Obama’s pragmatism
Does it threaten American morality?
I published an article on this topic in the Christian Science Monitor last Tuesday:
The emptiness of Obama’s pragmatism
Policy devoid of clear ethical theory creates a nation without principle, and a nation without principle is a nation on stilts
By Jacob Bronsther
from the May 26, 2009 edition
NEW YORK – In President Obama’s vision for Washington, “pragmatism” will reign, “ideology” will wane, and an era of civility, reason, and bipartisanship will emerge. An analysis of what pragmatism really means explains why Mr. Obama’s plan has not (and cannot) work. It also reveals the emptiness of pragmatism as national principle.
Pragmatism refers to one philosophical movement and two political ideas.
Charles Sanders Peirce, William James, and John Dewey founded the philosophical movement in late 19th- and early 20th-century America. Philosophical pragmatists are anti-intellectual philosophers. They shiver at the thought of Descartes poking his fire, wondering if life is all a dream. They believe there are no answers to purely theoretical questions (such as whether we have free will), because there exists no pure realm of reason. There is only the external world where people flourish and suffer every day. As such, a philosophical or ethical theory’s validity depends entirely upon its impact on human conduct and experience.
For James, things are “true” – and thus we ought to accept them and act upon them – insofar as they “work” for people, making their lives more satisfactory.
Through philosophical pragmatism, the ethical questions of politics became scientific questions. A lawmaker was to assess a policy’s impact on the real world. While this seems straightforward now, it created a revolution in American politics and academia. Robert LaFollete, governor of Wisconsin from 1901-06, exemplified and in part initiated the movement. A Republican and later a Progressive, LaFollete enacted the “Wisconsin Idea,” whereby he empowered the University of Wisconsin-Madison to examine legislative proposals technically and expertly. LaFollete practiced the first type of political pragmatism: Expert Rule (Pragmatism 1). It is no coincidence that the American Political Science Association was founded in 1903.
Obama embraces Pragmatism 1. He has commissioned various “czars,” such as health czar Nancy-Ann DeParle, to use their technical expertise to direct policy. And Obama advertises his own developed policies – from abortion to Afghanistan – as pragmatic, reasoned solutions. To be clear, a supporter of Pragmatism 1 needn’t endorse philosophical pragmatism wholeheartedly.
People tend to associate Pragmatism 1 with reasonableness. Its opposite is ideology. Beholden dogmatically to a particular theory or worldview, ideological policymakers write legislation without assessing its impact on people’s actual lives. On the right, one who believed sodomy should be illegal, in the name of Christianity, would be ideological. On the left, this characterization would apply to one who endorsed pacifism even during an enemy invasion.
Pragmatism 2 is simpler. When dealing with contentious issues, policies engineered to receive bipartisan support exhibit Pragmatism 2. If Pragmatism 1 is pragmatic policy, Pragmatism 2 is pragmatic politics. It seeks bipartisanship out of concern for preventing legislative gridlock when action is required and creating national unity during a period of crisis, among other benefits.
Obama has governed so far as though Pragmatism 1 entails Pragmatism 2. He presumes that policies forged by reason, evidence, and “unbiased” expertise (Pragmatism 1) – those policies that “work” – will garner the support of all reasonable members of Congress and thus bridge partisan divides (Pragmatism 2). He bases his belief in the possibility of national and political consensus on this faulty argument.
Consensus has not emerged in Washington because disagreement exists over the definition of Pragmatism 1. What “works” for liberals doesn’t work for conservatives. Did Reagan’s policies “work”? Did Clinton’s?
The most divisive public policy issues are not that way because liberals and conservatives solve math differently. Economists cannot specify the rights and duties of citizenship. The deeper partisan disagreements are ethical and philosophical. Liberals and conservatives have conflicting intuitions and moral arguments about how we ought to distribute the burdens and benefits of a free society.
Such fundamental disagreement helps explain why Chief Justice John Roberts’s bid for more unanimous Supreme Court rulings has faltered. And it sheds light on the Republicans’ vigorous opposition to Obama’s pragmatic agenda, which they see as a liberal plan to radically reshape American society.
For Obama and other Democratic leaders to be the harbingers of a lasting American liberalism, they need to unite their pragmatism rhetoric with real moral argument about the meaning of rights, freedom, and equality. They need to prove that their understanding of what works is connected to what is right and just beyond mere assertion. The same applies to conservatives.
