« McCain's "A blog you can believe in" | Mitchell Aboulafia's Blog | Bronx on the Court, Empathy, and Obama's Pragmatism »
"Obama's Pragmatism (or Move over Culture Wars, Hello Political Philosophy)"
Here is a prediction: the culture wars will be left by the wayside as we enter a seemingly new land, the land of the tactically minded chief executive, whose tactics are the tip of a philosophical iceberg. The executive is Obama and the iceberg is Pragmatism.
Comments regarding Obama's pragmatism constitute something of a cottage industry. These discussions usually involve contrasting Obama's pragmatism, for example, in choosing his cabinet, with the ideological approach of Bush and the neo-cons. Here the term pragmatism is meant to denote political flexibility, comfort with the expedient, and a willingness to compromise. For critics it is meant to suggest an unprincipled orientation toward questions of great moment. Given Obama's willingness to label himself a pragmatist, many have been mystified by his commitment to specific values, finding him not only unclassifiable in accepted political categories, but mystifying as a person. For example, in a recent article in Harpers (Nov. 2008), "The American Void," Simon Critchley treats Obama as, well, a void. He just can't figure the guy out. In fact, as I have noted elsewhere (PBS site), there is nothing strange about Obama's political views for those who are familiar with the American philosophical tradition of Pragmatism or the Social Gospel Movement. Interestingly, Critchley makes much of Obama's mother being an anthropologist, but what he fails to mention is that Ann Dunham's thesis director was Alice G. Dewey, John Dewey's granddaughter. (John Dewey may be the most influential Pragmatist of the twentieth century). This is no accident. Obama's thought and practice can be located in the tradition of American Pragmatism (pragmatism with a capital P) and in the liberal Social Gospel Movement that was influential in Chicago during the early part of the 20th century. The latter is still influential in some Chicago churches and community groups, especially those that would have most engaged Obama's attention as a community organizer.
One of the few commentators who has begun to tease out the differences between Obama's pragmatisms is Chris Hayes. He writes in The Nation, "Pragmatism in common usage may mean simply a practical approach to problems and affairs. But it's also the name of the uniquely American school of philosophy whose doctrine is that truth is pre-eminently to be tested by the practical consequences of belief. What unites the two senses of the word is a shared skepticism toward certainties derived from abstractions-one that is welcome and bracing after eight years of a failed, faith-based presidency. . . . And if there's a silver thread woven into the pragmatist mantle Obama claims, it has its origins in this school of thought. Obama could do worse than to look to John Dewey....For him, the crux of pragmatism, and indeed democracy, was a rejection of the knowability of foreordained truths in favor of 'variability, initiative, innovation, departure from routine, experimentation.' " The Nation, Dec 10, 2008
Hayes is moving in the right direction. I would take his claims a step further. There is no understanding of Obama without an understanding of Pragmatism. Take for instance the question of whether one can have principles and still be a pragmatist. From the vantage point of philosophical Pragmatism, the question is non-starter. The use of principles to address philosophical and political issues extends back to Plato and Aristotle, and migrates through Kant's ethics into the twentieth century. But the Pragmatist wants to bypass this mode of thinking, one that requires us to believe that affirming values requires a principled affirmation of values. Principles are in fact problematic and counterproductive. Dewey, for example, railed against Kant during WWI, claiming that the rigidity of his ethics of principled imperatives was reflected in the dictatorial and undemocratic mindset of the German regime. People who believe in democracy should be suspicious of permanent truths and principles. As Hannah Arendt argues, debate is at the heart of political life, and Truth (with a capital "T") kills debate. (Obama's father was a man of principle to the point of stubbornness. He had a failed career and a led a troubled life. It is hard to read Dreams of My Father and not conclude that Obama came away from his "journey" with a lasting distaste for principles. His mother, on the other hand, was the epitome of a Deweyan in her love of experience, experimentation, novelty, change, and belief in the transformational power of education.)
In the "Epilogue" to Dreams of My Father, Obama reports a conversation that he and his sister, Auma, had with Dr. Rukia Odero, a professor of history. A central question in the discussion: how should Africans adapt to the values that Westerners have brought to Africa? That Obama chose to report the conversation is telling. Rukia, I would argue, is meant to give voice to Obama's views. She states, "I suspect that we can't pretend that the contradictions of our situation don't exist. All we can do is choose." And after discussing the complexities of the issue of female circumcision, she goes on to say, "You cannot have rule of law and then exempt certain members of your clan. What to do? Again you choose. If you make the wrong choice, then you learn from your mistakes. You see what works." (Dreams from My Father, New York: Crown, 2004, p. 434) "Seeing what works" is indeed the mantra of Pragmatism. Yet as in existentialism, this doesn't mean that one doesn't feel the weight of moral and political decisions. It means that one can't appeal to principles in advance to justify one's decisions or "what works."
But doesn't being a pragmatist, in both senses of the term, just make Obama a relativist? No doubt for the ideologically committed, those who fear a leader without a moral compass, this would be a central concern. But once again this is to frame the issue in the wrong fashion. Relativism is a problem for moral absolutists. Without a lasting commitment to absolutes, there isn't a problem of relativism. Instead there is the problem of deciding what values to hold. To frame the discussion in terms of absolutism versus relativism is already to accept the framework of the religious right, which is what the Republicans have been notoriously successful in doing for two generations. However, the choice is not between absolutism and relativism. It is between different values. Commitments to values arise from numerous sources, including thoughtful deliberation and prudential considerations. And it is in the realm of "prudence" that one finds a symmetry between upper and lower case pragmatism. For the Pragmatist prudential considerations do not always trump other values, but sometimes they do, because prudence or tactical maneuvering may be required to realize successfully a greater good. As a matter of fact, a thoughtful political agent doesn't make dogmatic, read absolutistic, decisions in advance regarding what values and tactics may be the most vital and relevant.
