...through a kind of collective category error, they have alighted on a far more general moral to the story: ideology, in any form, is dangerous. "Obama's victory does not signal a shift in ideology in this country," wrote Roger Simon in Politico. "It signals that the American public has grown weary of ideologies." No less an ideologue than Pat Buchanan has come to this same understanding: "If there is a one root cause to the Bush failures," he wrote, "it has been his fatal embrace of ideology."It's funny how that works. I can remember in 2003 when the anti-war nutty left was mobilizing against the war, and people like Wolfowitz were seen as the adults. And yet the lesson isn't that Wolfowitz was a nut--but that the left is still nuts. People for get that there is pragmatic, if ultimately flawed, case for torture. Anyway, the piece gradually picks up steam when Hayes puts pragmatism in historical perspective and looks at Obama in relation to his hero:If "pragmatic" is the highest praise one can offer in DC these days, "ideological" is perhaps the sharpest slur. And it is by this twisted logic that the crimes of the Bush cabinet are laid at the feet of the blogosphere, that the sins of Paul Wolfowitz end up draped upon the slender shoulders of Dennis Kucinich.
...in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, "pragmatists" of all stripes--Alan Dershowitz, Richard Posner--lined up to offer tips and strategies on how best to implement a practical and effective torture regime; but ideologues said no torture, no exceptions. Same goes for the Iraq War, which many "pragmatic" lawmakers--Hillary Clinton, Arlen Specter--voted for and which ideologues across the political spectrum, from Ron Paul to Bernie Sanders, opposed. Of course, by any reckoning, the war didn't work. That is, it failed to be a practical, nonideological improvement to the nation's security.
Both senses of the word also course through the life of Obama's hero, Abraham Lincoln. Lincoln was, most historians agree, deeply pragmatic in the first sense. As the cable news networks have reminded us ad nauseam, Lincoln brought political foes and countering viewpoints into his cabinet, creating a "team of rivals" that many see as a blueprint for Obama. (When Kroft asked Obama if this was the case, he replied that Lincoln was "a very wise man.") Lincoln was also pragmatic about the institution he helped end: "If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it," he wrote to newspaper editor Horace Greeley in August 1862, "and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that."
This is a kind of pragmatism that to our modern ears comes close to colluding with evil, and it shows how even the most "pragmatic" decisions are embedded in a hierarchy of values: in this case the integrity of the nation over the human rights of millions of its residents. But as Louis Menand argued in his book The Metaphysical Club, the sentiment expressed in Lincoln's letter to Greeley was widely shared: "For many white Americans after 1865, the abolitionists were the century's villains.... They had driven a wedge into white America, and they did it because they had become infatuated with an idea. They marched the nation to the brink of self-destruction in the name of an abstraction."
No one should ever, ever forget that Lincoln said that. Not because it makes him a bad president, but because points to the limits of naked untempered, pragmatism. Indeed the history of black people in this country offers evidence that pragmatism is, itself, just another ideology. Lincoln may well have been a great president, but on arguably the most vexing question facing this country, his record is mixed. He opposed slavery as an institution, but also opposed equality and voting rights for blacks. To my mind, his thoughts on race were pedestrian, ordinary, and unimpressive. He was, in a word, pragmatic.
The true idealogue was Frederick Douglass--mostly because he really had no other choice, if he wanted to live free. Pragmatism doesn't allow you to physically resist slavery as Douglass did. Pragmatism doesn't tell you to flee North. It's principle--and what is ideology, but a core of unmoving principles--that made Douglass an abolitionist. It's principle that told Douglass he had the right to love whoever he wanted. Meanwhile pragmatism gave us one the most cowardly and shameful acts in this country's history--the retreat out of the South, which left blacks at the mercy of a thugocracy.
As Hayes, reminds us, we should be skeptical of those who make a fetish of pragmatism. The scariest thing, to me, about Barack Obama's cabinet is that many of the people who are saluting him, the ones celebrating his "pragmatism" and alleged rejection of the nutty left, are the same people who were dead wrong about the greatest foreign policy question of our era. That's just a feeling, But it's the reason why I get so vexed over reporters parroting the talking points of any administration. Our job is to think, to question--not to babble on about the latest cute handle Obama has awarded to his cabinet.
The Beautiful Struggle: A Father, Two Sons, and an Unlikely Road to Manhood 
I'm not sure I agree with you that this is about reporters being Obama's acolytes, or reporters parroting Obama's talking points. I think it has more to do with the fact that for many people in the mainstream media, "bipartisanship" and "pragmatism" are ideologies in their own rights - what bloggers mock as high-Broderism. These are people who will always insist, with no particular evidence to back it up, that anything done in a bipartisan manner is good, that any whiff of "ideology" is bad. These are the people strongly pushing for this "pragmatism" meme - not because they are in the tank for Obama or they are truly, deeply in love with the guy or something, but because this is what they have been pushing all the while.
You seem to miss the fact that Lincoln's thinking on the subject was constantly evolving. By the end of the war, he was no longer opposed to equality and voting rights for blacks. His thoughts on race, read over time and with an eye to the history he was experiencing, were hardly "pedestrian, ordinary, and unimpressive." That still doesn't make him the equal of Douglass, but then, who was?
I think pragmatism just means your not willing to admit what your assumptions and objectives are. Yes, lincoln was a "pragmatist," insofar as he wasn't principled about how to save the union. But he was an ideologue insofar as he wanted to save the union in the first place. The belief in "a house divided cannot stand," in the integrity of the country, is not itself pragmatic. It's a supposition based on beliefs about the Constitution and what America means. So when we say someone is a pragmatist, we're just unwilling to assess what their purposes and aims are, at the same time that we recognize they have the practical wisdom and no-how to accomplish those ends.
Indeed the history of black people in this country offers evidence that pragmatism is, itself, just another ideology
Yeeesssss. And not only pragmatism, but "pragmatism" as bandied about by our Media Village is even more of an ideology. Akin to High Broderism it is.
The term pragmatism seems to be used in our popular lexicon for two related but different ideas. The first as Hayes explained is ideological flexibility. The willingness to compromise on certain principles in order to reach consensus.
