« Why Obama is Taking on Corporate Tax Havens | Robert Reich's Blog | What Will Happen to Banks that Fail the Stress Test, When You and I Own Wall Street »
Obama and Pragmatism: Thinking Through Values
I keep hearing the White House staff describe the President as a pragmatist. David Axelrod, one of his chief advisors whom I admire enormously, recently called him a "ruthless pragmatist." Soon, I expect, he’ll be called a "take-no-prisoners pragmatist," or perhaps a "remorseless, merciless, and unrelenting pragmatist."
I’m relieved the President is a pragmatist, but that doesn’t let him or anyone around him off the hook for describing what he wants to achieve and why. Being a pragmatist is a statement about means, not ends. It describes someone who chooses the most practical way of achieving a certain goal but it does not explain why he chooses one goal over another.
The President seems to me especially thoughtful and passionate about one of the great moral questions of domestic policy today: widening inequality of income and wealth, and therefore of opportunity and political power. As I’ve noted before, as recently as 1980, the richest 1 percent of Americans took home about 9 percent of total national income. But since then, income has concentrated in fewer and fewer hands. By 2007, the richest 1 percent took home 22 percent of total national income.
This trend cannot be sustained, either morally, economically, or politically. That’s why, I believe, the President in recent weeks has criticized the heads of Wall Street banks who continue to take home seven figure incomes even as taxpayers bail them out; giant companies that shelter their income in places like Bermuda or the British Virgin Islands; the rich who say they need huge tax deductions in order to continue to make charitable contributions; and other forms of unwarranted privilege in our society, especially at a time when millions of Americans are losing their jobs, their savings, and their homes.
To call his stance "pragmatic" is to rob it of its moral authority.
To be sure, all Presidents want to be seen as political centrists. They dare not proclaim themselves "Right" or "Left," or even "conservative" or "liberal," on an ideological spectrum that’s become ever more highly polarized. It is politically safer – yes, even pragmatic – to describe one’s values as "commonsensical" or "middle of the road." But even this description minimizes and distorts a president’s capacity for leadership. A true leader does not take the public to where the public happens to be, because the public is already there. A leader takes the public to where the public should be, according to that leader’s view of the society’s highest ideals – ideals that the public shares but which have not yet been realized.
Obama did this several times during the presidential campaign, most notably in his courageous speech on race. He took America to a higher place by explaining what we all knew and felt but giving it a larger and nobler frame. He educated us in the best sense of the word. Doing so may have been politically pragmatic but his goal was not solely to get elected. Nor was it simply to demonstrate to us the leadership of which he is capable, although the speech did that. His goal was also to make us more aware about how race is used divisively. In doing so he drew on what in retrospect seem "commonsensical" positions and "middle of the road" values. But that’s not how the speech struck most of us then. We were transformed by the power of his thinking and the values that underlay it – values that we share but had not thought through.
President Obama can afford to do the same with regard to the overriding issue of widening inequality in American society. He can connect the dots for us, allowing us to understand why inequality is widening without deriding the rich or castigating the fortunate. Doing so would allow us to understand what he is seeking to do and why, and empower us to seek and do the same.
I’m relieved the President is a pragmatist, but that doesn’t let him or anyone around him off the hook for describing what he wants to achieve and why. Being a pragmatist is a statement about means, not ends. It describes someone who chooses the most practical way of achieving a certain goal but it does not explain why he chooses one goal over another.
The President seems to me especially thoughtful and passionate about one of the great moral questions of domestic policy today: widening inequality of income and wealth, and therefore of opportunity and political power. As I’ve noted before, as recently as 1980, the richest 1 percent of Americans took home about 9 percent of total national income. But since then, income has concentrated in fewer and fewer hands. By 2007, the richest 1 percent took home 22 percent of total national income.
This trend cannot be sustained, either morally, economically, or politically. That’s why, I believe, the President in recent weeks has criticized the heads of Wall Street banks who continue to take home seven figure incomes even as taxpayers bail them out; giant companies that shelter their income in places like Bermuda or the British Virgin Islands; the rich who say they need huge tax deductions in order to continue to make charitable contributions; and other forms of unwarranted privilege in our society, especially at a time when millions of Americans are losing their jobs, their savings, and their homes.
To call his stance "pragmatic" is to rob it of its moral authority.
To be sure, all Presidents want to be seen as political centrists. They dare not proclaim themselves "Right" or "Left," or even "conservative" or "liberal," on an ideological spectrum that’s become ever more highly polarized. It is politically safer – yes, even pragmatic – to describe one’s values as "commonsensical" or "middle of the road." But even this description minimizes and distorts a president’s capacity for leadership. A true leader does not take the public to where the public happens to be, because the public is already there. A leader takes the public to where the public should be, according to that leader’s view of the society’s highest ideals – ideals that the public shares but which have not yet been realized.
