Chris Hayes has a nice essay on the resurgence of "pragmatism" as the highest of political virtues. It's no coincidence, Hayes implies, that this occurs exactly as liberals take power. Indeed, it's the result of a concerted effort to frame the Bush administration's failures as the fault of "ideology" in its manifestation as a character trait -- think of the mental image when you hear the word ideologue" -- rather than "ideology" as it refers to the specific beliefs and policies Bush pursued.
Through a kind of collective category error, they have alighted on a far more general moral to the story: ideology, in any form, is dangerous. "Obama's victory does not signal a shift in ideology in this country," wrote Roger Simon in Politico. "It signals that the American public has grown weary of ideologies." No less an ideologue than Pat Buchanan has come to this same understanding: "If there is a one root cause to the Bush failures," he wrote, "it has been his fatal embrace of ideology."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.[...][But], 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.
To wonk this post up, there's an interesting analogy in the deficit arena. When the Republicans held power, deficits didn't matter. Dick Cheney famously growled these words himself, and even attributed them to Saint Reagan. And the Bush administration proved committed to the idea, sending one deficit-expanding budget to Congress after another. But now, suddenly, we're seeing a resurgence of Republican deficit hawks. Attention to deficits constrains the spending, and thus the ambitions, of those in power. Liberals are now in power. Deficits are back. Similarly, pragmatism -- in its Washington definition as centrism -- constrains those in power. As liberals return to power, it's useful for those who oppose liberal ideas to herald the coming of a "pragmatic" moment. Which is why Obama is likely smart to try and rebrand a sharp vision of liberalism "pragmatic." It would be nice if the pundits and the wise men didn't try to move the center every time liberals took power. It would be even nicer if liberals learned how to control the center themselves.
