Icons vs. Ideas in Politics
A political division that explains the state of USA
Note: This is my perspective, and I fully appreciate that my views are formed by my media and social media diet. This is not intended to be a statement of fact, rather my individual perspective.
It occurred to me recently that one of the many major political divisions in the U.S. is what is valued and held sacred by each political party, either Icons or Ideas. Once you use this framework to look at political disagreements, it’s hard to ignore and is in fact visible in almost every disagreement.
This thought emerged as statues around the country were torn down by protestors for a variety of reasons, including the history of the men who they portrayed being slave owners or otherwise contributing to or participating in racial injustice.
It seems that for many on the right, tearing down a statue was a direct attack on America itself. These statues, or Icons, represent to them something greater than hunks of bronze commemorating fallible men from hundreds of years ago. These Icons seem to be unimpeachable and destined to last and be heralded for eternity. Anything less is considered “erasing history.”
The left seems that it couldn’t care less about the immortality of statues, and is more interested in discussing the ideas behind statues and that the men portrayed in them held. They are in fact the ones removing statues around the country, and their outrage does not come from a hunk of metal being defaced, but from the idea of murder, oppression, and injustice of living humans.
While statues are an example of Icon vs. Idea, they are an imperfect one. Let’s look at a few others.
In better times, the biggest political scandal was that Barack Obama took this idea of icon versus idea head-on during his first presidential campaign, when he denounced “flag pin patriotism” and stopped wearing a lapel with the American flag on it.
He commented, “…that (flag pins) became a substitute for, I think, true patriotism, which is speaking out on issues that are of importance to our national security, I decided I won’t wear that pin on my chest; instead I’m gonna try to tell the American people what I believe will make this country great, and hopefully that will be a testimony to my patriotism.” He expounded later, “You show your patriotism by how you treat your fellow Americans, especially those who serve. And you show your patriotism by being true to your values and ideals. And that’s what we have to lead with, our values and ideals.”
His political opponents wore flag pins as an Icon of their “patriotism,” and believed that any politician who did not wear the same Icon could not possibly be patriotic, completely disregarding their actual behavior. Obama says essentially “my patriotism is in my actions, my words, and my ideas — not some prop that I wear.” There was so much political backlash to this that he eventually relented, and started wearing the lapel again. Icon vs. Idea.
Other Icons on the right include “the founding fathers,” and the Constitution. Any critique of fallible men who lived hundreds of years ago is taken as an attack and rebuke of America itself. The interesting part about the sacredness of these Icons is that it completely ignores the ideas behind them. The founding fathers knew that they were fallible, and so wrote the Constitution to be a living document that would change as we did. These men basically said “we did our best, but couldn’t possible predict every circumstance and nuance that will arise in the future, so please change this to correct us!” And now, any suggestion of change is seen as attacking the Icon of the founding fathers, while completely ignoring their ideas. The Icon vs. the Idea.
We can look at what each political party is most well-known for at this moment to see this difference explicitly (of course, opinions will vary).
The right is known for Trump (Icon), MAGA red hat (Icon), the American Flag (Icon), pro-life (Idea), guns (Icon), Christianity (Idea), the wall (Icon), etc.
Meanwhile, the left is known for universal healthcare (Idea), climate change activism (Idea), racial injustice (Idea), progressive tax policy (Idea), etc.
Icons are simple and easy to convey. They can mean a variety of things to different people, but unify those people in defense of that Icon. Ideas are complicated, nuanced, and difficult to succinctly communicate. A large amount of voters (and apparently politicians) don’t even understand the first amendment.
When I say these things, you know the political situation that I’m referring to, but you probably don’t know the reality or complexity behind them: Emails! The Wall! Dijon Mustard!
To its credit, the right is very good at picking Icons, or simple ideas and images, to represent issues or opaque suggestions. The perfect example of this is “The Wall,” representing immigration reform. The icon is often so powerful that it overtakes the idea, and it doesn’t even matter if “the wall” is built. Simply holding it as an Icon is enough for voters on the right to rally around.
The left, for its part, is very bad at simplifying its ideas and picking an icon, often because of the diversity of ideas on any single issue. There are dozens of ideas around healthcare reform (universal healthcare, medicare for all, medicare for all who want it, etc.). Any single issue has hundreds of ideas around it, and no Icon that encompasses and represents them all, unifying voters behind it. What if every liberal politician started using and repeating the phrase “Right to life,” as in, “I believe every American has a right to life, regardless of their employment status,” to represent healthcare reform?
To some extent, Icons versus Ideas also plays into my notion that our political disagreements are about fighting over preserving what was (conservatism) versus fighting for what could be (progressivism). Icons are most commonly branded in the past, while ideas are most commonly about the future.
Answer this question, and I’ll tell you your political affiliation: What do you value — the icon or the idea?