Obama did this several times during the presidential campaign, most notably in his courageous speech on race. He took America to a higher place by explaining what we all knew and felt but giving it a larger and nobler frame. He educated us in the best sense of the word. Doing so may have been politically pragmatic but his goal was not solely to get elected. Nor was it simply to demonstrate to us the leadership of which he is capable, although the speech did that. His goal was also to make us more aware about how race is used divisively. In doing so he drew on what in retrospect seem "commonsensical" positions and "middle of the road" values. But that’s not how the speech struck most of us then. We were transformed by the power of his thinking and the values that underlay it – values that we share but had not thought through.
President Obama can afford to do the same with regard to the overriding issue of widening inequality in American society. He can connect the dots for us, allowing us to understand why inequality is widening without deriding the rich or castigating the fortunate. Doing so would allow us to understand what he is seeking to do and why, and empower us to seek and do the same.
Advertisement
A powerful call, a summons to Obama:
Thank you, Professor Reich!
May 5, 2009 8:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama already "connected the dots" by giving away everything to billionaire bankers... $12.8 trillion in bailouts and guarantees for toxic assets.
"Where your treasure is, there your heart will also be!" (Matthew 6:21)
The con-man Obama's heart and our treasure were already given away to the banks, and the rest is just blather.
May 6, 2009 3:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama has also "connected the dots" in his dealing with the torture issue. His stand on that issue has no moral backing at all. It is a stand designed to protect lawyers and government officials and to place those people above the law.
Continuing this Bush Administration stand is both ammoral and contrary to the concept of a free society of equals.
Where, O where, is that "Change we can believe in?"
May 6, 2009 7:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
We were conned. He has less of a moral center than Bill Clinton.
May 6, 2009 10:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ditto... unfortunately!
May 6, 2009 1:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Co-sign.
May 6, 2009 9:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Let's face it. Our President is a brilliant orator, has a fine mind, and a beautiful smile. But, he is also feckless and a sock-puppet for the country's banking interests. I will believe that he actually has a moral center when he fires Geithner and Summers and instructs his Attorney General to commence criminal proceedings against those who instigated torture in the name of this country's citizens. Until then, I will continue to consider him (as I do with great regret) just another shady Chicago politician, writ large.
May 6, 2009 4:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
All too true.
May 6, 2009 10:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
That was Bush, for the record. The lion's share of the bailouts came under Bush. You might be thinking of Obama's financial stimulus, but that was a job creation package that sent money to states for infrastructure development and to offset revenue losses due to the economic downturn.
And Obama's Treasury has signalled there won't be a TARP II. The PIPP or whatever the hell Geithner's most recent plan is called is many things (and not above criticism) but one thing it is definitely not is a bailout of the kind undertaken when Paulson was in charge.
People are way too prone to uncritically accepting and repeating half-understood talking points and received ideas. More than half the accusations of compromises and betrayals leveled against Obama to-date by the more belligerent among us have been based not on the actual final policy decisions or positions the admin has taken but on the rampant Beltway insider gossip and speculation that gets so much news coverage while the administration is still early in the process of developing policy.
Just sit back in your seats and chill a little people. This is going to be a long ride. Don't start getting antsy already.
May 6, 2009 11:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's early in the game....
May 6, 2009 10:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think that avoidance of (zero-sum) distributional issues is a luxury that is only afforded to us (if ever) in a steadily expanding economy.
If the pie stays the same size (or shrinks), anyone getting richer means someone else is getting poorer.
The same is arguably true in an expanding economy, when inflation (and other incidental costs) are figured in, but slower growth makes distributional injustice more an more obvious to more and more people.
The success of the US "golden era" (i.e., post-WW2) was built on a policy-driven expansion of the middle-class. The nostalgia for the 1950s, so common among Reagan cultists, includes a healthy dose of denial about the role of government spending and tax policies.
May 6, 2009 3:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Moral issues can be argued for their pragmatics, which supports the moral power of the better position. For example, on wealth disparity, it is effectively a class system. We see a version of this in Pakistan, where most well-paying salaried jobs are viewed as reserved for the rich, so extended education gets little respect by the poor. They do like their children learning to read, and thus madrasas are thriving. This will lead to collapse of the secular society that supports the wealth of the upper class.
Those poor people do matter, after all.
May 5, 2009 8:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
He might be thoughtful but passion is going to require a lot more determination to fight entrenched interests instead of merely cutting deals to keep all the same players in all the same chairs. If he wants to fight inequality he might try calling in some progressives and forming a team. Instead all I see is surrender to the blue dogs and there's nothing they love more than income inequality. They're entitled to it. Ask Specter.
May 5, 2009 8:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, that's exactly what "pragmatist" means--(get ready for the school choice plan).
I hope Axelrod has figured this out already so he can spin something for the re-election--he did continually pull off last minute saves by dragging Bo's nose to "where the public already is" time and again last time out, so I guess we'll be fine.
Whew.
May 5, 2009 8:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jeebus, is Reich going to whine and hyperventilate over everything for the next 8 years becasue he's not a member of the Administration? It's only been 100 days and they've become tedious Chicken Littles already.
Maybe he and Krugman can commiserate over chocolate ice cream and watch movies together every Saturday night.
