All other things remaining equal, a person who is a strong environmentalist is more likely to be a liberal. A person who advocates a strong defense and who is generally pro-military is more likely to be a conservative. A person who advocates strong anti-poverty and social welfare measures is more likely to be a liberal. A person who advocates population control mainly for the purpose of environmental protection would also be more likely to be a liberal. A person who advocates population control mainly for cultural or ethnic reasons would be more likely to be a conservative. A person who supports strong immigration controls as a law and order measure, but not as an expedient to control population, would also be more likely to be a conservative. A person who strongly supports nuclear energy would be more likely to be a conservative (by virtue of what is apparently the pro-business stand of being favorable to the nuclear power industry.) So what would you call someone who strongly supports all of these things? What would you call someone who strongly supports a variety of causes that are more closely associated with the left, as well as causes that are more closely associated with the right? It would obviously not be accurate to describe a person who holds such diverse views as either a liberal, a conservative, a moderate or a centrist.

It is often more convenient and cognitively economical to think of people who hold such ideologically mixed views as centrists. But properly, they are not centrists, except in the sense that it might be possible to take some kind of an ideological average of their views, which might tend to place them closer to the center of the ideological spectrum. Yet, even according to this method, people who hold views which cut across ideological lines cannot accurately be described as pure centrists. For properly, a pure centrist sets out to occupy the ideological middle ground for its own sake. That is to say, a pure centrist seeks a more moderate position on issues precisely in order to achieve some kind of balance or reconciliation between the two ideological extremes. It would be more accurate to describe people who hold such ideologically eclectic views as those described above as  "net- centrists" insofar as it might be possible to assign them a place near the center of the ideological spectrum, by averaging their views. But, if a person holds what are effectively more liberal or conservative views across a variety of issues, and if these views are fully integrated in a conceptual framework that has its own organizing principles (which are distinct from those of either liberalism or conservatism (principles which effectively subsume and cancel out these ideologies), then, we need a new term to describe people who hold such views. This new term should not involve using the terms liberal, conservative or centrist. In fact, people who hold such ideologically eclectic views should be more accurately described as "synthesists." It is more accurate to describe such people as synthesists because they hold views on issues which, while they may be more closely associated with either the political left or the political right, when standing alone, are  synthesized, or combined in a new conceptual framework which subsumes the principles of both liberalism and conservatism.

Because most people who hold strong political views have these views organized around the principles of either liberalism or conservatism, and because the major political parties are dominated by liberals and conservatives, synthesists would obviously not be particularly welcome in one of the major parties. And, that is why, in the year 2000, I started a party exclusively for synthesists; i.e. the American Synthesis Party. (www.mypoliticalparty.com). Because the number of synthesists is relatively small at this point (no accurate statistiics on their numbers are available, because many synthesists tend to be politically inactive, and are not well organized), the press has no particularly strong incentives to cover them, or even to acknowledge their existence. But synthesists are out there, and as more and more people become alienated from the  ideologically polarized two party system, their numbers are likely to grow.

Synthesists tend to be less politically active than liberals or conservatives for a number of reasons. First, most of them recognize that, at this stage, they are vastly outnumbered by liberals and conservatives. Secondly, they are commonly not as strongly motivated by the kind of polarizing ideological passions that tend to motivate liberals and conservatives. But, being more reasonable, and being less motivated by passion can be a double edged sword. Ideological zeal can be a strength where organization and participation in politics are concerned, even as it can act against holding more reasonable views on the issues. While liberals and conservatives derive their passion largely from the fact that their ideologies can strike an affective chord deep within the human psyche, synthesists can ultimately hope to have a more rational source of zeal, namely, their passionate commitment to reason and knowledge.  Over time, this zeal can lead people to become more "conscious of their class," and more engaged in the political process. And once synthesists have developed a consciousness of their class, and once their numbers have reached a certain point, it is likely that they will become much more visible and politically active. One of the main obstacles to the development of their class consciousness has been that, until recently, there was no widely accepted term to describe them. They were a people without a name. Now that they have a name, it should be considerably easier for them to associate with one another .