The culture wars have depended on disagreements over specific values and the belief that principles are central to morality. Or at least this is the way that the religious right has sought to frame the controversy, a perception that neo-cons have used to reinforce their political agendas. When Obama speaks of being post-ideological, of being a pragmatist, I read him as trying to address logjams over values by avoiding divisive discourses based on principles. How does one accomplish this? Well, one way is to sound as if one is not ideological, for example, by showing flexibility on specific moral and political questions. By so doing Obama is not simply maneuvering. He is not being disingenuous. He is behaving as if he is a committed Pragmatist, and as such he is seeking to change the ground rules for political discourse.
Obama may very well succeed with a little help from his (several million) friends, and realities on the ground, namely, a serious financial crisis that suddenly has life-long, dogmatic free-marketers running for cover. He may also succeed because he is attuned to something very basic about the American psyche. It is no accident that Pragmatism is the most significant philosophy that America has produced. There is something deeply American about it. But is it Left, Right, or Center? Once again, this is to ask a misleading question. Its tent is large enough to contain persons from across the American political spectrum, if one judges political commitments by specific values. Yet in an American context Obama's Pragmatism presents a much greater challenge to the ideological Right than to the ideological Left. How so? If the conversation is shifted away from absolutes, the Right in America will lose the ground from which it has hurled its most potent missiles. Some on the Right are beginning to recognize the threat that Obama poses. Some still believe that they can bring back the days of the culture wars. The latter, however, are predicated on the "principled versus pragmatist" distinction, one that is becoming less consequential with each passing day. So, I wish the dogmatic Right lots of luck. They will need it. As for the non-dogmatic Right, if debate is crucial to a thriving democracy, I wish them well, and so does the Pragmatist Obama.
UP@NIGHT
Comments regarding Obama's pragmatism constitute something of a cottage industry. These discussions usually involve contrasting Obama's pragmatism, for example, in choosing his cabinet, with the ideological approach of Bush and the neo-cons. Here the term pragmatism is meant to denote political flexibility, comfort with the expedient, and a willingness to compromise. For critics it is meant to suggest an unprincipled orientation toward questions of great moment. Given Obama's willingness to label himself a pragmatist, many have been mystified by his commitment to specific values, finding him not only unclassifiable in accepted political categories, but mystifying as a person. For example, in a recent article in Harpers (Nov. 2008), "The American Void," Simon Critchley treats Obama as, well, a void. He just can't figure the guy out. In fact, as I have noted elsewhere (PBS site), there is nothing strange about Obama's political views for those who are familiar with the American philosophical tradition of Pragmatism or the Social Gospel Movement. Interestingly, Critchley makes much of Obama's mother being an anthropologist, but what he fails to mention is that Ann Dunham's thesis director was Alice G. Dewey, John Dewey's granddaughter. (John Dewey may be the most influential Pragmatist of the twentieth century). This is no accident. Obama's thought and practice can be located in the tradition of American Pragmatism (pragmatism with a capital P) and in the liberal Social Gospel Movement that was influential in Chicago during the early part of the 20th century. The latter is still influential in some Chicago churches and community groups, especially those that would have most engaged Obama's attention as a community organizer.
One of the few commentators who has begun to tease out the differences between Obama's pragmatisms is Chris Hayes. He writes in The Nation, "Pragmatism in common usage may mean simply a practical approach to problems and affairs. But it's also the name of the uniquely American school of philosophy whose doctrine is that truth is pre-eminently to be tested by the practical consequences of belief. What unites the two senses of the word is a shared skepticism toward certainties derived from abstractions-one that is welcome and bracing after eight years of a failed, faith-based presidency. . . . And if there's a silver thread woven into the pragmatist mantle Obama claims, it has its origins in this school of thought. Obama could do worse than to look to John Dewey....For him, the crux of pragmatism, and indeed democracy, was a rejection of the knowability of foreordained truths in favor of 'variability, initiative, innovation, departure from routine, experimentation.' " The Nation, Dec 10, 2008
Hayes is moving in the right direction. I would take his claims a step further. There is no understanding of Obama without an understanding of Pragmatism. Take for instance the question of whether one can have principles and still be a pragmatist. From the vantage point of philosophical Pragmatism, the question is non-starter. The use of principles to address philosophical and political issues extends back to Plato and Aristotle, and migrates through Kant's ethics into the twentieth century. But the Pragmatist wants to bypass this mode of thinking, one that requires us to believe that affirming values requires a principled affirmation of values. Principles are in fact problematic and counterproductive. Dewey, for example, railed against Kant during WWI, claiming that the rigidity of his ethics of principled imperatives was reflected in the dictatorial and undemocratic mindset of the German regime. People who believe in democracy should be suspicious of permanent truths and principles. As Hannah Arendt argues, debate is at the heart of political life, and Truth (with a capital "T") kills debate. (Obama's father was a man of principle to the point of stubbornness. He had a failed career and a led a troubled life. It is hard to read Dreams of My Father and not conclude that Obama came away from his "journey" with a lasting distaste for principles. His mother, on the other hand, was the epitome of a Deweyan in her love of experience, experimentation, novelty, change, and belief in the transformational power of education.)
In the "Epilogue" to Dreams of My Father, Obama reports a conversation that he and his sister, Auma, had with Dr. Rukia Odero, a professor of history. A central question in the discussion: how should Africans adapt to the values that Westerners have brought to Africa? That Obama chose to report the conversation is telling. Rukia, I would argue, is meant to give voice to Obama's views. She states, "I suspect that we can't pretend that the contradictions of our situation don't exist. All we can do is choose." And after discussing the complexities of the issue of female circumcision, she goes on to say, "You cannot have rule of law and then exempt certain members of your clan. What to do? Again you choose. If you make the wrong choice, then you learn from your mistakes. You see what works." (Dreams from My Father, New York: Crown, 2004, p. 434) "Seeing what works" is indeed the mantra of Pragmatism. Yet as in existentialism, this doesn't mean that one doesn't feel the weight of moral and political decisions. It means that one can't appeal to principles in advance to justify one's decisions or "what works."