May 5, 2009 9:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'd also point out Reich was Sec of Labor under Clinton, the most pro-corporate Democrat since forever, and passed NAFTA on his watch which both he and Krugman were big advocates of.
I believe Reich ran for Governor of Massachusetts, and lost, before kibitzing Obama on national policy.
So really, is Reich trying to make up for his own failures?
May 5, 2009 9:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
BTW: doesn't Reich have some economic work to do? Some numbers to crunch or something?
Could he and Krugman put down their crystal balls and stop hyperventilating over every semantic nuance long enough to do some economic work?
Though, I do suspect that should the Obama Administration ever create a position dedicated to the to analysis of the meaning of the word "pragmatism" that Reich will get the job, presuming Chris Matthews, Olberman or whatnot aren't interested.
May 5, 2009 9:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
BTW: doesn't Reich have some economic work to do? Some numbers to crunch or something?
Why would he? He's not an economist; he's a lawyer.
May 6, 2009 10:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ellen, what have you done with Hildegard Knef's right eye? Her left is your gravatar, but did you leave her one?
May 6, 2009 10:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ellen, he works in economic and social policy. The topic of this thread is economics and social policy. He worked in the clinton Administration on social and economic policy. I sincerely hope he's crunched a few numbers and now and again.
Ellen, really, must you always be such a dingbat?
May 6, 2009 2:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Can we critique anything that's happening in the political sphere or should we wait till 2012? Will you let us know when it's OK to start pushing for issues we feel are important that aren't being addressed? ...before it's too late?
May 5, 2009 9:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm all for meaningful critique. I just find Reich's recent articles incredibly vapid and manic. Same for Krugman.
That last article about Obama's supposed strategy is totally unsourced. He doesn't even say "sources in the Administration" or such attempt at credibility. It's just unabashed navel-gazing speculation.
Here's what I think: the Obama Admin has done a pretty good job of explaining their intentions and following through so far, and I don't need nor appreciate reportage on Reich's Ouija sessions, crystal balls, and navel gazing.
He also writes things that are just obnoxious, such as his stipulation that since Obama hasn't tackled NAFTA yet, he must be "OK" with it and hence reneging on a campaign promise. WTF? that's totally unfounded and it's doubly obnoxious coming from the guy who helped champion NAFTA and has taken enormous heat for it, which he neglects to mention. The exact same goes for Krugman.
Here's my theory: Reich and Krugman are miffed they're not in the Obama Admin, and on some level can't help hoping Obama echos their failures, becasue should Obama succeed in renegotiating NAFTA, for one example, it will remind everyone who was responsible for that FUBAR in the first place, who gave it liberal/progressive smoke cover: guys like Krugman + Reich.
May 5, 2009 9:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
So public figures who disagree with Obama are just petty little creatures who are "miffed" that they aren't in with the cocktail weenie crowd? Is there a chance they could be on to something?
Don't lump Krugman and Reich together either. Reich does have a tendency to identify problems, but not come up with solutions. But it is still a legitimate exercise.
Krugman has come up with very clear practical ideas of how to get out of this mess. I don't see him as needy at all.
Get another theory. Or better yet, try not to speculate. Come up with some solutions yourself.
May 6, 2009 10:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
You have to be kidding. I can't think of a bigger showboating diva than Paul Krugman. Let's not forget Krugman's actual record in the Clinton Administration, with the DLC folks, highlights including NAFTA and deregulation.
Krugman is great at kvetching and suggesting idealized theories, from NAFTA to his "Liberal Conscience" fluff, to universal healthcare and a repeat of HillaryCare.
He's the quintessential critic, not an implementer. His "practical" advice, never is.
May 6, 2009 3:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with kozmik. Reich comes off to me as petty and egocentric. He didn't get picked for this Cabinet so he's going to throw tantrums. Reich has ALWAYS been a self promoter.When someone is so fast to criticize a team newly on the job there is nothing wrong with questioning their motives. All criticism is not created equal.
May 6, 2009 11:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Right. It's not honest criticism or even informed criticism.
Krugman and Reich miffed they're not in the Admin, so they're overcompensating by criticizing and worrying everything to death. It's not helpful, and frankly it demonstrates why these divas weren't picked.
May 6, 2009 2:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
So let's see, If the top 1% is earning 22% of the income then it must be paying about 33% of the federal tax burden for individuals. For those of you in East Leftwing-Nuttia that includes FICA.
Gee, if Obama makes everyone more equal, you slackers out there are going to have to actually pay your way, to cover losses in tax revenue. As it is, I hope you folks have your withholding perfectly arranged, or you're going to find you have to give money back to Uncle B.
Surprise.
May 5, 2009 9:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know where "East Leftwing-Nuttia" is, but I do know wherever you are must smell like Old Spice and dog.
May 5, 2009 9:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Shooter242:
your statement:
"So let's see, If the top 1% is earning 22% of the income then it must be paying about 33% of the federal tax burden for individuals." lacks any resemblance to any actual facts at all.
If you are going to make unfounded claims, you could at least provide links to where you got the bogus information you are peddling.
