Pragmatism And Compromise
Digg 
Stumble Upon 
Newsvine 
Slashdot 
Mixx 
Diigo 
Delicious 
Reddit 
Facebook
Thinking more on pragmatism, it occurs to me that the thing that a lot of people mean when they say they are non-ideological, or when they are classified, like so many undecided voters, as “results-oriented” and interested in “problem-solving,” is that they wish to appear reasonable and capable of making compromises with their opponents. Those who are moral absolutists of different political stripes are seen as unreasonable because there are things on which they will not, cannot, compromise. It seems to me that moral absolutists are often confused with ideologues, while the latter frequently prattle about morality and yet never seem troubled by the use of plainly immoral means to achieve their goals. As I suggested below, those who adopt the pragmatist label are very often ideologues of exactly this stripe. This is related indirectly to the discussion of outrage from yesterday.
Ideologues tend to traffick more in outrage, or rather in what we have come to recognize as manufactured outrage, because an important key to any ideology’s victory is to arouse the crowd’s passions and get them to stop thinking critically or to stop thinking at all. Outrage is the heart of propaganda, and one of the main purposes of propaganda is to deflect attention away from the flaws in one’s own system and focus entirely on the crimes, sometimes exaggerated, of another regime. For any ideology to endure for very long, it needs to cover itself in the legitimacy of morality and reasonableness, and outrage at wrongdoing abroad is useful for mobilizing political support for the ideology and identifying it with moral righteousness. To be pragmatic in our political culture, then, is to be willing to compromise on such moral absolutes as part of the “righteous” struggle against evil abroad, while draping oneself in moralistic rhetoric and being willing to use force against those who have been sufficiently demonized as embodiments of evil.
I don’t think you’re giving full credit to pragmatism as one of several possible natural dispositions of human beings. It isn’t just some facade that some ideologues put on to try to pretend they aren’t ideologues, which of course does happen. It’s an actual approach to life that is a natural path for some of us.
Take the scientific method, for example. It’s not natural to everyone, but it certainly reflects a basic human approach based on objective evidence, facts, observation, and trial and error. Pragmatists are people who simply aren’t inclined towards ideology and dogma, or even if they are to some degree, feel that such things need to be tested by real experience and reformed accordingly. They think it is more natural to proceed in this rather scientific, pragmatic way than it is to try to impose an ideology on nature.
Obviously not everyone is pragmatic, many are quite opposed to it. Some are opposed, but recognize that in politics pragmatism is valued by many, so they put on a pragmatic facade, in order to promote their ideology. So there’s always a question about someone who puts themselves forward as a pragmatist, as to whether they really are, or are just pretending to be.
Assuming the debate over Obama has inspired these remarks, I think its worth mentioning that a large part of the election campaign was fought over just this issue. Obama presented himself as a genuinely pragmatic politician who was not primarly concerned with ideology, but with what would work, and that he could appeal across ideological divides to come to agreements on what worked that would be good for the country.
McCain and many conservatives were accusing Obama of presenting a false facade, that he was actually a socialist, a communist, a terrorist, a leftist ideologue who was hiding his real ideological extremism behind this fake veneer of pragmatism, and that once elected he would show his true colors, and try to turn the country into a muslim, socialist paradise for Bill Ayers and al Qaeda terrorists.
The electorate rejected McCain’s version of Obama, and accepted Obama’s own self-description. Those who are surprised by Obama’s appointments thus far are those who for some reason mistakenly believed in McCain’s criticism. One of the best examples of Obama’s pragmatism is his appointment of Chu as energy secretary. Imagine that, and actual expert scientist in charge of energy research and development! Rather than a politician or military official or a “green” progressive environmentalist, Obama picked a guy who actually knows science. Is this being “centrist”, or is it being pragmatic in the real sense of the word.
I think the truth that is coming out, and which you have avoided seeing as best you can, is that Obama really is, by nature, a pragmatist, in the most basic sense of the word, and that ideology is not what makes him tick. That doesn’t mean he has no ideological biases, but that the forms and changes his ideology based on actual observation, analysis, and testing of those ideas, in what is loosely a scientific matter, and not even a purely political form of pragmatism.
Righteously put. I take back everything I said about you.