The second, is competence, or the managerial skills and experience necessary to implement policies. If Obama restricted his potential applicant pool to people who share his exact ideology he would be shutting out many of the people who have the necessary experience required to implement his desired policies. My impression is that it is this second principle that is driving many of Obama's appointments. Can anyone name an "ideologically pragmatic" appointment of someone who doesn't bring important experience to the table?
As has often been noted, there is no gesture more ideological than to claim to stand outside of ideology.
I have to disagree with your definition of ideology as adherence to a core of principles. Ideology is woven into the fabric of our perception & habits...in fact, "habits of thought" is as good a definition of ideology as any.
I think part of the issue is that in most people's minds pragmatism=results, where idealogy=debates, discussions, and lots of "pie in the sky" thinking.
And often that's b/c pragmatism does produce measurable outcomes of some kind. Ideology produces results, too, but the weighing comes much further down the road.
Right now I think the pendulum is swinging back toward pragmatism as a reaction against the past 8 years.
Nice triple!
I didn't learn about the abandonment of the South in school and was, to put it mildly, more than a little shocked when I did. One of those "But my people didn't even get here till the 20th century, not my fault" moments of shame and horror.
About the same time I also saw a very good picture set in the very beginning of the Civil War era. It helped remind me that the US was very much looking at Europe's chaotic, fractured, and bloody history and that the compromises that in so many ways define this nation were made against very real fears of something that may well have been worse.
I agree with everything you said Coates, but its the media who have dubbed Obama's cabinet a "team of rivals" after he said he was reading the book of the same name about Lincoln's cabinet. I don't think that he himself ever referred to his Cabinet that way. And it is really played out at this point.
Hayes article is the best pushback so far from the left against the labeling that the MSM is trying to give them.
Zak hits the nail on the head here: "pragmatism" is nothing more than support for the dominant ideology, be refusing to discuss it.
It's no surprise that eunuchs in the Forbidden City shrink from ideological discussions that threaten the Forbidden City's status. It's also no surprise that the Emperor would shrink from that kind of discussion.
The mystery is why the Great Unwashed don't show up with torches and pitchforks and threaten to burn the place to the ground.
Hayes piece is wrought with bad paralles, which confuse the definition of pragmatism. Pragmatism is not simply logical thought, nor is it necessarily self-serving, which Hayes implies in spots. Take for instance, this bit:
"Same goes for the Iraq War, which many "pragmatic" lawmakers--Hillary Clinton, Arlen Specter--voted for and which ideologues across the political spectrum, from Ron Paul to Bernie Sanders, opposed. Of course, by any reckoning, the war didn't work. That is, it failed to be a practical, nonideological improvement to the nation's security."
The fact that Hayes puts pragmatic in quotes indicates a loose definition of the word. Are Clinton and Specter "pragmatic"? Was their behavior "pragmatic?" No. They were acting in their own self-interest. Pragmatism requires testing theories and looking at evidence to reach a practical decision. The real pragmatists on the question of the war were guys like Byrd and Paul who acknowledged the problems with the "intelligence" and the inherent issues surrounding an occupation. Shinseki was pragmatic when he acknowledged the number of troops really needed to manage the occupation. Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz, and the rest of the PNACs were the idealogues, basing their decision on their political worldview.
Same goes with the torture argument. A pragmatist would conclude that torture doesn't produce useful results, and would therefore be against it. The definition of idealogue is also used wrongly here (and in other places). An idealist opposes torture based on moral principle. An idealogue is an impractial idealist (that's actually the dictionary definition) so they oppose things based on a larger ideology, which may or may not be idealistic.
I could go on and on, but I think you see where I'm coming from.
I think what people are ignoring is that pragmatism is a lot like economics: it can tell you what to do to achieve your goals, but it's ideology that produces those goals to begin with. When Obama is standing up for ideas like universal healthcare, it's pretty hard to say that he's completely devoid of ideology. My guess is that it's been so long since we've had really competent governance that the media feels the need to dress up it up as something loftier. Otherwise how can they construct a simple, dualistic narrative?
Your analysis of Lincoln and Douglass is apt. I recently reviewed the book "Giants" by John Stauffer, which directly compares the two men's lives, and I was disheartened by how tedious and uninspiring Lincoln's chapters were, mainly because of how much of a politician the man was. He seemed unwilling to promote his anti-slavery beliefs for fear of harming his early career. In contrast, the Douglass sections were exciting and invigorating. He was the real deal. His idealism was far more inspiring than Lincoln's pragmatism, though, I suppose, Lincoln's pragmatism put him in a position to execute Douglass' goals.
Tessa
I think you aren't realizing that you and Hayes are making the same points. The reason he put pragamatic in quotation marks is because he is talking about the PERCEPTION of pragmaticm being at odds with what real pragmaticm is. And you won't find an article from 2003 that would have referred to Byrd or Paul as pragmatic while calling Clinton and Specter idealogues.
The whole point is that those who are framed as pragmatists are framed that way by people who share their opinions/views. And anybody who doesn't share their views even if their views are wrong are cast as idealogues. Just like how the media are trying to frame the left right now. No liberal could be considered pragmatic enough to be Secretary of Defense according to the media. Hell they are even making noise about Kerry being the Chair of the Foreign Relations Committee. But thats the media for you after 8 years of being brainwashed, some willingly, by the Bush Administration that the Wingers are right and the lefties are wrong.
Just because something is claimed to be pragmatic or practical does not make it so. I find most self proclaimed "realists" (of the realpolitik variety) to be little more than short sighted cynics. There is nothing practical about abandoning your ideals and always assuming the worst in people.
Tessa, that's a great point. Just because someone called them (ie, Clinton, Specter) pragmatists doesn't mean they actually were, or that their actions were pragmatic in any way.
Triumvere,
I find most self proclaimed "realists" (of the realpolitik variety) to be little more than short sighted cynics. There is nothing practical about abandoning your ideals and always assuming the worst in people.
I dunno -- I think it's pretty cynical to say the "pragmatists" are all dishonest ideologues, trying to protect their ideologies by putting them beyond consideration, all for the sake of "pragmatism". Cynical, but true.
