Many journalists and academics who dominate the public discourse are devoted to ideological slogans and allegiances.
By GERALD M. STEINBERGA Likud party election campaign billboard depicting Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is seen above a billboard depicting Benny Gantz, leader of Blue and White party, in Petah Tikva, Israel(photo credit: NIR ELIAS / REUTERS)
Ideologies provide a convenient shorthand for complex frameworks and concepts. When people identify themselves and classify others according to “Right” or “Left” (conservative or liberal) positions, they save time and avoid the stress associated with examining a myriad of details and making difficult decisions.And this shortcut is precisely the problem in dealing with complex issues, such as responding to a pandemic, climate change or the economics of globalization. The “Left vs Right” dichotomy has nothing useful to say on whether quarantines, flight cancellations, school closings and other measures are justified and reasonable. For these decisions, it is necessary to look closely at the information at hand, including the experience of other countries, and evaluate the potential costs and benefits of each option.Instead, in many countries, including in Israel, large parts of the population are locked into narrow ideological camps headed by equally narrow leaders, without the necessary knowledge for the tasks at hand.Similarly, many journalists and academics who dominate the public discourse are devoted to ideological slogans and allegiances. In stark contrast to the scientific and technological advancement in the past century, the rational decision-making skills for critical life and death issues are notably scarce.The opposite of ideology is pragmatism, which requires dissecting each issue in detail, including the credibility of competing claims, while keeping an open mind until there is enough reliable evidence to select a course of action. This is much more difficult than simply following the positions of the chosen ideological leadership. But it is necessary for survival, and is in very short supply today.In addition, tightly held ideological positions and stark dichotomies also tend to drive people to extremes – first through words and then through physical actions. Staunch advocates on the Left and on the Right are absolutely certain that their cause is beyond doubt, and anyone who holds different positions or raises questions is not only wrong but also a major danger to the natural order. This polarization can spill over into violence, particularly when individuals and groups on the margins of society empower themselves through righteous indignation. The consequences include political assassinations and civil war.In contrast, in order to deal rationally with life-changing crises, such as wars, pandemics or climate change, polarization must be replaced both by knowledge and by pragmatic cooperation. To survive, leaders chosen on the basis of ideology who have no experience or specific knowledge must make room for competent experts to formulate realistic policy options.An important aspect of competence is to know and acknowledge what you don’t know, and to deal rationally with uncertainty. The pretense of leaders who act as if they are all-knowing, and the fear of admitting that others know more, compound the dangers. US President Donald Trump’s unsupported claim that the threat from the coronavirus is overstated was foolish, and the slow American response that followed is likely to prove very costly.In addition, while an informed public is essential for democratic governance, reliance on sources of information based on ideological straitjackets is counterproductive. Opinion essays and a confused mix of reporting and ideology are common. Many people choose their media platforms (old style and digital) to match their predetermined views, reinforcing the divisions and ignorance.The urgency of addressing the rejection of rationality in politics goes beyond the current threats posed by the coronavirus. There are no shortcuts to competent decision-making supported by an informed and intelligent public.
In contrast, societies that respond to crises based on the direction of their ideological weather vanes, and reject solutions from the “other side,” are like dinosaurs waiting ignorantly for the asteroid to wipe them out.The writer is professor emeritus of political science at Bar-Ilan University and president of NGO Monitor.