Thus, in answer to the original question of where I stand in relation to the great overarching political ideologies of liberalism and conservatism, I am a "synthesist." That is to say, I hold views that are decidedly to the left on some issues, and decidedly to the right on other issues. On still other issues, I may hold positions that are closer to the center of the ideological spectrum. The position that I hold on a particular issue is dictated by my understanding of its functions for society, and not by considerations of ideological orthodoxy, or by a desire to remain loyal to a particular ideology. Yet, where I stand on various issues is only one of the qualities that makes me a synthesist. Being a synthesist is much more than just holding a mixture of views that are more closely associated with either liberalism, conservatism or centrism. Being a true synthesist involves forming a complex system of intermediary structures between these sets of opposing ideas, in order to reconcile conflicts between them. It further involves establishing complex interrelationships that exist between various issues in order to form a "comprehensively rational" picture of the public interest over the longer term. This latter requirement is satisfied by holding a belief system which effectively subsumes elements of the polarized ideologies and then reintegrates their elements as part of a new conceptual system, to produce a synthetic ideology (a belief system which contains elements of the polar ideologies).

Formative Experiences in the Evolution of My Perspective
Now that you know where I stand in relation to liberalism and conservatism, your next question might be: How did I arrive at my views? Like anyone else who has views on these subjects, my views on politics, ethics and philosophy are partly the result of certain unique formative life experiences. One experience in particular left an indelible impression on me. As a young man, and though I was the product of a middle class family (and through every fault of my own), I experienced a certain level of material deprivation. In less elegant terms, I experienced poverty. For a period of approximately two weeks during my senior year of high school, and entirely for reasons of economic necessity, I went for a period of about 2 weeks in which I survived on fewer than 500 calories per day. (Actually, it was probably closer to 250). I call this period my "fortnight fast." During this period, I subsisted on a few cookies and the half pint of milk per day that I could buy for a nickel in the school cafeteria. I can remember being so hungry that I dreamed of raw fish smothered in ketchup.

Although my own brush with poverty was brief, it was enough to allow me to identify more closely with the the less fortunate in life. This brief period of poverty in my last year of high school was a small price to pay for the opportunity to read the works of many of the great philosophers.  As I will point out throughout this book, philosophy is a noble calling, but only rarely can you make a living at it.

By the time I had completed high school, I was able to understand how some people acquired their affinity for liberalism, especially those aspects of liberalism that translate into relief for the poor. Throughout college and graduate school I became intimately acquainted with the works of leading socialist and liberal thinkers such as Marx, Braverman, Habermas, among many others. From their work, and with my own life experiences as a backdrop, I was able to see the world clearly from the liberal perspective.  But even as I gained a greater understanding and appreciation of the liberals' point of view, my empathy for their point of view only went so far. For just as I recognized that the liberal perspective contains some important truths (which it is necessary to understand in order to develop a comprehensive and accurate view of the public interest), I also began to realize that liberalism is only partially true, and that it is a belief system which is systematically distorted to favor the interests of certain segments of society.

In a competitive economy, a certain amount of the hardship which must be endured by the lower classes will turn out to be "deserved" simply by virtue of the fact that not everyone has the ability or the drive to be a winner under a competitive system. Therefore, the claims of the lower classes for government benefits (which the rest of us must pay for through taxation) are only partly legitimate. Some of the failures of the lower classes to achieve are the result of deficiencies in their own drive and determination. In a word, some of these failures are due to their character and their "values." Other failures, for which society does share some responsibility to ameliorate, reside in their own organic inabilities. This is the great truth which cuts both ways. Liberals are generally unwilling to acknowledge the first part of this truth, because it tends to weaken their arguments for government benefits for the poor. Conservatives are generally unwilling to acknowledge the second part of this truth.

