More On Pragmatism

If pragmatism is walking the straightest line to achieve an end or being focused above all else on ends rather than means (without introducing ethical conundrums, at least for the purpose of this thought experiment), doesn't the notion of "pragmatic progressive" seem a bit outlandish?

Consider:

"Pragmatic" is used to modify "progressive," meaning that progressive is inherently non-pragmatic, a label to indicate pie-in-the-sky dreaming and the like.

But also consider:

The scope our nation's problems during the current crisis require a) an unprecedented (at least since the 20th Century's Great Depression) scope and b) real solutions, would it not be pragmatic to put together the most progressive policy solutions? Methinks yes (or else I wouldn't write this).

"Pragmatic" is being used as a code-word for "compromise on first principles to the corporatocracy and have an excuse for selling out the left-of-center, not to mention the best interests."

I sure as shit hope that Bob Rubin's apologies (of sorts) of late and the newfound progressivism of many of the financial/fiscal/economic-policy elite of the Democratic party is genuine. Or else we will not end up with the solutions needed to cross the threshold of saving our economy and restructuring it for longer-term success - we need progressive action to right this ship, that is, we need to be pragmatic, which means to choose progressive solutions here.

"Pragmatic" can only modify "progressive" in the sense of the former yielding the latter. All else is simply window-dressing on an ideological and political shell game.

Ideology As Important In Government

The right has beaten us for years in making ideology a part of all things political. I don't begrudge them that - I think it's a really important part of democratic politics. I begrudge them being wrong and having an ideology that is just faulty and immoral.

That said, the nascent Obama administration has been a veritable case study in how ideology seems to be totally missing from the alleged savior of the nation and of progressive politics (I think he's neither, even while I'm glad he's in the White House in less than 60 days). Not totally. Bust mostly. As noted in quite a good front-page diary on OpenLeft today, the "pragmatism" of Obama seems to be more important than having a coherent approach to solving social problems through the democratic political process.

Let me just say that this is such an intellectually dishonest proposition, probably stronger language than that of the piece at OpenLeft - but something that I think is warranted. I definitely recommend reading the piece. It has some very good points on ideology as natural in politics and certainly about the honesty of having and articulating an ideology instead of masking some non-ideological (cousin to non-, trans-, or post-partisan in many senses, especially with Obama and friends) statement or public argument about "pragmatism."

Some choice passages and quotations:

Introducing it all...

There has been here, and elsewhere, a low-level (ahem) ideological debate about the relative importance of ideology versus pragmatism. To some, the election of Obama is seen as a victory for getting things done as opposed to what I suppose in this formulation is the old Washington game of tilting at ideological windmills.

Being all reflexive (and spot-on)...

There is another fundamental problem with the ideology of pragmatism (yes, "I hate ideology" is an ideology too!) - that can be expressed as a question: What goals do these pragmatic policies advance?

At a conceptual level, ideology is a simply a heuristic for selecting the best path in problems without an obvious or easily discerned solution. So you "guess." You pick a method that, though not guaranteed to solve every problem, hopefully makes them no worse, and maybe leads to other desirable side-effects even if the core problem remains.

Actually, I do not agree completely with the above. Ideology is not a heuristic. Heuristics are conceptual shortcuts. Ideology is an overarching framework for understanding the world - which yields structure and salience of heuristics. Ideology does not lead to hazarding of guesses - it leads to some degree of certainty. That results match up with this is the test of an ideology that is more than decent theory on paper and instead good in practice. Some might even say pragmatic...

Actually, as I say it, the statement is made differently...

Ideology entails both a specific solution to a specific problem, but also a general approach to larger challenges.

Closing things out with a statement that rings far truer than most in traditional media, and with much conceptual baggage and inherent consequence than perhaps intended to be ascribed to a concluding sentence...

Ideology is not a dirty word. "Ideologue" may be, but they're not the same thing. Without it, we are adrift in a sea of problems, without a compass or a destination in mind.

"Getting things done" is lauded in public discourse - like "bi-partisanship" and "compromise". Well what about getting the right things done the right way? The wrong things getting done the wrong way have led us to this situation of economic crises. - including some of the 'leaders' being those who mouthed a sort of "serious" technocratic "pragmatism" as a guise, dishonest or mistaken, for neoliberalism and its cousin conservatism (Bob Rubin, I'm looking at you - and I'm not sorry that you're getting something of a media comeuppance these days, if for the wrong reasons i.e. Citigroup failures instead of that of his "public service" in the Clinton administration).

Again, let me ask you to identify which is more important:

1. Getting things done.
2. Getting the right things done the right way.

As importantly, ideology is vital in our politics. I'll look to explore this more in full in the future. We are living through a case-study in repeating similar failures because of failing to truly understand prior history of politics and government.