But doesn't being a pragmatist, in both senses of the term, just make Obama a relativist? No doubt for the ideologically committed, those who fear a leader without a moral compass, this would be a central concern. But once again this is to frame the issue in the wrong fashion. Relativism is a problem for moral absolutists. Without a lasting commitment to absolutes, there isn't a problem of relativism. Instead there is the problem of deciding what values to hold. To frame the discussion in terms of absolutism versus relativism is already to accept the framework of the religious right, which is what the Republicans have been notoriously successful in doing for two generations. However, the choice is not between absolutism and relativism. It is between different values. Commitments to values arise from numerous sources, including thoughtful deliberation and prudential considerations. And it is in the realm of "prudence" that one finds a symmetry between upper and lower case pragmatism. For the Pragmatist prudential considerations do not always trump other values, but sometimes they do, because prudence or tactical maneuvering may be required to realize successfully a greater good. As a matter of fact, a thoughtful political agent doesn't make dogmatic, read absolutistic, decisions in advance regarding what values and tactics may be the most vital and relevant.
The culture wars have depended on disagreements over specific values and the belief that principles are central to morality. Or at least this is the way that the religious right has sought to frame the controversy, a perception that neo-cons have used to reinforce their political agendas. When Obama speaks of being post-ideological, of being a pragmatist, I read him as trying to address logjams over values by avoiding divisive discourses based on principles. How does one accomplish this? Well, one way is to sound as if one is not ideological, for example, by showing flexibility on specific moral and political questions. By so doing Obama is not simply maneuvering. He is not being disingenuous. He is behaving as if he is a committed Pragmatist, and as such he is seeking to change the ground rules for political discourse.
Obama may very well succeed with a little help from his (several million) friends, and realities on the ground, namely, a serious financial crisis that suddenly has life-long, dogmatic free-marketers running for cover. He may also succeed because he is attuned to something very basic about the American psyche. It is no accident that Pragmatism is the most significant philosophy that America has produced. There is something deeply American about it. But is it Left, Right, or Center? Once again, this is to ask a misleading question. Its tent is large enough to contain persons from across the American political spectrum, if one judges political commitments by specific values. Yet in an American context Obama's Pragmatism presents a much greater challenge to the ideological Right than to the ideological Left. How so? If the conversation is shifted away from absolutes, the Right in America will lose the ground from which it has hurled its most potent missiles. Some on the Right are beginning to recognize the threat that Obama poses. Some still believe that they can bring back the days of the culture wars. The latter, however, are predicated on the "principled versus pragmatist" distinction, one that is becoming less consequential with each passing day. So, I wish the dogmatic Right lots of luck. They will need it. As for the non-dogmatic Right, if debate is crucial to a thriving democracy, I wish them well, and so does the Pragmatist Obama.
UP@NIGHT
Advertisement
Ad hoc decisions of convenience do not necessarily equate to "pragmatism". If Obama has real goals, steps taken to reach them might be considered pragmatic. If the goals are fungible, than the "pragmatism" might be whim and a lack of any serious principle.
I'm worried that the draw down in Iraq simply means relabeling combat troops as support troops while building up the war in Afghanistan, as Gates has indicated. When the pragmatic steps run counter to your stated goals, then they're no longer pragmatic - they're deceptive.
December 18, 2008 2:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
And don't forget, Bush was a pragmatic compassionate conservative. He just sadly hit the Trifecta so couldn't complete any of his campaign promises. Not His Fault!!!
December 18, 2008 2:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is both an ad hominum and a non sequitur.
Flacking yourself as a pragmatic compassionate conservative when you are, in fact, a rigid, small-minded dogmatist, doesn't make you a pragmatic compassionate conservative. It makes you a rigid, small-minded dogmatist who's campaign is managed by a pathological cynic.
And there is no basis to contend that Obama is any of those things. Bush was x therefore Obama could be x as well? Based on what?
December 18, 2008 9:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
That second paragraph is so succinct that I am saving it. I have fun getting mad sometimes. It looks like you do too.
December 18, 2008 12:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
"a rigid, small-minded dogmatist"
well put...
December 18, 2008 1:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Based on a lack of principle and political expediency. Hey, instead of playing toss the Jew down the well, we can play throw another gay under the bus. Important to appease evangelicals by showing we can empathize with their intolerance.
I'm waiting for David Duke to chair the first prayer breakfast.
December 18, 2008 3:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
As always, you'll see what you want to see, as, no doubt, will I, and each of us will roll his eyes at the other's lack of perception for the next several years.
December 18, 2008 6:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
In terms of Philosophical Pragmatism, at least of Dewey's variety, Bush became the antithesis of the Pragmatist while in office. He clung to principles (ideologies, if you will) in the face of actual conditions. The first major break that we have seen in his stubbornness has been the recent financial crisis. But even here he remains terribly confused about when to address conditions on the ground and when to cling to ideological platitudes. (To say that he is remarkably unreflective is to repeat the obvious.)
Obama is operating at a completely different level, and I don't believe that the MSM has caught on. (This is by no means to say that any of us should or will agree with all of his decisions. And that's the point.)
December 18, 2008 3:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is so well thought out and written, I had to read it twice and I will read it again.
"People who believe in democracy should be suspicious of permanent truths and principles."
This New Administration has promised and will reframe the issues. Individual cases will always put the lie to some great pronouncement.
Nobody likes the government taking away the hunters' deer rifles. But surface to air missiles should not be allowed, especially in urban areas.
Adults should not have sex with underage children. But do we really wish to put an 18 year old in prison for ten years for having sex with his girl friend of 15 years and 9 months?
Nobody likes abortion. Do we put doctors and mothers in prison?
Pragmatism, as I think you are pointing out, is just a catch-all for reporters and pundits who need short catch-alls so that their silly paragraphs fit on their by-line.
Life is difficult. If it were easy, anyone could do it.