As I slowly reached the point in life where I was more financially secure, I began to experience firsthand the feeling of injustice that can result from a confiscatory system of  taxation aimed at wealth redistribution. Such a system targets higher income groups and demands that they bear a disproportionate share of the tax burden. And even though these are the groups that can best afford to bear this burden, once the level of confiscation reaches a certain point, it must inevitably destroy the incentive to produce more wealth for society. And the personal wealth of individuals must be counted as the major source of wealth in any society. My personal experience with this system of confiscation, more than any other experience, has allowed me to see the world more clearly from the conservative point of view.

My later life experiences trained me to see the truths in the conservative view of the world, just as my earlier life experiences had sensitized me to the truths that are more closely associated with the liberal point of view. So what then are the main truths that I have learned from both points of view?  Most importantly perhaps, my experiences have all led me to recognize that it is not the government's job to compensate for the unequal motivations or abilities that people have. This is the great truth that many liberals are generally unwilling to acknowledge, or call attention to. Secondly, some leveling of the playing field is necessary for a stable and progressive social order. This is the great truth many conservatives are generally unwilling to acknowledge. The fact that neither many liberals nor many conservatives are generally willing to acknowledge these truths is one of the main reasons why I am a synthesist.

My Social Science Project, Perspective and Education
Understanding my academic experience with the social sciences is also critical to understanding how I formed my perspective. In the paragraphs that follow, I will briefly recount some of the more important details of my journey through the social sciences, as well as details of the outlook that I ultimately came to hold as a result of this journey. To begin with, it was never my intention to do "social science" per se. Rather, what I wanted to do was take the best that I could find in social science, synthesize it, and use it as the basis for a belief system, or an ideology. You could say that my project was somewhat the inverse of Destutt De Tracy's project. Destutt De Tracy (the first to use the term "ideologie") wanted to create a science of ideas. Whereas, I wanted to create an ideology based upon science. For better or worse, I got my ideology.

Since my earliest days as an undergraduate, I had an strong interest in the study of ideology. This interest led me to ask such basic questions as why are liberals liberal, why are conservatives conservative, and which ideology is best for humanity over the longer term. Thus, it is fair to say that my project and my interest in the social sciences was "ideological" from the beginning.  But, I use the term ideology in its broadest and most general sense. In fact, as I use the term in reference to my own project, it is neutral in relation to liberalism and conservatism, which are the two ideologies that are most frequently associated with ideological bias. I use the term ideology to refer to "a system of values, attitudes and beliefs which are designed to serve personal-psychic and social-systemic functions." By contrast, when I assert that the social sciences are ideologically biased, I am using ideology in a more narrow and pejorative sense. This is the classical Marxian sense of ideology as a body of thought which is systematically distorted to favor certain interests in society. This includes liberalism and conservatism. In the case of the social sciences, liberalism is the prevailing belief system.

My Social Science Project in a Nutshell
To better understand the perspective from which I am writing this book, it is helpful to understand my perspective towards the social sciences more generally. Perhaps the most concise way to explain my social science project is by way of analogy. The social sciences are analogous to this wonderfully elaborate grand hotel which was built in the baroque architectural tradition in the late 1800s. The hotel contains many fine and elaborate furnishings from both earlier and later eras. The highly ornate and elaborate detail of the hotel is analogous to the often frivolous abstraction which adorns much social science literature today. And although some may find this ornamentation aesthetically appealing, purely from the standpoint of conceptual elegance, it is otherwise functionless, and can pose a serious obstacle to structural-functional considerations (it can obscure the really vital core knowledge in the social sciences). Academics in the social sciences are analogous to the historical society, which looks upon the old structure admiringly, and is passionately committed to its preservation.