Pulling numbers out your ass is neither credible nor good mathematics.
May 6, 2009 7:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ah, Johann. Welcome to the real world. Reich didn't bother to post a link to his source, so I had to assume he has access to a 2008 version of this 2006 report.
For those too lazy to examine it, the 2006 version of the CBO report marks the top 1% as earning 18.8% of income while paying 28.3% of all federal individual taxes (including FICA). So yes, they are paying their share of taxes plus part of yours.
May 6, 2009 9:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Does the figure for taxes paid by the 1% subtract out the $12.8 TRILLION the Fed and Bush/Obama/Bernanke have given them in the past 6 months?
May 6, 2009 10:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Does the figure for taxes paid by the 1% subtract out the $12.8 TRILLION the Fed and Bush/Obama/Bernanke have given them in the past 6 months?
May 6, 2009 11:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
shooter,
are you suggesting the top 1% should pay taxes at the same percentage of the income that they make?
So rather than pay 28.3% of taxes, they would pay 18.8% of taxes?
May 6, 2009 11:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Progressivity of tax rates is pretty well accepted these days. The problem is that people like Reich like to push people's buttons about how much the top earner's make, without acknowledging how much they contribute. That's dishonest.
May 6, 2009 3:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
In fact the top percentiles often do pay a lower rate than middle class workers, by sheltering income that is never taxed or exploiting tax loopholes. Guys like People like Warren Buffet admit that on a regular basis.
You're the disingenuous one by lumping the poor, middle class, and wealthy together to distort the tax picture.
It's also a problem that we have such wealth disparity in the US. It's not merited. It's not as though our top scientists and most productive people are the wealthiest generally. (with notable exceptions.)
A large portion of our most wealthy, and the fastest growing segment over the last couple decades, are con men who figured out a scam, how to nickle and dime consumers in high finance, banking, credit cards, energy, insurance, etc, often using fraudulent and de facto anti-competitive practices. These aren't Ayn Rand's visionary geniuses, these are sleazy con men and scam artists.
May 6, 2009 3:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
We have progressive taxation, along with the rest of the developed world, becasue it's the fairest and most productive system for everyone's benefit including the wealthy. Your implication that a flat tax would be more fair, is moronic.
That debate was settled decades ago, if not centuries ago.
Most of us with top percentile incomes don't complain, we're happy for the opportunities America provides us, and realize that if everyone had an equal tax burden the poor would be terribly institutionally disadvantaged, ultimately it would hurt our economic growth and culture, promoting a class based system. Progressive taxation is ultimately good for mobility, the culture, and economic growth, which being exponential vastly outpaces the short term merits of regressive taxation. In fact, ahd we had regressive taxation decades ago, we'd have more poverty, less science and infrastructure, be less competitive, and you'd be poorer today.
If you're so upset, really, do a reverse Obama, move to Kenya, pay no taxes and enjoy the lack of infrastructure. Or, keep whining like the cranky old tool you are.
May 6, 2009 3:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
They should pay at least that for all the services that they get. During Eisenhower's day the top 400 earners paid a top rate of 92% and with all the deductions ended up paying around 51%. That was one of our most productive times. Didn't hurt those 400 one bit to pay a fairer share.
Read James Galbraith's "Predator State". When CEOs are paid 400 times what their workers make, they tend to park all that excess dough after they've bought their 3rd home off shore or gamble it in hedge funds. What good companies used to do with profits was put it back into their companies in R& D and workers wages and not into top management in excess. It's just been bad for American business to have all this funny money floating around.
May 6, 2009 5:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
May 6, 2009 10:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
The whole emphasis of this discussion is looking at the wrong side of the equation.
What should be looked at is how much money (spending power) is left over after taxes for people to enjoy the fruits of the American way of life.
Someone earning $30,000 per year in a 25% tax bracket leaves them $22,500 per year in spending money. With basic living expenses of $15,000 per year, this leaves them with $7,500 in disposable income.
Someone earning $250,000 per year in a 50% tax bracket leaves them $125,000 per year in spending money. With basic living expenses of $15,000 per year, this leaves them with $110,000 in disposable income.
While these figures are for purposes of example, the reasoning applies no matter what the income levels and tax levels are.
It is proper for those people who enjoy the most benefits of American society to pay the most for the maintenance of that society.
I'm not really interested in apologists complaining that someone earning $150,000 has greater basic expenses that someone earning $30,000 per year because they eat better food, live in a more expensive house, need a vacation home (or two), and drive an expensive car.
It is a fact that the 1% being discussed here have off-shore tax shelters available to them and are using those tax shelters. Otherwise, why would Obama's program to have the people with those offshore accounts identified have hit a roadblock so quickly?
.
May 6, 2009 11:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
May 6, 2009 11:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
"They pay their way plus part of yours, what else do you want? For them to pay ALL your taxes so you get a free ride?"
No, what I want is for them to stop asking me to help fund their exhorbitant salaries, bonuses, and/or retention payments through bailouts from taxpayers like me.
