Writing extensively about “The Limits to Pragmatism” yesterday, Peter Wehner explored many of the inherent weaknesses inseparable from policies based on such a method:
When pragmatism-an approach to politics that is characterized by centrist, moderate, deal-cutting instincts rather than a commitment to core political principles-becomes a defining political identity, it often leads to ad hoc policies. Decisions are made discretely, in an unrelated fashion, and are not put within a larger philosophical framework. Pragmatism tends to be process-oriented, reactive, and crisis-driven. And it assumes politics is above all about management.
While I agree with almost everything Peter has said, there’s one question I think is worth further exploring regarding pragmatism. Does it, in fact, exist–or is it just a buzzword, like “change”?
I suspect it’s the latter. Obama has been using the “pragmatic” theme for quite a while now. Those following his stump speech during election season can easily remember the phrases promising to abandon debates about “big government” and “small government” in order to establish a “smart government.” But while this might sound rhetorically similar to other Obama crowd-pleasing phrases like “this is no blue American or red America, this is the United States of America,” there’s a huge difference between the two.
His second statement in essence says: Forget politics, we are one nation. It is clear, and also true. But parsing the notion of “smart government” is much trickier, because it demands further explanation. What does he mean by smart–a government that can execute its own policies? I don’t think we can find a President going into office with the hope that his government will not be able to do such thing. One might also ask: is it going to be a big smart government or a small one? By saying it is smart, Obama can’t eliminate the question about the size–and the question about the role–of this government.
A capable government has to make decisions everyday, and these decisions all have to be derived from some ideological framework. Does Obama want a competent government that can work to better America’s image in the world? That’s great. But deciding that America’s image is more important than other things is a decision based on ideology. Does Obama want to save the American car industry? Of course he would need a competent government to do that, but he also needs to have the desire to do that. That desire is ideological, in the final analysis.
What’s really behind the “pragmatism” campaign is not a battle against ideology. There’s no such thing as a non-ideological government. It is a campaign against the Bush ideology, but smartly crafted. The Bush years have made voters wary and tired. They no longer want ideological battles. That’s why Obama– definitely the most competent politician when it comes to the crafting of messages –isn’t talking about the beliefs of his government, but rather about its pragmatism.
But at the end of January, when the Obama administration has to start making decisions, its pragmatism will only help if there’s a framework of ideas and beliefs guiding it toward the right decisions. It is the pragmatic means that Obama hopes to be able to use–but there also has to be an end.