As for my part, I am analogous to this cocky little nouveau riche developer who wants to raze the old structure and erect a modern office building in its place. While the historical society values the old structure for its historical significance, I regard it as a structurally unstable eyesore. I also recognize that it occupies prime real estate which can be put to better uses. The historical society wants to restore the hotel in all of its 19th century grandeur. They find its surroundings familiar and comforting. But, along with the community as a whole, I recognize that the property on which the structure rests is needed for more immediate and practical purposes. Moreover, the demolition of the old structure and the erection of the new structure which I have planned is part of a larger urban renewal project that will greatly benefit the community. To be sure, by the standards of baroque architecture, my proposed structure will be rather plain and spartan. But, it will be more efficient, more structurally sound, and more pleasing to the eye than the existing structure.

Yet, I am not completely insensitive to the concerns of the historical society. Like them, I recognize that the old structure has many fixtures which have "historical significance" and which should be preserved (the essential readings that I have included in the appendices are among these). So even as I would destroy the hotel to make way for a more modern structure, I would also make a genuine effort to preserve many of its finer fixtures. Indeed, prior to its demolition, I would strip the old hotel of its most prized furnishings and sell them at auction. And while some of these furnishings would be destined to become novelties in local nightclubs, others would be prominently displayed in more culturally significant surroundings, which would add to the community's sense of its own history. Symbolically, these fixtures are the essential works of the social science corpus. Many of these fixtures are still functional, or they can be made functional, simply by placing them in a framework that is more structurally sound.

Currently, and amid the vocal protests of the historical society and the lifelong tenants of the hotel (who have been served their eviction notices), I am standing outside the old hotel with my entourage of hard-hats and engineers, reviewing plans for the new building, and patiently waiting for the permits that are needed to begin the demolition work. The demolition permits are analogous to the radical shift that will occur in public opinion towards the social sciences, once the nature of their ideological project has been fully exposed.

Less figuratively, my social science project involves taking works that are judged by a broad consensus to be among the best works in the social sciences, and using them as the foundations for a alternative social, economic and political system. Because my work involves the deliberate creation of an ideology, it doesn't have to meet the methodological rigors of science. However, because I want my ideology to be as rational and as free from distortion as possible, I will make every attempt to insure that it is grounded in science.

As I have already confessed, I approach the study of politics, ethics and philosophy from a standpoint of some kind. My approach is not value neutral. At the same time, my values cannot be neatly pigeonholed into liberal or conservative categories. Rather, my values are an eclectic mix, ideologically speaking.

Not all perspectives are created equal from the standpoint of ideology. By their very nature, some perspectives are better able to defend against the charge of ideological bias than others. Bias presumes polarization of thought. This is what ideological bias means. It means that someone's thought is emotionally charged either one way or the other in relation to the ideological poles. Because my perspective or my "ideology" defies the liberal-conservative paradigm (and because I do not approach my work from the left or the right) immediately affords me some protection from the charge that my work is ideologically biased. Again, my work is admittedly ideological. But, it is only ideological in the broad, value neutral sense of the term (i.e.; it is only ideological in the sense that applies to belief systems in general). Nonetheless, one should know more about the perspective from which I approach the subjects of politics ethics and philosophy.

More About the Concept of Ideological Synthesis
Synthesis is the key to understanding the perspective from which I write about politics, ethics and philosophy. A belief system which is based on the concept of ideological synthesis has a number of qualities that recommend it over other belief systems, and over polar belief systems in particular. There are good reasons to believe that a synthetic belief system will stand a better chance of being able to defy the limitations that have historically been associated with ideologies more generally. To begin with, a synthetic belief system is more conciliatory than either of the polar ideologies. One of the major goals of a synthetic belief system is the reconciliation of conflicting values associated with the polar ideologies. Because it is based upon a more extensive and eclectic knowledge base, and one which has a better grasp of aggregate human interests, it enjoys the benefits of the knowledge bases of both polar ideologies (liberalism and conservatism). Also, because it accounts for the two major poles of human interests, or the totality of the normally occurring range of human temperamental essence, it stands a better chance of actually being able to identify overall human interests that either of the polar ideologies standing alone.