"Then I'd be interested in hearing how you would explain to Bushmen of the Kalahari why you're such a rich pig,"
Ah! resorting to insults and name calling, the last refuge of the verbally challenged when they are losing an argument. Thanks.
Actually, I don't live in the Kalahari, and like you, don't compare my living standards or living conditions with the people living there.
May 6, 2009 11:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
As for bonuses.... Don't like it? Write your Congressman.
May 7, 2009 12:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Oh please, this is a reflection of your intolerance for the people that I assume make more than you do."
No, it is actually a reflection on my intolerance for people who resort to insults and namecalling.
"That argument certainly applies to people that make more than you do. They don't live where you live and don't compare their living standards to yours. If you are going to shove aside the Bushman's view that you are rich as irrelevant, then certainly you won't mind if I do the same."
Once again, you are making wrong assumptions. I live in the USA where there are people making more than I make and people making less than I make. And there are 300,000,000 people in this country who can say the same thing, including you.
The main points I was making, which you glossed over, is that all people should be paying taxes in proportion to the benefits they receive from living in the USA, and people who have more spendable income and thus receive greater benefit from living in the USA should be paying more to support the system they are benefitting from.
"As for bonuses.... Don't like it? Write your Congressman."
I have written all of them. The financial sector bailout was the biggest ripoff since the Italians convinced the Spanish to send them all the wealth the Spanish shipped away from the New World.
May 7, 2009 1:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
May 7, 2009 8:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
That top 1%'s money isn't earned income, Shooter. In the words of Condi Rice, "Do your homework."
May 6, 2009 8:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Are you quibbling with the word "earned" or do you have some other actual point?
May 6, 2009 9:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
He's basically calling you an idiot. I'd second that, and point out you surely smell like Old Spice and wet dog. No offense.
May 6, 2009 3:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Admit it, you meant to be offensive.
May 6, 2009 11:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mr. Reich! You have a very distressing toothular growth!
May 5, 2009 9:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you look closely, it's one of those medical suction-cup monitors. Checking the vital signs of his beard I would guess.
PS Good post as always, Dr. Reich.
May 6, 2009 9:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Being a pragmatist is a statement about means, not ends."
It's an attitude or orientation, and it can involves ends too. It eschews attachment to particular ideological positions as final ends and looks at things as a melting pot of many voices and values. But that doesn't mean it abhors principles or has no vision.
This suits Obama as a "mutt" icon which he embraced in Nov. 2008. And it suits my idea of a US Presidency which while it controls a bully pulpit is nonetheless subordinate to SCOTUS and Congress, implementing the laws effectively rather than trying to make them 'de facto' despite Congress or the Constitution.
May 5, 2009 10:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Finally! Someone providing a critique on the actual content and argument of Reich's post.
May 7, 2009 12:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
To be an ethical pragmatist is simply to be a relativist and we all know where that leads.
May 5, 2009 10:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
The future?
May 5, 2009 10:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
the advent of the future does not require human intervention Kozmic. So it is out of our hands
May 6, 2009 11:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, Andrew, it's only what the future will be like that might depend on human intervention. Sheesh.
May 6, 2009 11:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's correct. But so what? Our actions will to some extent determine the future regardless what the actions are. So what? How does that add anything to the incoherent concept of "ethical pragmatism" (a truly orphan construction) or pragmatic ethics for that matter? How does that guide us into the future?
Ethics is about what ought to be. Pragmatism is about MEANS to existing ends. It is as simple as Reich says it is.
May 6, 2009 12:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Ethics is about what ought to be."
Is it? Morality is about what one ought to do. Fantasy is about what ought to be but is not.
Ethics are ways of being, conduct.
I'm kinda saying I don't get your point here. One goal (end) of pragmatism is to reduce waste in the moment and perhaps in the long run. Maybe it's "the path of least resistance", which makes it contingent but not necessarily wishy-washy.
May 6, 2009 2:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
say what?
May 6, 2009 2:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
OK for the quibblers amongst us who don't get Reich's simple point: ethics is what ought to be the case in human conduct. Does that lift the fog of confusion??
May 6, 2009 2:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ethics are relative as well--couched within social norms, which differ.
May 6, 2009 3:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you want to think that murder, child molestation, slavery, and cannibalism are not wrong in some abolute sense then you are morally challanged. The list can go on and on and on.
May 6, 2009 5:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
You speak like a child.
May 6, 2009 9:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Apparently not for you. Try dealing with my comment directly instead of reiterating your comment over again.
Are ethics about conduct, or not?
Is conduct about what you do rather than who you are?
"should be" doesn't mean "ought to do".
May 7, 2009 3:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
The pragmatic maxim, also known as the maxim of pragmatism or the maxim of pragmaticism, is a maxim of logic formulated by Charles Sanders Peirce. Serving as a normative recommendation or a regulative principle in the normative science of logic, its function is to guide the conduct of thought toward the achievement of its purpose advising the addressee on an optimal way of "attaining clearness of apprehension".
In other words Don't look for Pragmatism to give you the goals!! get it? sheesh
May 6, 2009 1:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, but we're also creatures of habit more often than reason. There's not a clear dichotomy between pragmatism/means and ideals/ends as you seem to be implying.