December 18, 2008 8:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
My reading of Pragmatism is that it doesn't reject principles, but affirms that there are many principles that ought to impact our behavior and there is a belief that the results of the peaceable interactions of several groups, compromising wrt the working rules that govern us all, will generally be superior to the order any particular group would impose from above.
Pragmatism can also be viewed in light of the Scottish Common Sense Realism as moving the state away from the puritanical pretense that it is or must be centered around a pure form of Christianity or ideology. A pragmaticist starts with the way things are and then considers what alternative possibilities are out there and what the consequences of such could likely be. Thus, the purpose is not to determine "what works" but moreso to facillitate better communication about the relevant cultural values so as to resolve the conflicts peaceably, quite unlike how the matter of slavery was resolved in the US.
From a Christian standpoint, one that takes seriously research by John Yoder on the different conceptions of the State and the Church implicit in the NT, this scales back the expectations on the State (but without denying its critical role in mitigating the violent predatory instincts present in human nature) and puts more hope in the renewal of community from below.
I for one hope that Obama's pragmatism will endorse the incorporation of proportional representation into state legislative elections so that our two-party dominated system will not so easily tilt into becoming a single-party dominated system and to enable the proliferation of local third parties that will make the system overall more dynamic and accountable.
dlw
December 18, 2008 9:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
David,
Sorry I missed your comment. Thanks for the note on my web site. I hope that the remarks below are helpful.
The term "principle" is loaded with a great deal of philosophical baggage. While it may very well be the case that pragmatists, like others, use the term "principle" loosely, philosophers such as Dewey want to make a statement by challenging us to avoid thinking in terms of principles. In the history of philosophy, especially since Kant, the term has carried with it the idea of a priori truths, that is, truths that are somehow prior to experience. They are truths that can be known with certainty. The move that pragmatists generally make (and not all pragmatists think exactly alike) is to say that we can have truth or warranted assertions without guarantees of certainty. It is the latter that gets us into trouble, whether in science or politics. (See my remarks on the term "principle" in response to another comment below.)
Yes, you are absolutely correct when you say that pragmatists look to consequences. The mistake of certain deterministic models is that they pay attention only to prior "causes" and don't pay attention to how human beings can evaluate and deliberate about the (possible) consequences of their actions, and therefore "control" (to some degree) their futures.
Pragmatists have used the notion of "what works," but this must not be reduced to a trivial "I've got a better monkey wrench than you do." Science can be understood in terms of "what works," but in doing so one must understand that science includes complex theories as well as experimentation and techniques. In terms of morality, "what works" is not just about getting to a given end in the most expeditious fashion; it is about thinking about ends and means, and considering the importance of both. Pragmatists are not immoralists. They just don't think that moralities of principle, such as Kant's, are conducive to human flourishing. We may feel certain that our moral convictions are true, and we should act on our convictions. But we should remain fallibilists, that is, open to the possibility that we could be wrong. Stick to your values but value their reevaluation.
In terms of politics from the bottom up, this is very much a Deweyan sensibility, as is the value and importance of communication. (See his "The Search for the Great Community" in his book, The Public and Its Problems). And this brings us back to Obama. Both Dewey and G.H. Mead looked on Chicago as something of a laboratory for what could be accomplished at the local level in terms of organic democracy. Specifically, in terms of community organizing, both were friendly with Jane Addams and supported the work of the Hull House in addressing poverty. I would argue that Obama's political sensibilities are reformist and populist, and fit within a tradition of what might be called left pragmatism, which is going to frustrate some traditional leftists, but it is going to frustrate the right much more, especially when they figure out what he is up to.
December 20, 2008 3:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
I replied somewhat at length at your main blog.
I guess you could say I at least think I'm familiar w. pragmatism, tho my lingo is somewhat different.
My pragmaticism makes me support Obama and believe with all my heart that Obama will be a tragic figure if we do not give both the main parties a well-deserved kick in the butt by enabling the proliferation of many local third parties(hence the initials A New Kind of Third Party: name of my blog.) thru changing state constitutions so as to use Proportional Representation in state legislative elections.
dlw
December 20, 2008 4:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is an surpassingly excellent post that I doubt will be pleasing to some here. I still remember how glaringly obvious Dewey seemed when I first read him in my intro to philosphy course, so much so that I had a hard time identifying it as "philosophy." My prof really had to smack it into my head that that mode thinking was a quintessentially American viewpoint that one is not necessarily going to find in other countries.
Or, unfortunately, in the U.S. for the last three decades.
Certainly, the American Left, old, new and rebranded "Progressive," has, and has always had, its share of wooden-headed ideologues. From the New Deal to and through the Reagan era, there was no shortage of people on the left who rigidly insisted, decade after decade, upon the continution of policies that their dogma says ought to do good in the face of incontestible evidence that they were, in fact, doing great harm.
But dogmatic ideologues have always been just a wing of the Left where, over the last thirty years, they have become the entirety of the Right. Since about 1976, they have been relentless in purging every last vestige of Pragmatic thought from their party. Pragmatists like, say, Jim Leach or even Colin Powell are reviled as "RINO's." That's what has made the last twenty five years the most insanely dogmatic realignment cycle in U.S. political history.
And, unfortunately, over that time, Pragmatism has fallen on such hard times that Obama's embrace of it is exotic that he is utterly incomprehensible to many in the Left, in the Right and, most amazingly of all, among the MSM.
December 18, 2008 11:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
"most amazingly of all, among the MSM."
Not amazing at all, in the age of Fox News and all theother cable channels who want a piece of that ignorant, knuckledragging viewership action, Obama's pragmatism is their only available tool for stoking controversy, which they believe amps up their Nielsens.
The cable newschannels(Except for Keith and Rachel) have all gone Yellow Journalism on us, so it is no wonder they want to pick pragmatic Barrack apart, whipping his left leaning (or left-dwelling) supporters into a contrived fury, and at the same time whipping the wingnuts into an indignant, "Bitter Losers" froth.
December 18, 2008 1:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
"most amazingly of all, among the MSM."