"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." -- George Bernard Shaw
Could a pure abolitionist have been elected President of the USA in 1860? Nope. Would NEVER have happened.
I am sure that Douglass would have sounded exciting and pure to modern ears, but he certainly would not have been elected to any major political position in1860 USA, even if he were white.
Douglass was an idealist and a radical ( by 19th C standards) and we need those. But he had no power and he could afford to be idealist.
Lincoln had to actually wield power and thus had to be pragmatic, both to gain the Presidency, and then to remain President. You should note that even the limited steps he took toward ending slavery plunged the country into the bloodiest war in US history. Most historians agree that he had been more radical the USA WOULD have broken up into two or more countries, with incalculable consequences. I'll be honest, folks need to read SOME history before they go pontificating about Lincoln. I think Obama would do well to model himself on Lincoln, all things considered.
Going back to the point on Lincoln and his "pragmatism." It is true that type of pragmatism is much like contemporary foreign policy's "Realism," which can facilitate collusion with morally dubious positions, figures and institutions. The question of Lincoln's committment to human rights is always on the table. However, I am in sympathy with C.L.R. James' reading of Lincoln's views on citizenship, Africans and the nature of democracy as expressed in the 2nd Inaugural Address (check it out in the C.L.R. James Reader). James believes that the conditions of the War, the material necessity of emancipation and a realization of how essential the war was to the very definition of the US led Lincoln to be transformed regarding the nature of the struggle and the historicity of what had been done in slavery. In that address he sounds like John Brown. Second, I do think that Lincoln hypothetically committing to the Union over African freedom, can be looked at in the context of if the Union is not saved and it loses control over the Southern States than the mere possibility of freedom for 4 million Africans in the South becomes a non starter for generations. If Lincoln can be read that way (and I am not saying those were his motivations), than this was pragmatic choice in that it was the fully powered role of the Federal government (along with the essential efforts of the Africans themselves) that facilitated Emancipation.
Most historians agree that he had been more radical the USA WOULD have broken up into two or more countries, with incalculable consequences.
I believe the phrase of the era was "fratricidal Europe", and a little casual exploration on Wikipedia into what was going on in Europe, and had been going on for centuries might make one a little more sympathetic to those who favored compromise over a Balkanized continent.
History is messy. That's probably why they don't teach it in school.
You know, I think the inclusive tone of Obama's administration is meant to be politically reassuring. It does not, however, mean that he will back down on his policy priorities, but that he will use his "pragmatist" cred to back them.
Am I the only one who thinks that Frederick Douglass was actually pretty pragmatic?
Compared to William Lloyd Garrison who denounced the U.S. Constition as an irreparably corrupt document and opposed all violent attempts to end slavery, Frederick Douglass was extremely pragmatic.
@sgwhiteinfla
I think I had read it too quickly the first time through. I've read it again, and I wasn't completely correct. But I wasn't completely wrong. He points out the misuse of "pragmatist" but then he misuses it himself:
"Particularly at times of crisis, when a polity succumbs to collective madness or delusion, it is only the obstinate ideologues who refuse to go along. Expediency may be a virtue in virtuous times, but it's a vice in vicious ones."
I would argue the opposite. It is the true pragmatist who, in a time of crisis when policy succumbs to madness, refuses to go along.
Instead of pointing out who the real pragmatists were, he calls them idealogues. He forgets that there were a lot of people who opposed the war for good reasons, not just based on some anti-war principle or idealogical viewpoint.
One of the dictionary definitions of pragmatism (from dictionary.com) is: "a philosophical movement or system having various forms, but generally stressing practical consequences as constituting the essential criterion in determining meaning, truth, or value."
Isn't this a bit circular? How can we evaluate the practical consequences without some other belief system (which is all an ideology is) informing us as to which consequence is good and which is bad? I was never a student of philosophy so I might be way off base.
Re previous post: Well, he doesn't "misuse" it, he just forgets all about it.
I think part of the issue is that in most people's minds pragmatism=results, where idealogy=debates, discussions, and lots of "pie in the sky" thinking.
Excellent point, Melanie. when I was leading a grassroots strategy/culture change effort at Microsoft, people would often tell me I was too principled and needed to be more pragmatic to get results. I'd respond that the two weren't opposed, and explain why cultural principals like "respect others, and expect them to respect you" and strategic principles like "look from the standpoint of the marginalized" actually were extremely pragmatic even if they were "pie in the sky" by most people's day-to-day experiences.
And agreed that very often "pragmatism" is a synonym for support the dominant power structure or ideology. It's not always code though: often, the folks recommending pragmatism are so deeply situated in a system of oppression that they simply can't see the ways in which their ideology influences their views of what will or won't work.
I see Obama's pragmatism as generally very positive. Trans-partisanship is the most likely way to break the gridlock in Washington (and will certainly make it easier for Obama to make progress on his agenda better than ongoing polarization and straight-party-line votes by the Republicans would). Ditto for "team of rivals" and his "world that is/world that could be/change" intellectual framework.
Of course there's the risk of drifting over to pragmatic in the "accept more evil than you need to" sense, for example by 'compromising' on principles to get Republicans on board, or putting on blinders due to a limited version of the "world that is". One place I worry this will come up with Obama is in terms of civil liberties issues.
Still on the whole I think Obama's pragmatism is very positive and a lot of the resistance of it is from people who don't understand it, and have a major stake in some way in the current dominant power structure and ideology, and so are threatened by it.
The framing of the debate as pragmatism vs. ideology suggests that these are actually opposing ideals. This confusion of categories leads people to believe that somehow the Obama administration will be pragmatic, not ideological, but that is an impossibility.
Even the most pragmatic individual operates on assumptions and beliefs. The Iraq War seems to be a popular example for this debate so let's engage that. As Hayes mentions, the so-called pragmatic legislators like Hillary Clinton voted for the war. From what we know of her foreign policy, she is not a neo-con and not especially hawkish. But when faced with intelligence that says a third-world tyrant possess WMD's and the willingness to use them on Americans, it would be downright stupid to ignore those warnings and not preemptively overthrow such a regime.