Both political perspectives require people to sacrifice personal interests, economic or otherwise, for the sake of other people’s interests or rights. People assent to such obligations not because they “work” for their personal interests – or not only for that reason – but because they believe it’s morally beneficial or required. The Reagan revolution was enduring because he grounded his program in principles that were independent from his specific policies, such that they could apply to changing conditions.
In order to engender a durable political movement, Obama ought to ground his policies in ethical theory that the people can endorse. This requires delving into that purely philosophical realm eschewed by Pierce, Dewey, and James. Our Founders did not fear such theorizing, and at this critical juncture in our history, it seems we must jump in once more. What is the purpose of government? What rights and obligations do citizens have, and why? How should we distribute society’s resources, and why?
It cannot be too much to ask our leaders and parties to present and discuss coherent answers to these questions. Washington’s priorities are backward: Many there can discuss the details of a specific environmental regulation, but very few can speak lucidly on the details of these foundational questions.
Through a straightforward moral discussion, partisans may come to understand that the other side has good intentions, but different intuitions or reasoned arguments. And this realization – more than any graph detailing the future benefits of X,Y, or Z policy – might lead to the more civil discussion that Obama aims to lead. At the very least, such discussion would enable us to shun the hopelessly partisan ideologues as irresponsible and unreasonable.
Pragmatism, planning, and expertise are necessary. Abstract moral arguments alone won’t lift America. Relying entirely on Pragmatism 1 to justify one’s policies, however, is disingenuous and short-sighted. Policy devoid of clear ethical theory creates a nation without principle, and a nation without principle is a nation on stilts.
Jacob Bronsther, a former Fulbright Scholar and graduate student in political theory at Oxford University, is a law student at New York University.
-Jake
Related posts:
- Pragmatism cont.
- Obama’s pragmatism
- Obama’s change: minor or major?
- Ideological branding: Is Obama a centrist pragmatist or a communist?
- Obama & international relations
ShareComments
5 Responses to “Obama’s pragmatism”
Leave a Reply
countless divpa entrant rugaja initiate pharma diane lokro disciplined described plants specifying
optimal alias secsurvey slaugos turrucares bridgett fall jose returned slices jagadhari decayed
uncertain middle costsany took enjoined waist bgsu weakening commonor bhatiaec biztalk stoppable
[...] 1. Pragmatism [...]
“Where to start?” was what I asked myself after finishing this piece. Where to start? Perhaps the first place is with the fact that absence of proof is not the same as proof of absence. Mr. Bronsther has, to put it bluntly, offered no proof that Obama has no deeply held beliefs. To this end, he merely asks the reader what his/her belief is of Roosevelt’s and Reagan’s “political philosophy.” If the reader is able to provide this while not being able to provide one for Obama, then, I presume, Mr. Bronsther concludes that Obama does not have core principles either and the case is closed. This is a weak argument as I know there are quite a number of folks out there who can articulate Mr. Obama’s core beliefs quite well. You, Mr. Bronsther may not be able to identify Obama’s political philosophy, but that hardly means it does not exist. Incidentally, the first thing that came to my mind, was Dietrich Bonhoeffer who, based on your commentary, you do not even have a Wikipedia level appreciation of. I will leave the task of filling that deficiency to you on your own time. Beyond this glaring absence of intellectual rigor, the glibness and bombast of Mr. Bronsther is worth savoring. Here are few treasures: “(politics) is about moral principle.” Oh, really. Just what we need more of is this stuff called “moral principle.” This is the precise reason why politics has become so “sclerotic” as Mr Bronsther puts it. Principle, is what got us into Viet Nam and prevented us from leaving in a timely fashion. Principle is also the reason why it was fashionable to order “freedom fries” instead of “french fries” after we invaded Iraq (which was another “principled” decision). Principle, and in particular the Palin/Bachmannesque kind of principle is why it has become nigh impossible to carry on a civil conversation. Mr. Obama’s aversion to labels is likely what will get things done. Branding, Mr. Bronsther? Please. Branding is what Madison Avenue does when it tries to deceive consumers into believing that a Rolls Royce really does make us a better person. Frankly, it is high time that politicians stop wasting time and corporations’ campaign finance money on branding and start doing something. What Mr. Bronsther seems to be advocating for is more charade, more kabuki theatre where politicians are not individuals but caricatures of a political “philosophy.” This is incredibly self limiting and results in a one dimensional politician and a polarized political system which slams back and forth unpredictably from one extreme to another. Obama is the one who has taken the high road, or more principled road if you must, by avoiding becoming a proxy in the values wars.