Not amazing at all, in the age of Fox News and all theother cable channels who want a piece of that ignorant, knuckledragging viewership action, Obama's pragmatism is their only available tool for stoking controversy, which they believe amps up their Nielsens.
The cable newschannels(Except for Keith and Rachel) have all gone Yellow Journalism on us, so it is no wonder they want to pick pragmatic Barrack apart, whipping his left leaning (or left-dwelling) supporters into a contrived fury, and at the same time whipping the wingnuts into an indignant, "Bitter Losers" froth.
December 18, 2008 1:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
What's amazing to me is their genuine inability to recognize, comprehend or accept the possibility of his Pragmatism. I'm just a fogey. Journalists used to attract natural Pragmatists, albeit leavened with a certain degree of cynicism.
They keep looking for the catch, the hidden agenda the key that will unlock the mystery that is Obama. Someone like Bush, an ideologue who pretended to be a pragmatist to trick the rubes into voting for him is perfectly comprehensible to them. They have nothing but applause admiration for his success in pulling this con off, oblivious to their own complicity in the scam. They could at least conceptualize a working model of Clinton around the notion that he was a slick huckster who convinced people he cared about them by doing things that seemed to indicate he cared about them.
December 18, 2008 2:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
What we have is an educated individual who managed to rise to power in spite of it. Gore was too smart, Kerry to nuanced, and Carter so far ahead of his times even his own party has abandoned him because they did not understand him.
Let me go on record as a Carter fan. He relieved Israel of threats from their Western border. He actually founded the green movement that was dismantled on Day 1 of the Reagan Administration with the removal of the solar panels from the White House, and he held a sincere Christian faith without alienating people who held differing views. The hostages returned home alive and we had a better chance of a working relationship with them when he left office then we did after Dubya.
It is refreshing to see what Obama has done. He has not knocked the Right off their pedestal. He pulled the rug out from under them. Which in the real sense was some sort of flying carpet illusion anyway.
December 18, 2008 2:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
I join you as a Carter fan.
December 18, 2008 2:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Me too. When I told my friends about Reagan taking down the solar panels that Carter put up they thought I was making it up.
December 18, 2008 10:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
This post makes a number of interesting points. But at other places it seems to get into a bit of a muddle. A lot of this is conjecture done in a very abstract manner. So, as I say, interesting points but as as an argument, for me, it feels impressionistic.
For example, principles seem to be rejected while values are ok. Well, what's the difference here except semantics? So, terms need to be defined and distinguished before I can make sense of some of the muddles here.
When Obama thinks of testing things (seeing what works), I recall that he also mentioned his administration will make use of science. That makes sense to me. Test theories or programs to see if they work. That should be bedrock! So, trickle down economics does not work. Tax cuts for the rich don't trickle down. So, using the scientific method, in effect. (And that, in itself, is based on certain assumptions.)
It's important to recognize that underlying all philosophies there are assumptions. Possibly unexamined, but nonetheless present. Better to examine the assumptions underlying Obama's thought than underlying Dewey's - so the theory that Obama is influenced by Dewey through a granddaughter of Dewey directing his mother's thesis? Ummmm... quite a stretch! Thus, I suggest you examine Obama's assumptions instead.
Additionally, you suggest that no one can understand Obama without understanding pragmatism (and thus Dewey). Well, I understand Obama - and I see him as making psychological sense. In the way he maneuvers and in the way he speaks. To me he seems to operate very much from an understanding of how people tick, of how to frame arguments and policies in view of that. (But I also think he chooses his goals on the basis of his principles or values or ethics, however you want to term that. Not in a rigid way, of course.)
Whether you call then values or principles, Obama is man who can balance important values/principles - not dogmatically follow an ideology. (There we agree.) It is that ability to balance, that flexibility, that weighing of different values depending upon the circumstances, but always with underlying principles (and to me it is very clear that he operates from a set of principles - or call them values - like responsibility, fairness, justice, willingness to admit mistakes, equality before the law, allegiance to the Constitution, etc.) that makes the man great.
Kudos for attempting this. But it needs some tinkering, I'd suggest.
December 18, 2008 2:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Imagine that: an entire article on Pragmatism without even once mentioning William James; or for that matter, the presidential administration that most notoriously abused it -- Richard Nixon and his national security adviser, Henry Kissinger, who called it Realpolitik.
When dealing with the ethical dilemmas that inevitably emerge where "what works?" is the guiding consideration, in a democracy one is almost always immediately confronted with the secondary question, "for whom?".
Moving beyond the rather obvious concerns regarding Obama's betrayals (such as his countless avoidances of controversial votes both in Illinois and in the U.S. Senate, his acceptance of big-money lobby support despite his promise of campaign reform, his announcement of continued support for Bush's faith-based initiatives at the same time he distanced himself -- quite pragmatically -- from his once-but-no-longer useful friend Jeremiah Wright, his turnaround on FISA and it's immunity provision for the telecom contractors operating for NSA conveniently off-shored out of Israel, his groveling outreach to AIPAC and follow-up visit to Israel, his egregious appointments of foaming-at-the-mouth neo-cons like Rham Emanuel, his reappointment of Robert Gates at Defense, and his announced intention to send a surge of 30,000 troops to Afghanistan to secure Cheney's pipelines from Central Asia while taking apart our new enemy Pakistan, to say nothing of planned troop insertions into Central Africa), we see something in Obama that is quite revealing. In his most recent use of "Pragmatism" in attempting to explain away the insult to the GLBT community after having invited the virulently anti-gay Pastor Rick Warren to deliver the convocation at his inauguration, Obama reveals the answer to the double question, "what works?" and "for whom?" -- it works for Obama. In a dilemma involving conflicts between constituencies in his voter base, conflicts that more pragmatically should have been avoided by inviting someone else to say his prayers for him, Obama reveals himself more pro-actively to be exactly what he is -- a pandering politician. To dress him up as a Pragmatist only adds another shade of lipstick to the pig.