To consider the Lincoln example, his decisions were no more pragmatic than anyone else when faced with crisis. He prioritzed the fate of the nation over the fate of millions of slaves and that makes him a pragmatist?
Doesn't that simply demonstrate how committed he was to American nationalism, i.e.: an ideology?
Can't it also be argued that a given policy can be pragmatic to one person, but ideological to another. With the war, some voted for it because they were led to believe that Iraq was an immediate threat, so pragmatism would say "attack". Others had this long drawn out policy that bringing democracy to the Middle East is a humane thing that should cause it to spread to other theocracies and Monarchies in the region.That is more an ideological
Just to be clear, my last post sounds like I was trying to justify Clinton's and other's vote for the Iraq War. I wasn't. My point was that a certain action (invading Iraq) that might seem like the MO of a certain ideology (offensive realism, neo-conservatism) could just as easily be advanced in the name of pragmatism depending on the circumstances.
As some people have mentioned here, the problem is not with the concept of pragmatism itself - it's the fact that some people seek the moral high ground by claiming pragmatism as their reason for doing something, thereby tarring anyone who disagrees with them as either ideologue or idealist. Who knows, maybe at some point, these people would be successful in making "pragmatic" as dirty a word as "liberal".
Little L,
I think that point of this discussion is to deconstruct (and I really mean deconstruct in the specific, critical/philosophical sense, not "disassemble") the binary opposition of Ideology-Pragmatism.
There isn't a difference between "ideology" and "pragmatism". The seeming difference is purely political.
TNC, reading your last three paragraphs again, I think you've lost the plot completely. Principle and pragmatism are not zero-sum components, but you seem to have created a powerful false dichotomy in your own mind about them. The narrative you suggest for the 1860's would appear to be: "The evil of slavery, which should have been opposed clearly by anybody with some semblance of moral fiber, was instead approached hesitantly and with great difficulty by the population at large. As soon as Americans were once again in a position to sweep the issue under the rug, they did so. In measuring the performance of political leaders with regard to civil rights in this era, we should conclude that any individual whose *means* of tackling the problem were 'pragmatic' was demonstrating an imperfect understanding of the principles at stake. This 'pragmatism' is therefore to blame for the failures of the Reconstruction era."
I think this a fairly poor summation of what actually occurred, and completely misses the difference between Lincoln (who by 1865 understood the principles at stake quite well) and his successors (Johnson, Grant), who were not in the same league. Abandoning the South after 1865 was not pragmatism, at least not by any definition I'm comfortable using. You are arguing that pragmatic considerations must, by definition, sully, cripple, or otherwise defeat ethical impulses - but no, it doesn't work that way.
I'd try to draw a 2x2 box, but the comments aren't the place to do that. Assume, for simplicity, two categories of leader: Quality, and Normal. Assume two categories of the leader's approach to ethics: Pragmatic, Ideological. We get the following outcomes:
Normal, Ideological Leader - Lashed to the mast of purity, the generic ideologue pursues their "pure" goals without regard for the practicality of the means; creates more problems than are solved.
Normal, Pragmatic Leader - The usual muck of political compromise mixed with sleaze.
Quality, Idelogical Leader (Douglass) - Inspires the people to better understanding of the issues, but has difficulty compromising with forces entrenched on the wrong side.
Quality, Pragmatic Leader (Lincoln) - Does not necessarily have a lesser moral fiber, but will compromise to achieve what is possible now instead of what is ideal later.
Whether Pragmatic or Ideological, most leaders are not Quality. If you focus on pragmatism as practiced by normal leaders, you will easily obtain a poor opinion of it; the same is true for ideology. But neither stance precludes Quality; and Quality is not diminished by either choice.
Worrying about Obama's pragmatism, as if his cabinet choices amount to throwing principles under the bus, is a counterproductive way to think about it. What you are worried about is his *competence*. If he's good enough, then the pragmatism will serve him, and you, and all of us well. If he isn't, pragmatism itself won't be to blame.
Tessa
I am not picking on you seriously, but I think once again you are making the same point that Hayes is. Lets read the whole thing in context.
To my reading what he is saying is that the people who try to argue that they were being pragmatic hide behind principles. Just like how everyone in the Bush administration now says that even though there was no WMD invading Iraq and ousting Saddam was still the right thing to do on principle. The obstinate idealogues he is referring to are the people who got it right like Byrd and Paul but who are derided as being idealogues because they wouldn't go along with the rest of Washington instead of praised for being the true pragmatists and in fact being right.
Again I think you agree with Hayes but you disagree with the same media folks that he is attacking.
Or, what the last five posters said while I was typing. :)
Maybe pragmatic v idealistic isn't the right construct. How about pragmatic v expedient? As always, the thesaurus is illuminating!
Maybe pragmatic v idealistic isn't the right construct. How about pragmatic v expedient?
Or how about, ideology "A" vs. ideology "B"?
Everyone has and is motivated by an ideology. It's simply a matter of winning enough power that you get to call yours "reality" and the other guy's "obstinate idealism".
"Pragmatism doesn't allow you to physically resist slavery as Douglass did. Pragmatism doesn't tell you to flee North. It's principle--and what is ideology, but a core of unmoving principles--that made Douglass an abolitionist."
Words are failing me; I'm not doing a good job of making my point about the confusion over pramatists vs idealogues. Maybe Ta-Nehisi's quote here will help me.
We should be skeptical of those who label others as pragmatists when they're not. Same goes for idealogues. Example: I believe Frederick Douglass adhered to his principles, but not out of faith to a larger ideology. He was adhering to principles based on his own sense of morality. He wasn't anti-slavery because of some abstract theory or political platform. That's what an idealogue would do. I would argue, also, that it was pragmatic for Douglass to act based on his principles. The long-term goal of an abolitionist is emancipation, and the true pragmatist knows you can't accomplish this by idly sitting by. Many of Douglass' efforts throughout his life were pragmatic in the sense of accomplishing that goal.
Pragmatism is neither always good nor always evil. As Ta-Nehisi points out "...pragmatism gave us one the most cowardly and shameful acts in this country's history--the retreat out of the South, which left blacks at the mercy of a thugocracy."
