The Atlantic - Latest Comments in Pragmatism and evil

Re: Pragmatism and evil

FGS — Sun, 14 Dec 2008 20:17:01 -0000

Ideology campaigns and pragmatism governs.

Re: Pragmatism and evil

McDuff — Sun, 14 Dec 2008 06:24:08 -0000

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.

Re: Pragmatism and evil

woody — Sat, 13 Dec 2008 11:47:17 -0000

"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.

Re: Pragmatism and evil

sanjay — Sat, 13 Dec 2008 11:26:11 -0000

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.

Re: Pragmatism and evil

Donk — Sat, 13 Dec 2008 11:03:59 -0000

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.

Re: Pragmatism and evil

miwome — Sat, 13 Dec 2008 09:37:05 -0000

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.

Re: Pragmatism and evil

alsomike — Sat, 13 Dec 2008 00:32:03 -0000

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.

Re: Pragmatism and evil

Mike Alexander — Sat, 13 Dec 2008 00:21:12 -0000

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".

Re: Pragmatism and evil

tomwoolf — Fri, 12 Dec 2008 21:28:36 -0000

"dead wrong about the greatest foreign policy question of our era"

What question is that? Really, I am curious.

Re: Pragmatism and evil

Joel — Fri, 12 Dec 2008 19:10:38 -0000

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.

Re: Pragmatism and evil

jon — Fri, 12 Dec 2008 18:23:47 -0000

I think "worldview" and "set of principles" are the two key components of one's ideology but should be approached separately.

Well said, mo.

Re: Pragmatism and evil

fabled coast — Fri, 12 Dec 2008 17:19:29 -0000

This post is a farrago. Please, TNC, stay away from philosophy.

Re: Pragmatism and evil

Tony Comstock — Fri, 12 Dec 2008 15:28:58 -0000

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?

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!

Re: Pragmatism and evil

Tessa — Fri, 12 Dec 2008 15:27:01 -0000

"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!

Re: Pragmatism and evil

martin — Fri, 12 Dec 2008 15:19:18 -0000

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.

Re: Pragmatism and evil

DougEMI — Fri, 12 Dec 2008 15:18:12 -0000

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.

Re: Pragmatism and evil

PeterGuillam — Fri, 12 Dec 2008 15:17:14 -0000

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.

Re: Pragmatism and evil

Tessa — Fri, 12 Dec 2008 15:13:37 -0000

"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?

Re: Pragmatism and evil

PeterGuillam — Fri, 12 Dec 2008 15:07:42 -0000

"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?

Re: Pragmatism and evil

Sorn — Fri, 12 Dec 2008 15:03:48 -0000

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.

Re: Pragmatism and evil

ad — Fri, 12 Dec 2008 14:58:48 -0000

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.

Re: Pragmatism and evil

Tony Comstock — Fri, 12 Dec 2008 14:55:37 -0000

Who do you consider the "anti-war nutty left" and what was the err of their ways?

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.

Re: Pragmatism and evil

PeterGuillam — Fri, 12 Dec 2008 14:34:59 -0000

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.

Re: Pragmatism and evil

Tessa — Fri, 12 Dec 2008 14:24:06 -0000

"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.

Re: Pragmatism and evil

Little L liberal — Fri, 12 Dec 2008 14:07:13 -0000

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.