Indicating sheer hypocrisy, Obama uses the dynamics of Realpolitik and calls it Pragmatism. It reminds one of the infamous quote from "Through the Looking Glass," by Lewis Carroll, "It's not the name of the thing that matters, it's what the name of the thing is called."
Incidentally, Henry Kissinger himself loves Obama and said so recently in a December 5th editorial to the Washington Post, praising his national security appointments.
Ironically, Mr. Aboulafia, after such an erudite article on Pragmatism, I can only suppose that you don't know pork when you see it.
December 18, 2008 2:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
There's nothing in your post that convincingly rebuts Aboulafia' post. You offer a litany of ideological disputes (several of debatable credibility, such as the right-wing line about 'present' votes) and, from that basis, engage in some second-hand, ideologically-motivated psychoanalysis. If your intention was to champion pragmatism here, it would appear that you've failed.
December 18, 2008 3:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Which is to say:
Nice ad hominem, but these sort of "psychoanalytic fairy tales" that are favored by hardline ideologues have an impossible burden of proof that renders them useless in terms of serious discourse about strategy and public policy.
December 18, 2008 3:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
It sounds to me like you understand Obama's "Pragmatism" as nothing more than a commitment to "do what works," a commitment to be prudent rather than principled. But there is a rather simple problem with pragmatism so defined: what do you mean by "what works"? Works for what?
The answer to that question, I think, is going to depend ultimately on the very principles or values that pragmatism (as you seem to understand it) is supposed to dispense with.
For example, on the economy: you might say that Obama is a "pragmatist" in the sense that he's going to listen to the experts when devising his economic plan, rather than letting his own principles dictate policy. The economists will tell him "what works," and that's what he'll do. He's not a rabid free-marketeer who's going to cut taxes and deregulate come what may, nor is he a hardcore socialist who'll jack the top marginal tax rate up to 80% and nationalize every major industry though the heavens should fall. He's going to do what works, not what some given set of absolute principles tell him.
But none of that suffices to show that Obama is a pragmatist who holds no principles absolute. Here's an absolute: less unemployment is better than more. Here's another: a higher GDP is better than a lower one. Two more: a more equal distribution of wealth is better than a less equal one, and a higher standard of living for the lower- and middle-classes is better than a lower one. I'm sure Obama affirms all of these, and I bet he's not going to abandon them if it turns out they "don't work." In fact it doesn't even make sense to say that someone might abandon these principles if they "don't work," because it is only in light of principles such as these (not necessarily these principles, but principles such as these) that we can know whether the economy is working or not. Because, again, "working" doesn't make sense unless we know: working for what or for whom.
So, yes, Obama will consult expert policymakers to find out what policies will best achieve his ends, and I'm sure he's willing to be quite flexible about the policies he adopts in light of what the experts think will work best. But that's because the question of what is the most effective means to some end is always an empirical question. By contrast, the question of what ends we should be pursuing is not that kind of question; it's not a question that can be answered in light of what works and what doesn't. It is a question of principle.
So if by an "absolutist" you mean, for example, a right-winger who believes that slashing regulations will always grow the economy, then, yes, an absolutist is a dumb thing to be, and you're right that Obama is no absolutist. If you want to know what will grow the economy, you ask an economist; you don't consult your ideology.
But if you think an absolutist is someone who believes that "growing the economy in a way that's fair to everyone is a good thing" (or some such), then I don't think Obama (or anyone else, for that matter) can avoid being an absolutist.
To put the point I'm making very briefly: I don't think one can be a pragmatist all the way down, and worry only about "what works" rather than "what's good" or "what's right." The reason, again, is that we need some conception of the good--some absolute principles--in order to know what it means for this or that thing to "work" in the first place. So, yes, you can be a pragmatist about policy--you can be flexible about the means you employ to pursue some end. But you can't be a pragmatist about ultimate ends.
December 18, 2008 3:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
One more brief point:
You might mean that Obama is a pragmatist in the sense that he's willing to bracket issues where there is disagreement about ultimate ends, and focus on areas where there is broad agreement about ends but disagreement about what means we should employ to achieve those ends.
So, for example, we'll leave culture war issues aside, because there we have only a class of ultimate ends (Should we protect a woman's right to choose, or protect unborn children? Should we promote equality among people of all sexual orientations, or discourage "deviant" sexual behaviors and "protect" marriage?). Instead, we'll focus on issues like the economy, where almost everyone agrees about the ends (grow the economy, raise the standard of living for the poor and middle classes, etc), and worry about what policies will best achieve those ends.
But I don't think this is what you mean by pragmatism, and I hope this isn't what Obama's pragmatism amounts to. I hope not because I care about a woman's right to choose and I care about gay rights, and part of the reason I voted for Obama was because I thought he did, too.
December 18, 2008 3:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let me see if I can quickly clear up a confusion here. Pragmatists have values, often deeply held ones. Some pragmatists, although not Deweyan pragmatists, might even refer to these values as principles. But the point of philosophical pragmatism is to move us away from thinking about ethics and politics in terms of classical moral principles, for example, as one finds in Kant's ethics (the categorical imperative). There are many reasons for this, not least among them is the difficulty of proving such principles and the problematic manner in which people hold them, that is, they are beyond discussion and dialogue.
However, we also use the term "principle" outside of politics and ethics to describe the ways in which "nature" or mechanisms function, e.g., the principles or laws of thermodynamics. This is a different use of the term. As a matter of fact, in science it is understood that "principles" need to be reevaluated based on new evidence. Some principles will hold up for indefinitely long periods, some will last only a decade or two. One can comfortably use the term principle in science, even in economics, while feeling uncomfortable doing so in morals and ethics. This is because of the history of the ways in which the terms have been used.
December 18, 2008 3:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not sure what confusion you're trying to clear up. What I'm saying is that I think we need principles of the moral kind in order to know "what works" when it comes to policy.