And a pragmatist is not always the opposite of an idealogue, and vice versa. To reduce it in this way confuses both definitions, in my opinion.
Grunthos,
Good points.
@ Tony,
I assume you atually mean expedient v/s idealistic? See, this changes things, though. Expedient has that negative connotation to it, while pragmatic sounds noble or something. I think the real antonym of idealist is realist, though.
But I think you said it better; especially this:
A lot of what passes for analysis is really nothing more than what Nassim Nicholas Taleb calls "picking the winner after the fact." At the time there were lots of other actors, of various degrees of pragmatism, idealism, and quality.
Um no. I meant pragmatic v expedient.
/jack
Also, apropos of nothing, while I read and type, my three year old daughter is helping me destroy a jar of Green Mountain Gringo salsa. I warned her "it's spicy". Now she's asking "Can I have more spicy sauce? Can I have more spicy sauce?"
/unjack
Tessa
I think these two quotes are the key to Hayes post.
snip@ Tony,
Heh. I guess it says something about my own outlok that the minute you use the word "expedient" I automatically assume you mean to use it as a stand-in for "pragmatic".
@ Pesto:
If we are trying to deconstruct the pragmatism-ideology opposition, then saying there is no difference is an exceptionally lazy deconstruction. The differences may be subtle, but the distinction deserves a more thoughtful analysis than "purely political". Just because the concepts are not opposites and canoverlap one another does not make them the same.
An action can be ideological and not pragmatic, but can never be pragmatic and not ideological.
Pragmatism can only determine how a policy is formulated. The 'why' will always be in the realm of ideology.
@ Tony:
LOL
Not sure what dictionary/thesaurus you use, but according to the Oxford American 'expedient' and 'pragmatic' are synonyms themselves, so your construct isn't setting up much of an opposition at all.
TNC-
I've been enjoying your blog for several months but I had been asking myself what it is you bring to the Atlantic family that goes beyond your background. I couldn't sense what your "gift" was until I read this post. Not that you got everything right, but you did a great job oif framing the question.
Is it me or does this entire discussion of ideology vs pragmatism seem totally hollow?
We're not discussing what people do, but how the way the propogandize what they do.
Lincoln had to say that he was only for the union, even if he was for emancipation, because saying he was for emancipation would have made freeing the slaves impossible.
So it can be looked at as a pragmatic solution to a problem, but one that was necessitated to reach an ideological goal.
What I'm saying is, isn't it what you do, not what you say?
Isn't this all semantics?
@sgwhiteinfla: "the obstinate idealogues he is referring to are the people who got it right like Byrd and Paul but who are derided as being idealogues because they wouldn't go along with the rest of Washington instead of praised for being the true pragmatists and in fact being right."
I don't think Hayes is suggesting that the pragmatists were derided as obstinate idealogues. In the preceding paragraph, he begins by agreeing with Greenwald that "there are instances where a proposed war might be very pragmatically beneficial in promoting our national self-interest, but is still something that we ought not to do...Because as a matter of principle--of ideology"
Then in the next paragraph, he takes it further to say "Particularly at times of crisis, when a polity succumbs to collective madness or delusion, it is only the obstinate ideologues who refuse to go along"
pedestrian, ordinary, and unimpressive.
Been hogging this thread, so here's my last post and then I'll move on:
TNC-
You write, in reference to Douglass, that "pragmatism does not tell you flee North". I beg to differ. Wouldn't it be practical considerations more than anything that would compel a person to seek freedom somewhere else?
The converse may be true also. Did the South really have an ideological commitment to the institution of slavery, a firmly held belief in the inferiority of black people, or was it simply more practical to resist the emancipation efforts of the slaves on the backs of whom the South's wealth and economic expansion rests?
@ Tony:
I'm not the type to get digs in at other people, but really, you could have answered my criticism, rather than repeating TNC.
Little L,
I'm not going to do a detailed critique of ideology vs. pragmatism (much less deconstruct the notions of laziness and rigor!). I dropped out of grad school 15 years ago partly to avoid having to do that! But I think that a case can be made that any action is, by definition, "practical". That is, there is no such thing as a "purely ideological action" -- once you enter the realm of "action" you're leaving the realm of "pure ideology", assuming you believe that ideology and action really are separate realms.
Is there a difference between saying, "Everyone is practical -- no one is ideological," and, "Everyone is ideological, no one is practical?"
I really believe that the two cannot exist without each other, and at a fundamental level aren't really two different things to begin with.
Again, I'm not going to do a detailed deconstruction of these terms -- I'm just pointing out the direction of this conversation. And I'd also say that the ideology-pragmatism binary opposition fits in perfectly well with the classical, Western oppositions (Mind vs. Body, Speech vs. Writing, Signifier vs. Signified) that much smarter, more learned people than me have already analyzed.
Insofar as energy is concerned and probably Health, Obama probably picked people who (desipite O's claim that Daschle isn't far left, lefites won't find him hard to swallow) progressives are happy with. The problems for progressives from a pragmatic and principled perspective have to do with the economy and foreign policy. One wishes on the latter that if he had to pick someone out of the Clinton bag it would have been Reich--who actually looks at the issue from the perspective of working people, and inre foreign policy, someone who could avoid the kneejerk perspectives on the middle east that have been retrograde to solving problems there for decades.
How pragmatic and principled these folks will be is yet to be seen, but one should remember that both Kennedy's and W.'s cabinet choices (people forget that Donal Rumsfeld was actually once considered sexy--that was the word)were considered sound, adult choices.
This sentence struck me from the Hayes article:
I think "worldview" and "set of principles" are the two key components of one's ideology but should be approached separately. Both drive one's view of the right policies or actions but in very different ways. Inflexibility in one's principles can be a very good thing (if you have the right principles and a hierarchy that understands the conflicts and potential acceptable tradeoffs that often arise between two goods).
But one's "worldview" should strive to understand how the world actually works. My worldview is certainly different from Greenspan's (quoted in the Hayes' article), but I happen to think he has (had?) a very biased, or simplistic, understanding of that world, and that mine is closer to reality. I also know, though, that my worldview has it's own limitations and that I need to be willing to re-evaluate it constantly in light of new evidence.