Our patterns of thought form not just from rational or intuitive goals, but also from methods of doing, which then reinforce thought patterns on the neural level. Actions and methodologies ultimately inform our goals just as our goals inform our methodologies.
Think of it this way, if one is cutting a trail in the wilderness, one may be prone to thrill seeking, running and jumping before looking, or cautiously and steadily making time to cover distance or traverse from A to B. That style tends to pick one's course and determine the risk of accident or becoming lost. Ultimately, a person starts picking destinations that match their style of getting there.
I see this all the time in politics, especially in those who become addicted to the thrill of idealism and moral certitude. they substitute the self gratification of moral certitude for actually accomplishing partial gains ion the real world. They become increasingly addicted to idealism and disdainful of pragmatism, attainability or actual consequence. Eventually these people tend to become delusional. It happens on the right and left wing.
May 6, 2009 4:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
"A true leader does not take the public to where the public happens to be, because the public is already there. A leader takes the public to where the public should be, according to that leader’s view of the society’s highest ideals – ideals that the public shares but which have not yet been realized."
Great statement.
Now, let's apply that to the issue of torture where Obama is far behind what a majority of the American people want - openness and, where warranted, prosecutions.
Obama is not a leader on these issues, he seems to be waiting for the American people to force him to go in a direction he doesn't want to go.
There is something to be said about taking a moral stand. There is also something to be said about refusing to take a moral stand when it would be in the best interests of future generations.
ie. Those Iran-contra criminals who returned to the federal government and brought us Iraq and torture. The federal government at that time moved on, didn't prosecute, and, in effect, taught that US Government officials are above the law and are not subject to prosecution for crimes committed.
There is no reason to repeat history. Prosecute and send a message that this type of behavior is un-American and will not be tolerated in a "free society".
The next time this type of history is repeated it will be even worse.
May 6, 2009 7:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
How do you know Obama is not taking the people there, by slowly releasing so much previously classified info? There are many ways to lead. One is through transparency. Till eventually the scales fall from the eyes! Till people "see" what they have previously not understood, the leader is patient.
That's my view of it!
May 6, 2009 9:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
The only chance the Obama administration really has to have legitimate, effective investigations and/or prosecutions of torture is if outside political pressure (not just from voters, but from legislators and the international community) for such steps is so broad-based and indisputable that Obama has no choice but to pursue prosecution. Why? Because otherwise it will turn into a media/political circus, with all the usual entrenched political interests covering each others backs as they did during the Iran-Contra hearings. Lots of Democratic legislators are potentially exposed on the torture issue, so a serious investigation with the potential for real consequences is not an easy win in the legislature. Plus, a rushed process could back-fire, with Republicans latching on to every minor stumble to spin the whole proceeding as a political witch hunt.
We need the international community to signal clearly and unmistakeably that it plans to pursue serious war crimes investigations, based on all the damning evidence that the Obama administration has now released. The only way to prevent such trials from going forward, further damaging America's international standing, would be for us to carry out our own investigations and prosecutions. If the pressure for prosecutions is clearly not coming from partisan-motivated interests but the international community, then the game changes. We'd have no choice but to prosecute, to avoid being dragged into an international legal process that would be damaging to our relations with allies and our image abroad.
May 6, 2009 2:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Are you saying that the only way the torture conducted by the USA will be punished is if that Spanish Judge instigates a prosecution in accordance with Spain's responsibilities under the Geneva Conventions.
It would be much better if the USA would clean up their own dirty laundry.
Obama waiting for the people to force him into action is definitely not leading - that is following.
May 6, 2009 11:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Obama is not a leader on these issues, he seems to be waiting for the American people to force him to go in a direction he doesn't want to go."
"seems to be" is your perception, not reality.
He doesn't want to be seen to be rushing to judgment. And he said quite explicitly that people need to apply pressure to him on some issues. Also, step back and consider the pace of things in the historical context. Even a year is a short time in history.
Symbolic leadership is different from actual leadership. Full leadership offers a balance of both which work (pragatism!) together well.
May 6, 2009 2:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
"He doesn't want to be seen to be rushing to judgment."
What a crock. The USA has admitted, in writing, that it committed torture in violation of several international conventions of which the USA was primary in developing and in getting the rest of the world in agreement with.
Starting a criminal investigation at this point would NOT be rushing to judgement.
May 6, 2009 11:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually there have been investigations started. You seem pretty angry about this.
May 7, 2009 3:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
All the investigations started to date have all the earmarks of coverups rather than an effort to get to any underlying truth. The people doing the investigating were a part of the problem and are looking for ways to cover their asses.
.
May 7, 2009 11:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
I see you have rushed to judgment.
May 7, 2009 4:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Someone who says pragmatism is a statement about means, not ends, has less than a passing familiarity with the history of the Irish. I prescribe a little more Donald Akeson for you, Dr. Reich.