A libertarian might say that the economy "works" when each person's basic property rights are respected and nothing more. A classical liberal might say that the economy "works" when basic property rights are respected and wealth is distributed according to some egalitarian principle (like Rawls's difference principle, e.g.). A socialist might say that the economy "works" when the principle "from each according to his ability to each according to his need" is implemented. Obviously I could go on.
None of these senses of what it means for the economy to "work" are analytic; none of them follow from the meaning of the words "economy" or "works" or "the economy works." The conflict among them is a conflict among ultimate political-moral principles, not one that can be settled by economic analysis alone.
I don't think you can sidestep the disagreement here by saying that we need to forget about theses absolute values and be pragmatic. Because I don't know what it means to be pragmatic until I know which end I'm working towards.
December 18, 2008 3:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
You say "we" but how do you know Obama subscribes to that? I thought this was about Obama.
December 18, 2008 4:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe the concreteness of my example is making my point difficult to understand.
As another commenter pointed out, there are two senses of "pragmatism." There is pragmatism as political strategy and pragmatism as ultimate political philosophy.
As political strategy, pragmatism means adopting whatever policies/means are shown to be most effective to achieve given ends/values; it means being responsive to facts and open to compromise to pursue your values in the most realistic and effective way. This is how the term is commonly used, and I have no qualms with this sense of pragmatism.
As ultimate political philosophy, however, capital-P Pragmatism is more complicated. You present it as consisting of a deep and abiding commitment to doing what works, a careful avoidance of interminable debates about absolute values or principles, and making one's tent as large as possible.
But in your own post you show the deep problem within pragmatism as ultimate political philosophy when you speak of things like "values" and "the greater good." Where do these things come from? They cannot come from simply paying attention to "what works," because (as I've already said) what is meant by "what works" depends on what we're trying to achieve, what values we want to realize, what goods we want to pursue.
This tension comes out when you say, for example, "For the Pragmatist prudential considerations do not always trump other values, but sometimes they do, because prudence or tactical maneuvering may be required to realize successfully a greater good." I find myself a bit puzzled as to what you might mean. Sacrificing certain values to realize greater ones is not a case of "prudential considerations" trumping other values; it is a case of greater values trumping lesser ones. How is that a distinctively Pragmatist view? How is that supposed to be inconsistent with "moral absolutism"?
I do not deny that in a democracy we must always try to justify our political values in ways that will be acceptable to others, nor do I deny that our values should be open to challenge and debate. I do deny, however--in fact, if I may be blunt, I think it's utterly incoherent to suggest--that values and principles can be dispensed with altogether in favor of "what works." Political debate always brings us back to questions of ultimate value, and that is (I think) how it should be.
December 18, 2008 5:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
chadhorne,
I appreciate the time that you have taken to reply. I think that the bottom line here is that you are assuming that one must have principles in order to have values. Why assume this? What do principles give you that values don't? Probably a feeling of certainty. But from where do you derive your "principles?" How do you know that they are true and must be adhered to? Why are you certain about certain principles as opposed to others? Faith, reason, intuition? All of these defenses bring with them problems in a pluralistic society when they are used to supply absolutes.
No one is asking you to give up your values, just to be ready to defend and explain them. In this context, looking to "what works" is a way of asking us to remain open to the sources of our values, their implications, how they function in changed circumstances, and to their possible reevaluation. In short, "what works" is a shorthand for coming clean about them and asking how they actually function.
Consider the alternative: do you simply want to replace the certainties of the neo-cons, for example, with your own certainties? Or do you want to change the way we think about solving problems and addressing those who have different values?
December 18, 2008 6:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
First I should say that you're quite welcome for the replies, and likewise I thank you for the thoughtful post.
I don't mean to be combative or disagreeable, because in general I agree with a lot of what you have to say. The main reason I responded at all is because I enjoy discussing political philosophy in general, and in particular I'm interested in the relationship between facts and values.
The point I was making--and maybe we're talking past each other here--was that capital-P Pragmatism cannot be Obama's political philosophy, if by his political philosophy you mean his view of what it is ultimately good or right for the government to do or refrain from doing. (If you mean something else, then we are indeed talking past each other). To put the point simply, his political philosophy cannot be simply "government should do what works," because that doesn't tell us anything about what it means for government to "work." And to flesh out what that means, we're going to have to go beyond the resources of Pragmatism and into the hard philosophical questions about what it is valuable, or right, or good for government to do.
I suggested that this lacuna in Pragmatism showed itself when you spoke of responding to pragmatic considerations as sometimes necessary means to a greater good. It seems like it's this notion of the "greater good" that is the real end of political activity, even on your own view, and Pragmatism is merely a strategy for achieving it--Pragmatism is a road map, if you will, not a destination.
But if that's right, then the real political-philosophical question is, what's the destination? Where are we going? What is the "greater good"? The Pragmatic considerations are a matter for policy wonks and political strategists, but the question of the "greater good" is a philosophical debate of the sort you seem to want to get beyond.
I don't think we can avoid those sorts of debates, and in fact I think an important part of a free society is that such debates are ongoing, lively, and civil. Of course, I have my own views about what I think government should do--broadly speaking, I agree with the classical liberals (Kant, Mill, and Rawls). (And this is neither here nor there, but i think Obama does too). But I don't defend these views because I think they're infallible; I defend them because I think they're important.
December 18, 2008 10:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Pragmatism is not merely a strategy for achieving certain ends, although this is the way that it has been discussed in the MSM. This is one of the main points of my blog.
The sorts of questions that you mention need to be debated; and yes, we will be guided by, and argue about, different notions of the good. However, this is very different from assuming that these notions must be understood in terms of principles. The latter tend to halt debate.
No one is suggesting that we shouldn't have ends and goals. What is being suggested is that philosophies that set forth ends and goals in terms of fixed principles reflect the sort of mindset that Obama is seeking to overcome. I believe that for him, this is what it means to be post-ideological.
Btw, your last line, "But I don't defend these views because I think they're infallible; I defend them because I think they're important," is very much in the spirit of Pragmatism.
P.S. I can assure you that I don't want to stop debate about the good. (I sort of make my living doing it.)