"Free market ideologues" are driven, from my point of view, by both wrong-headed principles and an inaccurate worldview. I am more likely to think "leftist ideologues" are driven by principles I'm generally in agreement with but a worldview that doesn't always comport with my sense of reality. If this characterization were true, it would get back to Hayes' starting point of how we've drawn the conclusion that the failings of the Bush years were not of conservative ideologues but of ideologues in general. I think it's both - we had neo-conservatives unwilling to adjust their worldview in light of the facts. But we also started with a particularly dangerous set of principles.
Understood in this way (ie, not in the Broder-esque way), being pragmatic is distinct from ideology but a healthy complement to it. Ideology is in itself is not dangerous - in fact, it's inevitable - but an ideologue, who refuse to adapt a worldview even in the face of overwhelming evidence, is dangerous.
In all honesty, I thought I had, by quoting TNC's triple, responded to your criticism.
If "synonym" meant "the same as" then writers wouldn't employ triples. "Pragmatic" doesn't mean the same thing as "expedient"; and neither mean the same thing as "shrewd". "Idealistic" doesn't mean the same thing as "doctrinaire"; and neither means the same thing as "principled".
I think Grunthos is on point when he suggests that idealistic v pragmatic is a false dichotomy. In fact, both are desirable traits, and I hope BHO pocesses both qualities in abundance. He's proven himself to be shrewd, but I hope he will shy away from expedient solutions.
Similarly, he ran on the image that he is an idealistic leader. I'd settle, perhaps even prefer principled. Idealistic to easily become doctrinaire. But of course where, when, how and to what end is a matter of one's perspective, which is not the same thing as one's point of view.
"Ideology" is the illusion we know what's best for ourselves.
"Pragmatism" is ideology with an Errata section.
"Realism" is either of the former. In drag. on acid. At 1:45am right before the lights go up.
Pragmatism is a corrupted term, often conflated with self-interest. The form of pragmatism that is valued is essentially empiricism, or an application of the scientific method to real (uncontrolled) situations. Pragmatism is an ideology, although one that requires a change in one's position as more facts reveal themselves. This is different than say, cynically adopting positions when they are most beneficial to oneself. True pragmatism is, in fact, not concerned with popularity.
Since you brought up pragmatism in the context of the Iraq war, I'll use this to illustrate an example. There was a substantial pragmatic opposition to the war, and while it was stifled domestically, it was extremely robust internationally. The foundation for pragmatic opposition for the war was simply the fact that the president's stance on weapons of mass destruction couldn't be taken at face value, and in fact were in direct opposition to the testimony of Hans Blix and the Verification and Inspection Commission.
In fact, there was substantial idealogical support for the war, emerging from neoconservative corners who believed (and believe still) in strong American Exceptionalism.
Reads like it was written by Paul Wolfowitz himself. Many recognized the fanatical ideologue in sheep's clothing and were derided for it. Well, guess who was right?There's a difference between an ideology and a dogmatic ideology. Lincoln had ideology--certainly, his opposition to slavery was ideological and not, like James Buchanan, pragmatic. But he wasn't dogmatic in his ideology; he was willing to forgive those who had sided against him (the pardon of all of the criminals of the Confederacy).
Obama is pragmatic about his ideology. He believes that Health Care is something we all deserve; he believes strongly in social justice and believes that the government is the vehicle to increase social justice.
If anyone in this last election was the pragmatist, it was John McCain. Willing to shift his beliefs to whatever polled the best; he realized that his "ideological" opposition to the right-wing fanatics in 2000 wasn't pragmatic enough, so he decided to make nice.
But the Bush Administration was not just ideological; they were dogmatic in their ideology---and sometimes even dogmatic in their pragmatism.
Pesto,
Your follow up offered a much more satisfying response. I considered the same idea, that any action cannot be truly ideological because of the very thing it is, an action.
A chicken-hawk can be a true ideologue because he pontificates about wars he will never fight and decisions he will never face. An actor, on the hand, will always face realities that constrain the different courses available to him, thus every decision becomes necessarily 'pragmatic'.
The argument could be made that at some point the two become indistinguishable because every ideology has an at least implicit normative quality. In every field, the grand theories dress themselves up by claiming reality can be objectively understood as 'x', so doing 'y' (what the theorists prescribe) is inherently pragmatic and rational. Like other binary oppositions, the two are separate but work in concert toward the same end.
"I can remember in 2003 when the anti-war nutty left was mobilizing against the war, and people like Wolfowitz were seen as the adults. And yet the lesson isn't that Wolfowitz was a nut--but that the left is still nuts. People for get that there is pragmatic, if ultimately flawed, case for torture."
By the way, I have a giant question mark hanging over my head on this one. I wish you could help me out and elaborate here. Who do you consider the "anti-war nutty left" and what was the err of their ways? Because right now it kind of strikes me as an astonishing way to recall those events, and the lessons learned.
I assume that TNC is referring to the way opposition to the war is derided as coming from "anti-war nutty left", right? At this point, probably only the most dedicated neocon hawk still think the war was a good idea.
After 9/11 I seem to recall voices suggesting that going into Afghanistan to get OBL and dismantle AQ was immoral; another example of American imperial aggression. When those same voices opposed the Iraq invasion, I found it hard to understand their opposition as anything other than reactionary anti-war lefty nuttiness. The fact that going into Iraq has proved to be a major blunder doesn't make them any less nutty.
Lincoln was also pragmatic about the institution he helped end: "If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it," he wrote to newspaper editor Horace Greeley in August 1862, "and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that."
…No one should ever, ever forget that Lincoln said that. Not because it makes him a bad president, but because points to the limits of naked untempered, pragmatism.
Except that Lincoln was claiming absolute adherence to a political principle, namely the unity of the Republic. And absolute adherence to one goal requires that you be prepared to sacrifice your other desires to achieve that goal. So Lincoln was prepared to sacrifice another principle, namely freeing the oppressed.
Your argument is therefore against the ideology Lincoln claimed to possess, not his “pragmatism”.