According to the idea of synthesis, there is no practical need to have absolute certainty when attempting to design an optimal belief system. To be considered "optimal" a belief system only needs to be more functional in absolute terms, or more conducive to the survivability of the species, than competing doctrines like liberalism and conservatism. Because of its overarching goal of maximizing species survivability, the synthetic approach (also known as the Xenophyte Perspective), transcends and subsumes both liberal and conservative ideologies.  The Xenophyte Perspective makes use of both of these ideologies, but it is not bound by them. It mediates the conflicting priorities of stability and progress within a larger conception of the species interests over the longer term, in the quest to maximize survivability. As an ideology, the synthetic perspective considers a wide variety of human interests and concerns within a comprehensive, long term framework. It reflects a truly "species level" consciousness. By contrast, liberalism and conservatism are polar ideologies which are designed to promote the narrow interests of particular groups in society over the shorter term, often at the expense of the long term public interest.

As a way of interpreting social, economic, and political realities, synthesists employ an approach that is initially just as skeptical of liberal views as it is of conservative views. Liberals believe that truths about human beings consistently favor policies which aggregate near the left of the ideological continuum. Conservatives believe that truths about human beings consistently favor policies which aggregate near the right of the ideological continuum. By contrast, synthesists believe that truths about human societies favor policies which are distributed throughout the ideological spectrum. Synthesists also believe that human societies in general, and the vast majority of social, economic, and political issues, are too complex to be understood by reference to either liberal or conservative principles alone. An understanding of society which is most likely to be maximally conducive to the survivability of the species is based upon a more eclectic and comprehensive understanding of human beings and their behaviors. To use the analogy of light waves, these truths are presumed to be "incoherent" in the sense that they defy the polarizing force of liberal and conservative ideologies. Consequently, these truths are associated with points all along the ideological "spectrum."

The synthetic approach also entails the quest for the most functional ideology, or the belief system which will ultimately prove to be maximally conducive to the survivability of the species. The most functional ideology is the product of the synthesis and reconciliation of the major truths associated with the ideological left and the ideological right. Ideally, every individual would be able to perform ideological synthesis subjectively. Ideally, each individual would be able to reconcile opposing views and interests in their own minds to arrive at an accurate conception of the species interest. In this way, political support for the most functional policies (those policies which are maximally conducive to species survivability) could be maximized. Unfortunately, most people, and even most political elites, have not mastered the technique of ideological synthesis. In the current information environment, such techniques seem too labor intensive, and the information required to develop the synthetic perspective would seem too overwhelming. Consequently, whenever synthetic policies emerge from the policy making environment, these policies tend to result incidentally, and not by design. The knowledge required for individuals to synthesize opposing ideological viewpoints is substantially beyond that which most Americans are willing to acquire at this point. At this stage, most Americans continue to rank low on the scale of political sophistication, despite some encouraging signs that their level of political sophistication has been increasing in recent years.

Some Highlights of My Undergraduate Experience
Considering all the time I spent studying social science independently of any course requirements, I was lucky to graduate with high honors (Magna Cum Laude) from a college with a fair reputation. Virtually anyone with enough determination and time on their hands could have done the same. However, I credit one strategy in particular with being most responsible for my academic success as an undergraduate. Early in my academic career I discovered that one of the best strategies for making good grades in sociology and political science courses was to ferret out the ideological leanings of my professors, and then mimic these leanings in my own work. This strategy seemed to work especially well on term papers. This strategy didn't work quite so well at the graduate level, because, at the graduate level, professors often don't wear their ideologies on their shirt sleeves. In addition, some of them may actually hold more complex ideologies which enable them to think in more complex, synthetic, and non-ideological terms. Alternatively, other professors at the graduate level simply make a greater effort to mask their ideologies, in order to maintain some semblance of credibility.