December 19, 2008 10:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama has claimed to be pragmatic. This is quite other than adopting the philosophy of John Dewey. Obama is pragmatic not about principles or ethics but about political tactics, about be willing to reach into the opposition's base for support. What Obama's pragmatism amounts to is putting principle before party. This works famously for party too as it turns out as long as the party has appropriate principles and a connection to reality. Lacking a connection to reality the neo-cons had to be about party above all but Obama thankfully has chosen a different path.
December 18, 2008 3:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think you've hit on something very important, Mitchell, something very helpful in understanding what to expect from Obama.
William James discusses Pragmatism in his lecture What Pragmatism Means: A New Name for Some Old Ways of Thinking
Further On
I've just discovered Pragmatism and need to read and think about it more. But I believe it describes Obama well from the little I've read about it.
Thanks for this post. Rec'd!
December 18, 2008 4:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
A PRAGMATIST TURNS
his back resolutely and once for all upon a lot of inveterate habits dear to professional philosophers. He turns away from abstraction and insufficiency, from verbal solutions, from bad a priori reasons, from fixed principles, closed systems, and pretended absolutes and origins. He turns towards concreteness and adequacy, towards facts, towards action and
TOWARDS POWER.
___
Herr Oberwissenschaftsmeister von James did not hide what he and all the Harvards are up to all that well.
A world philosophically safe for President Summers? On the whole, I'd prefer Cook County.
Merry days.
December 18, 2008 5:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
We'll see just how pragmatic he really is when and if he gets around to addressing the problem MOST PEOPLE want addressed, namely a sensible drug policy.
Enjoy.
December 18, 2008 4:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Most people could not give a darn about drug policy either way, I think.
Here's to political and policy expediency: May this President be less a prisoner of the Chomskys of teh world than the last President was a prisoner of the Cheneys.
December 18, 2008 7:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'd say that much of philosophy has held onto tacitly some of the hangups of Constantinized Christianity and the Pragmatists were trying to get away from that, in lieu of their understanding of the horrors of the Civil War and fears that the burgeoning conflicts from Industrialization could similarly get quite violent.
Geoffrey Hodgson argues in "How Economists Forgot History" though that the social sciences forgot "the problem of historical specificity" in the 20th ctry, that one could argue underlies the diffidence towards meta-narratives and the opposition towards the use of absolute-speak by pragmatists in the resolution of conflicts.
dlw
December 18, 2008 7:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
wow, didn't know there was a whole dignified political philosophy to explain why I loved the Obama. Stop fighting over crap we're never gonna agree on and move on to fixing things that can be better.
December 18, 2008 8:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Huh....fighting over what is guaranteed in the Constitution is now just crap? Fighting over the right to the pursuit of happiness is just crap now? Lets, lets just forget the gays! Lets just move one! Sweep teh gays under the rug! Sorry, but I have friends and family who were affected by the anti-gay marriage amendments that took place during 2004 and the in California over Prop 8 and an injustice to them is an injustice to me.
I'd like to see some of you guys have your rights taken away and then told to quite bitchin over someone who helped to take those rights away.
December 18, 2008 9:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Excellent contribution which makes a good deal of sense. But one thing you don't mention which to my thinking qualifies Obama as an undeniable American Pragmatist is his meliorism -- as I argue at http://cwkoopman.wordpress.com/2008/11/06/obama-meliorism-and-obama-criticism/. I'm not quipping with your insights: merely rolling them out. Thanks for this!
December 20, 2008 5:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Applying the term 'Pragmatism' to Obama is at least a little premature, but more importantly it might be just plain wrong. Obama's record in the Senate does not indicate any great pragmatic, philosophically speaking, motivation. His support for war, both in Iraq and Afghanistan, in the face of obvious evidence that such wars were both illegal and immoral is telling. He seems to be following the distorted pragmatism of the "truth is what works" more than the better pragmatism of Dewey's theory of inquiry informed by principles of evidence and, yes, the principle of non-violence. Which brings me to the fact that Dewey did not reject principles, but rather reconstructed, as is his practice, the term for pragmatic instrumental-experimental purposes. As I thought was well known, Dewey reconstructed principles by contrasting them with rules. A quote is in order:
"Rules are practical; they are habitual ways of doing things. But principles are intellectual; they are the final methods used in judging suggested courses of action. The fundamental error of the intuitionalist is that he is on the outlook for rules which will of themselves tell agents just what course of action to pursue; whereas the object of moral principles is to supply standpoints and methods which will enable the individual to make for himself an analysis of the elements of good and evil in the particular situation in which he finds himself. No genuine moral principle prescribes a specific course of action; rules, like cooking recipes, may tell just what to do and how to do it. A moral principle, such as that of chastity, of justice, of the Golden Rule, gives the agent a basis for looking at and examining a particular question that comes up. It holds before him certain possible aspects of the act, it warns him against taking a short or partial view of the act. It economizes his thinking by supplying him with the main heads by reference to which to consider the bearings of his desires and purposes; it guides him in his thinking by suggesting to him the important considerations for which he should be on the lookout.
A moral principle, then, is not a command to act or forbear acting in a given way: it is a tool for analyzing a special situation, the right or wrong being determined by the situation in its entirety, and not by the rule as such." (LW 7, 280 Ethics)
What we should be asking is what Obama's principles are and whether he sees them as principles, in Dewey's sense, or as rules. My own suspicion is that Obama acts by the rule of political expediency, doing what works to gain political office. The best example of this is the fact that he had little to say about his actual political positions during the campaign, opting for empty cliche's instead. He knew, in the lower-case form of pragmatism, that actually saying something substantive will not get one elected. Whether Obama will turn out to be a great Pragmatist remains to be seen. The fact that his mother studied under Dewey's granddaughter is no evidence that he will. The fact that he has chosen such bald-faced neo-liberal rule followers for his cabinet counts for a lot that he won't.
December 21, 2008 12:57 PM | Reply | Permalink