Wolfowitz, on the other hand, is said to have favoured invading Iraq in order to free those oppressed by Saddam Hussein. A pragmatic argument against that – that it might be very difficult to put Iraq back together afterwards – was given by some right-wingers, such as Colin Powell, as well as some left-wingers.
This argument would seem to have been correct, given the results to date.
But an idealistic argument, e.g. that it was an infringement of Iraq’s national sovereignty, would be true whatever the results of the invasion. It would be exactly as true if Iraq was now a land of milk and honey, full of happy, democratic, liberal Americanophiles. If Iraq was like that, would you still believe that the invasion was wrong?
Because if you would have supported an invasion that lead to that result, the important difference between you and Wolfowitz is your belief about the consequences of the invasion.
Meanwhile pragmatism gave us one the most cowardly and shameful acts in this country's history--the retreat out of the South, which left blacks at the mercy of a thugocracy.
The argument I have always heard given against a retreat out of Iraq, is that it would leave Iraqis at the mercy of a thugocracy (whichever one won the civil war).
Pragmatism doesn't allow you to physically resist slavery as Douglass did. Pragmatism doesn't tell you to flee North.
As a number of commentors have implied, if I had been a slave in the South, I rather think that pragmatism would have told me to do exactly that. Pragmatism, by any definition, would indeed tell you to favour changes that would benefit you and the people you cared about.
If you want me to believe that you are an idealist, tell me how your goals would hurt you, and the people you care about.
Americans worship at the altar of Success. If something works we say it's pragmatic if something doesn't work we say that the idea behind it was faulty.
Really I think that's what this entire debate is about.
"When those same voices opposed the Iraq invasion, I found it hard to understand their opposition as anything other than reactionary anti-war lefty nuttiness."
Attitude like this is what probably caused TNR writers and other liberal hawks to call for the Democratic party to rid itself of the so-called reflexive pacifist wing, the "reactionary anti war lefty nuttiness" etc etc. That has worked wonders for the country has it?
"When those same voices opposed the Iraq invasion, I found it hard to understand their opposition as anything other than reactionary anti-war lefty nuttiness. The fact that going into Iraq has proved to be a major blunder doesn't make them any less nutty."
True, no less nutty. But why juxtapose the nuts with Wolfowitz to many *any* point? I take it you acknowledge that there was also a large portion of non-nutties who opposed the Iraq war for very sensible reasons. You know, the pragmatists. Why not compare the pragmatists with the idealogues (Wolfowitz). Wolfowitz is a shithead whose idealogy clouded his judgment at the same time those nuts were clouded by their nutiness, and still are. We should learn both lessons, no?
And BTW, I'm sure they are a lot of people who supported going into Afghanistan to get Osama bin Laden, but are against the Iraq war (one of the reasons being, hey, what about let's finish the job in Afghanistan first and actually get Osama, huh?) But hey, I guess it's just easier to deny the credibility of the anti-war voices by lumping them as reactionary anti-war leftist who are againsts the war in any situation ever.
Ideology" is the illusion we know what's best for ourselves.
"Pragmatism" is ideology with an Errata section.
"Realism" is either of the former. In drag. on acid. At 1:45am right before the lights go up.
Or to put it in the context of a night at the club or bar:
Ideology is : One will be set on going home with an 8 or 9 at the beginning of the night
Pragmatism is : After a few drinks and rejections, one is willing to go home with anyone who doesn't have the clap
Realism is: One will be at home at 2 AM watching Skinamax by oneself.
The question is, when are we going to get rid of Democratic "Strategists" that help Obama-worship, or the Republican "Strategists" who help spread malicious lies about Obama? It's not something that should be in the news, yet people who have no journalism degree to speak of, i.e. karl rove or pat buchanan or joe scarborough have their own godd*mn show.
"But hey, I guess it's just easier to deny the credibility of the anti-war voices by lumping them as reactionary anti-war leftist who are againsts the war in any situation ever."
Yes, let's remember what year it was when "Hannity's America" started. When there had to be two conservatives to one liberal on every panel. When all the stations slathered red white and blue all over their screens. Colbert's opening show parody illustrates this best. No Dissent Welcome Here, America #1! Squawk!
But here's the rub. I'm one of those liberal hawks, (though not affiliated with the Democratic party until 2004,) and I opposed the invasion of Iraq. I thought it was a terrible idea, for many different reasons (including the fact that there are no chocolate factories or tulip nurseries in Iraq.)
But when you're making an antiwar case, it's only that much harder when you're (in the broad picture) making the same case as people who are always opposed to war, no matter what the reason.
From where I stand both parties have been held hostage by their reactionary elements for too long. Neither party has been either ideological enough, or pragmatic enough, and my life as a citizen has consisted mostly been watching a race to the bottom which the GOP ultimately won (or lost, or whatever.)
I hope that BHO marks the beginning of something new. I ready for it. Else-wise, I'm finishing the remainder of the film I've already shot, building a big boat, and sailing away!
This post is a farrago. Please, TNC, stay away from philosophy.
I think "worldview" and "set of principles" are the two key components of one's ideology but should be approached separately.
Well said, mo.
To play devil's advocate, there were pragmatic reasons to oppose the invasion of Afghanistan, as well. Namely it's historical resistance to conquest and the unlikelihood that such an invasion would prevent further terrorist attacks. On the former, the doves had a point, whereas the latter remains unclear. Dismantling the Taliban was a worthy cause but we are deep into this war and future prospects are grim. Al Qaeda is still operational and the Taliban is resurgent. People underestimated the cost of war, which was easy to do because many had nothing at stake. It is also worth noting that a substantial base of pro-war support was grounded in simple bellicosity, perhaps more irrational than reflexive pacifism and certainly far more dangerous.
"dead wrong about the greatest foreign policy question of our era"
What question is that? Really, I am curious.
Pragmatism means the pursuit of policy that actually solves national problems.
If one has interest in policy, he will likely have some ideas on what constitutes national problems and also on what sort of policy will solve these problems.
Obviously the person must believe that the problems he identifies are the real problems and the solutions he sees will solve these problems. If he thinks they will not, then he would develop new opinions of what are problems and what to do about them.
So when someone else identifies a problem that the person also sees as a problem, and favors solutions that agree with what the person thinks should be done, then that other person is seen as pragmatic.
