GPDP
18th November 2009, 08:04
I think we on the states (not sure about other countries) have been hearing this word being flung about a lot lately, especially on the part of Democrats and their liberal sympathizers, when the topic of reform comes about. We hear about the need to be "pragmatic" and "realistic," that change doesn't happen overnight, and thus we shouldn't push for drastic change, perhaps implicitly because of a concern that we may "overshoot" our demands, if you will, and end up with nothing, but more generally because the opposition is too strong to get our demands through.
What I wonder, however, is the following: for how many of these people is pragmatism a real, actual core political value?
Now, I'm sure some people genuinely are philosophical and political "pragmatists" at heart, and their politics and actions reflect that. I would disagree with them on various grounds, but for the most part, I would respect that disagreement. The problem is, however, most of the so-called "pragmatists" I've met and argued with do not come off as genuine or honest pragmatists. It seems to me their "pragmatism" is a cover for something else.
One kind of faux "pragmatist" I've encountered is one who does agree we need drastic change, and would even ideally call for it, but capitulates from the outset to the challenge of achieving that change, and thus in the name of pragmatism will accept whatever crumbs we get from on high, and will defend those responsible for getting us those crumbs (even if, as is the case with the Democrats, they were instrumental in making sure we got nothing more than those crumbs). In other words, this is not a pragmatist, but a weak-kneed, spineless pseudo-progressive, too afraid to criticize and bite the hand that feeds them measly table scraps when they know it is not enough.
The second kind of fake "pragmatist" I've seen is one who only pays lip service to the need for change, but in reality wants as little change as possible because it is simply not in their interest to see real change. Hence, they call for piece-meal reform, not because they believe change comes best when it comes slow, but because the change being proposed would be hurtful to their interests. The only reason they don't oppose change altogether is, I would argue, a question of tactics rather than values. They see the line in the sand, and the line says there has to be change. Well, if we must change, change so that we may preserve, right? Thus, this is, again, not a real pragmatist, so much as a dishonest, shrewd politico who merely knows how to play the politics game and come off as an advocate of change, albeit "pragmatic" change.
Unsurprisingly, I would put uncritical (yet still left-liberal) supporters of Obama and the Democrats and their efforts in the first category, while obviously the actual Democrats and their ruling class backers would go in the second.
Really, this doesn't get any more obvious than when we look at what passes for debate regarding "health reform." I've met people who do agree we need something akin to single-payer health insurance, yet from the very beginning cede the ground to the right-wing, and vociferously defend the joke that is the current reform effort in Congress and justify the action by the Democrats to not even put single-payer on the table, because "realistically" it would never pass, and thus a "pragmatic" solution must be reached, and even if that solution is woefully inadequate, in the name of "realism" and "pragmatism," we need to accept what we are given, because something is bound to be better than nothing. It is a position that begins in defeat and ends in greater defeat.
I do not think I need to go over what passes for "pragmatism" in elite circles at length here. It is nothing more than misleading rhetoric designed to keep us from really pushing for more than token scraps, or worse, seeing the system as the culprit rather than the mean old conservatives whose idea of health care consists of you avoiding sickness in the first place. While they are certainly a problem, you'd think a proposal with backing from the majority of the American people could at least get discussed, right? Oh wait, it's too un-American to even consider. :rolleyes: Yeah, that's a better excuse.
Of course, I am not really a philosophical pragmatist myself, so obviously, I couldn't care less even if the people throwing the word around actually adhered to it. However, it is an idea that clearly has a hold on people, and I think it is important we recognize what those who keep uttering that word actually mean when they say it, and discredit their pragmatism as not only false, but also as a convenient way to cover their cowardice at best or dishonesty at worst.
What I wonder, however, is the following: for how many of these people is pragmatism a real, actual core political value?
Now, I'm sure some people genuinely are philosophical and political "pragmatists" at heart, and their politics and actions reflect that. I would disagree with them on various grounds, but for the most part, I would respect that disagreement. The problem is, however, most of the so-called "pragmatists" I've met and argued with do not come off as genuine or honest pragmatists. It seems to me their "pragmatism" is a cover for something else.
One kind of faux "pragmatist" I've encountered is one who does agree we need drastic change, and would even ideally call for it, but capitulates from the outset to the challenge of achieving that change, and thus in the name of pragmatism will accept whatever crumbs we get from on high, and will defend those responsible for getting us those crumbs (even if, as is the case with the Democrats, they were instrumental in making sure we got nothing more than those crumbs). In other words, this is not a pragmatist, but a weak-kneed, spineless pseudo-progressive, too afraid to criticize and bite the hand that feeds them measly table scraps when they know it is not enough.
The second kind of fake "pragmatist" I've seen is one who only pays lip service to the need for change, but in reality wants as little change as possible because it is simply not in their interest to see real change. Hence, they call for piece-meal reform, not because they believe change comes best when it comes slow, but because the change being proposed would be hurtful to their interests. The only reason they don't oppose change altogether is, I would argue, a question of tactics rather than values. They see the line in the sand, and the line says there has to be change. Well, if we must change, change so that we may preserve, right? Thus, this is, again, not a real pragmatist, so much as a dishonest, shrewd politico who merely knows how to play the politics game and come off as an advocate of change, albeit "pragmatic" change.
Unsurprisingly, I would put uncritical (yet still left-liberal) supporters of Obama and the Democrats and their efforts in the first category, while obviously the actual Democrats and their ruling class backers would go in the second.
Really, this doesn't get any more obvious than when we look at what passes for debate regarding "health reform." I've met people who do agree we need something akin to single-payer health insurance, yet from the very beginning cede the ground to the right-wing, and vociferously defend the joke that is the current reform effort in Congress and justify the action by the Democrats to not even put single-payer on the table, because "realistically" it would never pass, and thus a "pragmatic" solution must be reached, and even if that solution is woefully inadequate, in the name of "realism" and "pragmatism," we need to accept what we are given, because something is bound to be better than nothing. It is a position that begins in defeat and ends in greater defeat.
I do not think I need to go over what passes for "pragmatism" in elite circles at length here. It is nothing more than misleading rhetoric designed to keep us from really pushing for more than token scraps, or worse, seeing the system as the culprit rather than the mean old conservatives whose idea of health care consists of you avoiding sickness in the first place. While they are certainly a problem, you'd think a proposal with backing from the majority of the American people could at least get discussed, right? Oh wait, it's too un-American to even consider. :rolleyes: Yeah, that's a better excuse.
Of course, I am not really a philosophical pragmatist myself, so obviously, I couldn't care less even if the people throwing the word around actually adhered to it. However, it is an idea that clearly has a hold on people, and I think it is important we recognize what those who keep uttering that word actually mean when they say it, and discredit their pragmatism as not only false, but also as a convenient way to cover their cowardice at best or dishonesty at worst.