Perhaps, as but one example, his chapter about seventh century Irish missions as testaments to pragmatism (mediating between the kind of missionary work that either got you no where or with your head on a spike), which also happened to be, on aggregate, one of the most successful economic enterprises the world has ever seen. all because of pragmatism.
May 6, 2009 9:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Excuse me, Donald Akenson. An irish History of Civilization, Vol. 1.
May 6, 2009 9:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Excellent post. I agree Reich's dichotomy is totally false.
May 6, 2009 4:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you Dr. Reich. It's refreshing to see Obama's M.O. reframed in this way. As an operation, it's concerned with the OPERATION--not the post-op report of what ideals were met. But, like you say, that doesn't mean we have to ignore what principles are being implemented throughout the surgery. If we're implanting an extra valve to the heart, then saying so can only help the operation go more smoothly.
May 6, 2009 9:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
I should say: If we're implanting an extra valve to the heart, then saying WHY can only help the operation go more smoothly.
May 6, 2009 9:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
To say pragmatism isn't about ends is misleading:
The ends are inevitably vague, when you really think about them: rule of law, quality of life, thriving economy, clean environment, health. People make their case for programs picking and choosing the goals that help their issues, whether it is 'rights' or 'freedom' or 'quality of life'.
And they often contradict one another. Everyone wants a healthy environment, but at a cost to jobs? -- another good thing.
So we have competing goals, on top of debates about how to deliver any of them.
I submit that pragmatism is also about carefully balancing goals and outcomes -- for instance, neither destroying the environment for prosperity's sake, nor grinding the economy to a halt for environmental reasons. A pragmatist would seek to maintain both good jobs and clean environment. (This doesn't mean that one isn't leaning more towards one side than the other. )
Al Gore is a successful business man, but also an ardent environmentalist, and leans more to the latter, though no enemy of commerce. His pragmatic argument for solving global warming -- that dependence upon oil is strategically unwise, that green jobs can revive our economy, and that we can save the planet too -- is a good example of pragmatism at its best.
May 6, 2009 9:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Pragmatism is a core value. In fact Pragmatism is THE ideology of English Common Law countries.
The doctrine of pragmatism within English Common Law lead to the development of the idea of liberty under the law - that is freedom, but freedom that is limited to the point that it doesn’t infringe upon issues of justice and equity (fairness). With out that constraint liberty becomes “might makes right” and quickly descends into tyranny.
As Simon Wiesenthaler said, upon being liberated by Americans from a concentration camp: “Where there is not justice, there is only tyranny.”
Freedom is nothing without fairness. With fairness, freedom is everything.
When the international liberal systems began to fail, beginning around 1917 during WWI, and stumbling throught to the end of WWII, one by one Civil Code countries subcumbed to rule by rogue ideologies: Communism in Russia, Fascism in Italy, Militant Nationalism in Japan, Naziism in Germany and Falangism in Spain, and finally Communism in China. Through out this entire era, none of the Common Law countries succumbed to rogue ideological rule. Pragmatism did that for us.
Pragmatism is a core value that is to be valued.
May 6, 2009 9:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Three cheers for "Muddling Through".
May 6, 2009 10:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
By the way "Gradualism" is a defining feature of conservatism which fact goes a long way toward explaining why real liberals are upset with Obama.
May 6, 2009 10:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm sorry. "Real Liberals?"
You're going to have to help me out with that. Is there a central certification authority for who is a "real liberal" and who isn't Is there a standardized test or is it just some secret tribuanal that makes the call based on sui generis factors? Do you get a card or a certificate or something if you pass the test? Is it just defined as someone left of center who's upset with Obama? Or are you just taking it upon yourself to determine who is, and is not, True to the Revolution?
I mean, seriously, do you know who that makes you sound like? Because, to me, it kind of echos of George Allen and Sarah Palin, with just a dash of Robespierre thrown in for good measure.
C'mon. You're better than this.
May 6, 2009 12:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
They're the ones currently huddling abjectly on the left side of the Democrats' big tent.
May 6, 2009 1:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ellen, still trolling I see.
May 6, 2009 3:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, because having all the Don Quixotes (excuse me, "real liberals") take their electoral ball and go home served us so well in 2000.
And very little you've posted here leads me to believe you're a liberal, real or fake.
May 6, 2009 4:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ellen is just a troll for the most part.
May 6, 2009 4:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
WTF? First troll I've seen with 28 followers. Who's trollin' who?
May 6, 2009 5:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wonder about the committment to liberal values of people who reject *pluralism*. Diverse views make us a better party. It's a core belief, along with tolerance. Isn't a doctrinaire liberal ideologue kind of a contradiction in some ways?
May 6, 2009 5:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Gradualism" is great, when the starting point is all to your favor. Which is why it is a defining feature of Conservatism.
May 6, 2009 12:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
"real liberals are upset with Obama"
I think you meant to say radicals.
May 6, 2009 4:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Application is useful not words or definitions.
Do we need to argue about what is fair?
You know when you are hungry why don't you know what is fair?
In argument you can make things fair, but that has no value.