My Graduate Experience: The Ideological Climate in a Typical Social Science Graduate Program
After receiving my BA in political science from Armstrong Atlantic University, in 1991, I went on to get my masters degree in public administration from the University of Georgia, in 1994.  In 1995, I began work on my Ph.D. in political science. By 1998 I had completed all required course work for the Ph.D., and I had passed both my written and oral exams. The only requirements for the Ph.D. which I failed to satisfy were the dissertation and the final oral defense.

As a graduate student in political science, I was constantly amazed by how overtly ideological the supposedly neutral academic environment was. I remember a few occasions that I found to be particularly revealing about the ideological climate in the social sciences. Specifically, I recall one occasion in which other graduate students were making disparaging remarks about Newt Gingrich. When I asked them why they were so critical of Newt Gingrich, no one could give me a straight answer. Rather, they just seemed to have some visceral dislike of Newt Gingrich, which was based on the fact that he was a conservative, and they were liberals. It was basically understood that aspiring social scientists who know which side their bread is buttered on should be hostile towards Newt, and anyone who thinks like him. Their objections to Newt were both ideological and visceral. As such, they were not based on either reason or knowledge. Presumably, they may have perceived him, or some of the policies which he advocates, as a threat to their own economic interests. If they had more principled and abstract reasons for disliking Newt, they couldn't articulate them. This emotional rejection of people that they disagree with was enough to convince me that, beginning as graduate students, if not long before, many social scientists develop ideologies with an irrational basis.

What I Hope to Accomplish by Writing This Book
Because they remain divided or undecided on so many important issues, Americans have become pawns to politicians and special interests of every stripe. The only way that Americans will ever be able to take back power from these politicians and special interests is to reach a consensus on important issues. This consensus must be so strong that it will completely overwhelm both the ideological left and the ideological right. In part, I am writing this book to help Americans reach a consensus on the most important issues that now divide them.

As I write, I am constantly reminded of what Aristotle believed. He believed that there really is a "one best way" for people in every nation to organize their government. By extension, there is also a consensus on the major issues that will prove best for our nation over the longer term. Forming this consensus will take time and effort. Most of this effort will be devoted to "looking for knowledge" about our society. I intend for this book to be a major source of this knowledge.

Understanding how our society works is necessary to understand where our long term interests lie. Though we may like to believe otherwise, our civilization is still subject to the same forces that have determined the rise and fall of all civilizations throughout history. In the two centuries of its existence, our nation has achieved greatness. But, unless we are willing to take drastic measures to save it, there are good reasons to believe that its best days are behind it. Make no mistake, we are in trouble as a civilization. This is the main reason I have written this book; to help get us out of trouble.

Disclaimers
There are a few disclaimers that I feel I should mention at this point. In 1997, I founded the American Centrist Coalition (basically a think tank for synthesists). In 2000, I founded The American Synthesis Party. These organizations have only a very small membership, and virtually no existence apart from a network of web sites. From these facts alone, you can infer that I am far from being a disinterested observer of politics, ethics and philosophy. However, in my defense, I will say that someone who holds such ideologically eclectic views is much less likely to be  affected by ideological bias than either liberals or conservatives. Accordingly, you stand a better chance of getting a “balanced, if not completely "impartial” view of things from someone who holds such views than you would from someone who has a vested interest in either the left or the right.

Finally, there is one more disclaimer that I should issue at this point. Alex Van Allen in not my legal name; it is my pen name. For years I have authored web sites under this pseudonym in order to avoid being distracted by any controversies that my views might cause. As it turns out, there was not enough interest in my views to generate any controversy. I suspect that as time goes on, this could change. In any case, the bulk of my literary efforts are now complete, and I have no further need to maintain my anonymity. Having issued these disclaimers, I will now share with you some of the most important things I have learned about the subjects of politics, ethics and philosophy.
 

COPYRIGHT 2009 BY ALEX VAN ALLEN