as THE way to teach science. I knew Republican legislators who wanted to make room for creationism to be taught, but not at the expense of throwing evolution overboard. The degree of passion that creates a holier-than-thou attitude, where any sense of tolerance is unacceptable, unfortunately, comes with adherence to political ideological standards or worldviews. The popularity of the expression Republican in Name Only (RINO) shows contempt for degrees of differences. The Republican legislators I knew often felt they needed to keep their more ardent colleagues at a distance, but would never publicly address any of their opinions about them.

I remember an FBI agent I knew in Florida who said something that stuck with me. I often used it in my classes when students needed to be guided away from thinking with an absolute conviction. The wrong direction meant they wanted to latch on to a single piece of information or very few to reach conclusions about everything they thought they wanted to express opinions about. He said, “You have the Constitutional right to be stupid.” Stupidity and political ideology can fit together because they help distort how to examine issues seriously. Trump and his visible, at times, lack of knowledge will adversely affect government policies, affecting Americans’ lives for years to come. As one writer stated:

Trump’s ignorance was telling. He is the architect of a structure of deceit. Unlike his first term, when more mainstream officials were willing to set him straight, he and the Heritage Foundation have populated agencies with ideologues who command loyalty to Trump personally and “his agenda” above the country or the Constitution. That loyalty includes subordination of the truth.

…It has been obvious for years that Trump, either by design or inability, does not absorb facts and analyze the patterns of contradiction and nuance that compose reality. That could be deliberate and calculated, or it could be a neurological defect. The fabrications have certainly worked for him politically, and they align with his and his closest advisers’ radical views. He has a transactional relationship with the truth, just as he does with individuals, institutions, and countries: If they suit his purpose, he’s with them. If not, he spurns them. Truth, too, can be embraced of discarded as it helps or hurts him. Perhaps, in his own mind, he negotiates with the truth. We don’t know. The public knows his mouth, not his brain. What he hears himself saying, true or not, seems to be what he believes and what all his acolytes think and act on.

In other words, Trump might suffer from a grave disability.

At some point over the more than three years left of Trump’s second term (I am not buying into this silliness that he will find a way to stay in office for a third term), there will be feedback on his policies. Then the question becomes: Will that feedback lead to changes or revisions to policies and programs to make them more effective? There are now repercussions as American businesses feel the effects of the tariffs (which they need to pay, not foreign governments). Tariff policies are not being changed to address problems enterprises say they have to deal with; instead, there is a temporary halt, with the understanding that after a brief hiatus, tariffs will be back in force. There is an attitude emerging in the Trump administration of a forget-it-and-never-revisit-it approach to policy-making. Feedback, which means being open to unintended consequences and the need to revise policies, is essential to improving policies, but that thinking is not part of the Trump administration.

I fear that health issues might be on the horizon that can look worse than COVID-19, and deferring to Robert Kennedy, Jr. is a nightmare. Whether the problem is vaccinations, fluoride in the water, autism, flu shots, or a new pandemic waiting around the corner, such as the bird flu, ideologues care about taking their ideological views and fitting them to what they want to see.

Kennedy reflects a growing sentiment that questions science. I do not see the rise of measles cases leading to some segment of the public realizing that they put their families in danger and need to get vaccinated. I am sure these folks will find a way to rationalize remaining unvaccinated and move on with their lives. Kennedy’s position on the measles vaccination is frustrating at best. He certainly is not a champion encouraging people to get vaccinated. Kennedy has made several claims about vaccinations that have been disputed. His assertion that there is a measles outbreak every year is wrong. He has stated that immunity in seniors declines, which is incorrect. The people who have contracted measles this year, 95 percent, are either unvaccinated or their vaccination status is not known. Still, I suspect that for those sitting on the fence about getting themselves or their family vaccinated, he will have more influence on them than what healthcare professionals have to say. What would Kennedy do if the bird flu becomes a serious problem?

Lancet, a respected medical journal, established a commission to examine Trump’s handling of the COVID-19 pandemic in his first term. One commission member saw Trump as a problem, but expressed that he needed to be understood in a broader context:

The US has fared so badly with this pandemic, but the bungling can’t be attributed only to Mr Trump, it also has to do with these societal failures … That’s not going to be solved by a vaccine.

