Chris Hayes has a very good piece in The Nation, touching on the debate over the nature of Obama's liberalism and whether or not the president-elect is a "pragmatist." But it starts off dealing with the weird pox-on-both-your-houses approach that the political press takes to ideas, where having a coherent philosophy of any kind is considered more dangerous than pure expediency.
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.
... Indeed, 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. This, despite the fact that so many willed themselves to believe that the benefits would clearly outweigh the costs. Principle is often pragmatism's guardian. 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.
...Ironically, there are quite a few on the left who hope (and many on the right who fear) that Obama will be able to pull off a similar trick. Ideology is always most potent when least visible, when smuggled beneath the cloak of "pragmatism." And there is a certain line of thought that says that Obama's largely centrist, establishment-friendly cabinet and staff picks are a brilliant means of husbanding his political capital, co-opting the establishment and bringing the center toward him, inducing it to buy into the bold, progressive sea change in American governance he has planned.
Hayes' efforts to trace Obama's intellectual heritage through the original pragmatists of the late 19th/early 20th century are particularly worthwhile. Pragmatism is the only organic American philosophy, and its resonance with the president-elect are part of what make him, despite his focus on change, a return to traditional American values. I'd count myself among the liberals who see Obama's "pragmatic" decision-making as an effort to move the center leftward no matter what his appointments might signal; indeed, his latest appointments have been trending leftward. (Of course, all this speculation will be moot once Obama actually starts governing, but we've got until January 20th for that).
But Hayes' caution is a note well-struck: The president will face demands from every direction; liberals need to ensure that their voice is among the loudest he hears -- and not with cries of betrayals that have yet to occur, but rather in the form of constructive criticism and an understanding of political exigencies.
Anyways, read the whole thing.
--Tim Fernholz