Except, we’re talking about human beings here. Humans are fallible, both morally and ethically. Ethics in political wrangling is determined by how much you are bothered by the stench of hypocrisy, and by how much your constituents will bother you about its appearance. Ideology (useful for propaganda) will usually trump immorality, but one has to wonder about the current crop. Witness the fine turnout for Ted Stevens.
It’s nice that you engage your readers with these homilies. In an effort at bipartisanship, perhaps you can review here the new high moral watermark that Obama is aiming for in his quest for the solution to so many problems directly caused by The Dark Side and the Joker.
Or were you referring to “Islamofascists” as ideologues?
Okay, so suppose you come into this crazy situation, where the banks have failed, the government is in disarray, the major manufacturers are about to go under, and there has been eight years of sadistic nutso policies from the monarch and his minions.
Say you have no particular attachment to an ideology, and just want to restore good order to the nation. What do you do? Do you have to latch onto some crazy of your own, or are you allowed to pick your way through the wreckage and try to find what has worked in the past and apply it to this new situation. If so, are you are pragmatist?
Plainly immoral means such as denying the civil rights of their fellow citizens for no good reason? Perhaps that’s not plain enough to an ideologue.
Yes, propaganda such as a vicious mischaracterization of the relationships of gay and lesbian people.
conradg pretty much beat me to the punch – good for him.
It does bother me that you imply (without quite *pressing*) a false equivalency, as if “people who ’say’ they’re pragmatics” are as bad as “people honest enough to say they aren’t.”
There are really people in this world who aren’t nearly as concerned with socialism, capitalism, or whatever “ism,” as they simply are with “what will WORK.” And yes, everyone has their biases (and their own assumed premises and practical priorities), but a LOT of people are not terribly blinkered by thinking they’ve got a set of the “right” answers already, and therefore not so automatically skeptical to new ones.
Maybe a lot of people really *are* “undecided” or “results-oriented.” Is that so hard to fathom?
But again, props to conradg, whom I would echo extensively beyond my mere two cents here.
[...] Lairson has an interesting post up critiquing pragmatism as a political compass. Larison [...]
[...] The problem with right wing hate radio–all propaganda, no real morality. Clip Source: http://www.amconmag.com Ideologues tend to traffick more in outrage, or rather in what we have come to recognize as [...]
I think Daniel’s thoughts emanate from the specific role “pragmatism” takes in our current political system. What makes Robert Gates pragmatic? Is it just that he’s not a neocon? Or does genuine pragmatism extend beyond adopting a position that you can get a cross-section of people to support.
The point that both Conrad and jTh miss is that it seems to be largely based just on the contention that one is pragmatic and that one seeks to have a lot of people agree with you. But is that actually pragmatic? Case in point–Biden and Obama both largely support the Bush position re: Russia and Georgia. Both support accession of Georgia to NATO. They will only “pragmatically” step away from that support, it appears, if they are forced to do so by European allies. In my view, that has nothing to do with pragmatism and is simply political expediency. If pragmatism is to have meaning it must lead, of itself, to policy conclusions. A pragmatic view of Georgia would be one that recognizes Russia’s strategic dominance there; the very limited ability of the US to affect that strategic dominance; the weakening of both the US and its European allies that would come from the commitments inherent in admitting Georgia to NATO; and the undermining of other strategic areas in which the US would benefit from Russian cooperation that would occur were the US to place Georgia’s accession to NATO above other interests.
Frankly, there’s little substantively pragmatic in Conrad’s comment. Its obviously partisan and merely frame pragmatism as in opposition to Bush and perceived conservative policies.
(And I won’t even bother the address how effectively Mithras–entirely unintentionally–amply illustrates Daniel’s point.)
I find it interesting that so many progressives want to take part in the discussions with conservatives about the nature of conservatism. It reminds of how an old acquaintence can continually remind you of who they think you are, because their definition of you is more comfortable for them.
“Ideologues tend to traffick more in outrage, or rather in what we have come to recognize as manufactured outrage, because an important key to any ideology’s victory is to arouse the crowd’s passions and get them to stop thinking critically or to stop thinking at all”
I read this and I’ve been thinking about it all this time. I am not sure the web’s political world defines “ideologue” quite the way you do, as evidenced by the fact that Ron Paul was repeatedly written off by the opposition as an ideologue. While he certainly aroused the crowd’s passion, he was banking on getting people to think critically.