The part of the broader context that the Lancet commission addressed was that the country’s public health care infrastructure was steadily going downhill in the years before Trump became President in 2017. Imagine where we are now, as Trump and Kennedy do their best to add significantly to degrading America’s healthcare infrastructure.

How ideologues, the true believers, see the world around them may carry a price we all may have to live with, regretfully. Certainty, as addressed by a Cardinal in Conclave, is alive and flourishing in America.

Notes

Natalie Neysa Alund, “RFK, Jr., grandkids swim in contaminated DC creek despite advice to ‘stay out,’” USA Today (May 13, 2025): https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/health/2025/05/13/rfk-jr-swimming-rock-creek-washington-dc/83596631007/. I did not refer to this family swim in my article, but it is odd. Did Kennedy know about a high concentration of E. Coli in the creek? Stories similar to this one stressed that the Environmental Protection Agency identified contaminants in the creek, but were signs posted near the creek saying, “Don’t swim, the water is contaminated." The way this story was presented seemed incomplete; I am surprised editors let it be published without fully covering it. What did Kennedy know before taking his grandkids for a swim? Did he understand a warning existed and just ignored it? Reading this story in several publications was annoying since it seemed so incomplete. A more complete development of this story might help readers to understand Kennedy’s mindset about what he ignores or accepts and how that might influence his policy decisions.

Caroline Kennedy, in a letter, opposed the nomination of Robert Kennedy. Jr., her cousin, to be Secretary of Health and Human Services. In the letter she wrote:

I have known Bobby my whole life; we grew up together. It’s no surprise that he keeps birds of prey as pets because he himself is a predator. He has always been charismatic — able to attract others through the strength of his personality, willingness to take risks and break the rules. I watched his younger brothers and cousins follow him down the path of drug addiction. His basement, his garage, and his dorm room were the centers of the action where drugs were available, and he enjoyed showing off how he put baby chickens and mice in the blender to feed his hawks. It was often a perverse scene of despair and violence.

A very odd place to swim with grandkids in tow, and the Caroline Kennedy letter should raise concerns about the Secretary of Health and Human Services’ impact on the health of us all.

Catalina Jaramillo and Jessica McDonald, “RFK Jr. Misleads About Measles Vaccine in Hannity Interview,” FactCheck.org (March 21, 2025): https://www.factcheck.org/2025/03/rfk-jr-misleads-about-measles-vaccine-in-hannity-interview/

Conclave, written by Peter Straughnan, based on the novel by Robert Harris, House Productions, Final Version (2024): https:// www.documentcloud.org/documents/25444705-conclave-read-the-screenplay/

FRED, 2009 October Unemployment Rate by County (Percent): https://fredblog.stlouisfed.org/2016/06/local-unemployment-dynamics-in-the-great-recession/

Amanda Holpuch, “US could have averted 40% of Covid deaths, says panel examining Trump’s policies,” The Guardian (February 11, 2021): https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/feb/10/us-coronavirus-response-donald-trump-health-policy

Hannah Knowles, Marianne LeVine, Cat Zakrzewski, “Trump’s Cabinet: Loyalists, competing ideologies and government skeptics,” Washington Post (November 26, 2024): https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/11/26/trump-cabinet-picks-beliefs/

Nancy LeTourneau, “The Danger of Ideologues,” Washington Monthly (February 24, 2020): https://washingtonmonthly.com/2020/02/24/the-danger-of-ideologues/

Katie Couric Media, Caroline Kennedy Condemns ‘Predator’ RFK Jr. in Blistering Letter to Congress,” Katie Couric Media (January 28, 2025): https://katiecouric.com/news/politics-and-policy/caroline-kennedy-letter-rfk-jr/

Bernardo Mueller, “Why public policies fail: Policymaking under complexity,” ScienceDirect, Volume 21, Issue 2, May-August 2020): https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1517758019300931

National Referendum on the Administrative State, Hillsdale College: https://info.hillsdale.edu/administrative-state-survey

David Shipler, “The Ideology of Ignorance,” Medium (April 6, 2025): https://dkshipler.medium.com/the-ideology-of-ignoranc-7576524447b5

Brian Thiede and Shannon Monnat, “The Great Recession and America’s Geography of Unemployment,” NIH: National Library of Medicine (September 27, 2016): https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5486972/

Leor Zmigrod, “A Psychology of Ideology: Unpacking the Psychological Structure of Ideological Thinking,” NIH: National Library of Medicine (March 1, 2022): https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9274788/