For example, if you see Iran as likely to give WMDs to terrorists who might then use them on the US, then you would see efforts by Iran to obtain WMDs as a problem that needs to be addressed.
If I said this was not a problem, you might well consider me as an impractical ideologue, a peacenik, or as not "serious".
So some journalists are wringing their hands because they can't if they are the Good Guys or the Bad Guys in this new pragmatic era. It's really not so hard. Obviously it's impossible to be a "pure" pragmatist, because in order to perceive a problem at all, you have to have an ideology. What pragmatism means is that there is a broad group of problems that just about everyone agrees are, in fact, problems: schools, healthcare, terrorism, the economy, inequality, energy policy, the environment. On these issues, the ideological differences are over how to address them, and being pragmatic means using whatever approach works, and an ideological approach says "Only solutions that fit my liberal/conservative, free-market/government-intervention, pacifist/neo-imperialist ideology are acceptable."
There's another class of issues, like: gay marriage, abortion, gun control, judges -- mainly culture war stuff -- where the ideological difference is over whether there is even a problem or not. I think Obama the pragmatist isn't going to touch this stuff, and lucky for him he doesn't really have to. Gay marriage is a state-level issue, he can appoint centrist judges, and ignore every other ideological issue. The benefit to this strategy is that Obama will be dealing with issues that conservative constituencies care about, and this puts pressure on Republicans. The downside is that on some issues liberals care about -- like gay rights, maybe humanitarian intervention in Darfur -- nothing will get done because conservatives refuse to admit there is a problem.
On the whole, the strategy cuts the liberal way on most issues. It's pretty easy to be open to solutions from anywhere in the political spectrum when the Bush administration discredited all the conservative solutions.
Okay, I'm going to make use of the class I just took on the Anthropology of Policymaking here:
In politics and government, there is something known in particular academic fields as a political rationality. This is NOT THE SAME as a rationale or something that is rational in the sense of logical. It's an architecture of assumptions, views, forms of knowledge, power structures, and perspectives on the world. This architecture, in turn, determines your whole view of the world--what constitutes a problem or issue and what is fine the way it is, and what various solutions are even conceivable, let alone desirable, for a given problem.
This is the sense in which many of the commenters here have been using ideology. Technically, that's incorrect--a rationality does not tell you, for example, how you ought to feel about progressive taxation. Republicans, Democrats, conservatives, and progressives all for the most part share the same political rationality; their ideologies are more or less the staking of a position along that spectrum.
So, for example, Republicans may say that they want school vouchers, and Democrats may say that we should invest in our schools more and better. Both see the state of our public schools as a problem, and both can understand the logic of each other's argument; they just disagree. Ron Paul, on the other hand, sounds freaking crazy when he suggests abolishing the Department of Education because he's operating on a whole other playing field, which is to say that he's a radical, which is to say that he's using a different political rationality than the dominant one in this country.
Within a given rationality, then, you have differing ideologies that arrange themselves across a spectrum, in our case from "left" to "right." What we mean when we say "pragmatic" is that the pragmatic person or policy is so very compatible with our political rationality that it not only makes sense within, and can be seen to be responding to, the conditions that we perceive via this rationality to be true; it makes everybody else comfortable with it too, so they won't oppose it (making it "politically feasible"). It doesn't mean everybody agrees with it; it means it does not venture near enough to the edges of radicalism to challenge most of our notions of what the world looks like.
I think the Lincoln case says more about the limits of ideology, not pragmatism. If he had been more ideological, we might now need a passport to travel to Louisiana (not that anyone would have reason to go there other than to deliver a foreign aid check). A pragmatism-free Lincoln probably would have been (long-term) a morally-in-the-right disaster.
“Pragmatic” in DC now means something much more humble: being receptive to evidence, being open to opposing points of view, valuing experience and resumes over who you knew in college. What novel ideas! I think of it as a “return to normalcy”. I really don’t think that’s too objectionable, once you drop the flowery language.
p.s., To borrow a point from Bloom, don’t tell us how you feel, tell us what you think. If I want your tear-stained pillow, I’ll buy it on ebay.
p.s.s., Keep up the criticism of the Obama administration. Just because I/we voted for him doesn’t mean I have turned off my civic/critical thinking skills.
To me a "pragmatist" is somebody who is able to distinguish between "means" and "ends" and most important of all doesn't become a captive to "means". Far too often policy makers have allowed means to become an end - my definition of an ideologue.
"Ideology" was a term used by Napoleon to criticize and marginalize DeStutt-Tracy and the rest of the 'philosophes' who opposed the Empire on Republican principles.
Can I just say, as an actual, Jamesian Pragmatist, that the abuse of the term is fucking killing me.
How can you set up a binary scale between ideology and pragmatism? It's like trying to measure something on a scale between cheese and puppies! With very few exceptions, the way they're being thrown about in this thread is as close as possible to being absolutely and utterly meaningless.
Pragmatism just means this: an idea has value if you can take it to the marketplace of reality and spend it. It doesn't mean compromising. It's a method of establishing the truth value of a statement in terms of its utility in the real world, rather than in terms of aesthetics or logic or harmony with some older formulation like a religious scripture. It can no more be opposed to ideology than wheels can be opposed to engines. Pragmatism is a very efficient way of making ideology work.
I think the words you are looking for are "idealist" -- other forms of that word being "idealism" and "idealistic" and not "ideological," "ideology" or "ideologue" -- and "realist," or perhaps simply "politician". An ideologue is not someone who is merely committed to an ideology, but rather someone who tries to put that ideology into practice and teach others about it. An idealist is someone who does not rely on practical concerns when formulating ethical or philosophical principles. They are different things. Douglass was an ideologue, but in this post you don't mean that, you mean he was an idealist.
To be fair it's not just TNC, or even Hayes, making the error. But since when did we start relying on the shit-flinging baboons in the USAian press corps to know how to string two words together in a sentence without making a hash of the whole thing? The entire notion that Obama is picking pragmatists without ideologies to staff his cabinet is utterly ludicrous on its face.
Ideology campaigns and pragmatism governs.