May 6, 2009 10:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Pragmatism is roughly the doctrine that we will consider something true if "it works". So we will consider atomic theory true because it works in the sense that we can explain a whole lot of things and use the theory to build all sorts of gadgets to harness the forces of nature.
In the realm of ends (Kingdom of ends as Kant put it) you have to know first what ends are moral-- and therefore worthy of pursuit-- and which are not. Then you can impose a methodology to achieve these moral ends as best you can (in politics and in your own actions).
Pragmatism applied to ethics is incoherent since pragmatism values means to ends but does not specify ends. It is as simple as that.
May 6, 2009 11:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
We will consider something "good" or "valuable" or "worthwhile" if it is good, valuable or worthwhile.
If something works out good, then it is worthwhile.
The problem with philosophy based system is that it represents consistent means but not consistent input and outputs. My inputs very, my outputs very, so I want my means to very as well.
If I grow up in Eskimo society, and my mother teaches me the philosophy "never take your coat off when you are outside". That philosophy works in eskimoe society and keeps me alive.
Then one day I get a scholarship to go to university at the University of Arizona in Tucson. The day I leave my mother puts my coat on and says "never take it off when you are outside."
Then I begin the long walk from the Northwest Territories of Canada to Tucson. Somewhere, aroud Utah I guess, I have a quandry. Should I take the coat off or should I leave it on?
The practical thing is to take it off. The intent of the original philosophy was to keep me alive. I want to stay alive and not bake to death, I have to be pratical, change my philosophy and take my coat off.
In the long term, ideology and sometimes philosophy, is an attempt to eliminate thinking. When we get tired of thinking things through, then we rely on ideology. That is why I think idiots are attracted to conservativism. They have a core question, and a core answer and the philosophy that worked to answer that question is then applied to all other questions throughout society regardless to the ends. If the Ends are right, it means the question wasn't right, not the philosophy.
May 6, 2009 10:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly. True Pragmatism and Ethics are shifting sands at best. No one individual outside of some saint perhaps has the goods on what is right for all time and people, because of the limitations of their world view by definition.
May 7, 2009 12:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
no progressive supporter of Obama can say with integrity that they are happy with thim and his choices so far.
maybe its our own fault for reading to much or wanting to much to change.
it hasnt, and it wont.
has Obama undone anything to give us back the constitutional rights that bush took?
can the police still drag YOU out of your house and take you somewhere with no attorney and no one knowing about it?
i wont speak for anyone else.
but i admit to seeing more then was there.
May 6, 2009 10:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Speak for yourself. Many of us just are not dogmatic, and appreciate the pragmatic, fresh approach. Obama's dislike of cant is repeated in his books, so I guess you'd say for many of us it is a shared value.
I guess the orthodox-types were never happy -- many of their complaints were registered during the primaries, in fact. But their candidates lost. That doesn't mean I dismiss their views, but they have to work with Obama and not just be "anti" for the next four years.
And fwiw, as a proud liberal, I submit that pluralism is a progressive value. Last time I checked, orthodoxy and discipline were more the GOP's style than ours.
May 6, 2009 10:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
FYI: JadeZ is no progressive. Freeper is more like it.
May 6, 2009 4:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
You speak for me, loud and clear!
May 6, 2009 4:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fixed that for you.
May 6, 2009 11:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
Where was Reich when Obama said this about torture?:
"I think the American people over time will recognize it is better for us to stick to who we are, even when we are taking on an unscrupulous enemy."
He didn't take the "pragmatic" view that we stopped torture because it doesn't work. He's been clear that he stopped it because it is against our values.
To say that Obama is shying away from principles or values is absurd. He looks for pragmatic solutions, but isn't afraid to take a stand on core values either.
May 6, 2009 11:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Excellent point.
"He didn't take the "pragmatic" view that we stopped torture because it doesn't work. He's been clear that he stopped it because it is against our values."
I think this comes down to people who are "principled" (Some would say ideological) and "pragamatic" (often knocked as unprincipled).
The pragmatists think the principled are strident ideologues who are unbending to evidence and reality, and intolerant of diverse views. The principled think the pragmatists are sell-outs who bend to political winds.
I don't see a solution here, but it's worthwhile noting this when you hear people knock Obama for not being "principled". It's an indication you are dealing with an absolutist.
May 6, 2009 5:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Taking a pragmatic, compromising approach to ethical standards results in unethical behavior.
May 6, 2009 11:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Taking a pragmatic, compromising approach to ethical standards results in unethical behavior."
Is there any evidence that absolutist approaches have resulted in ethical behavior?
On the contrary, zealots who are certain of the purity of their goals and actions have often created atrocties. The Soviet Union comes to mind.
May 7, 2009 4:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Seems to me Obama said something about how there were other ways to get the info. That implies that stopping the use of harsh interrogations was at least in part a pragmatic move. If there were in fact no other way to get some needed info, it's not at all clear that Obama is ruling it out.
So his principles are a bit diluted.
That said, it is not clear which is his priority and which is window dressing, which the cake (principled ideals) and which the icing (pragmatism) which only helps sell the principle.
May 7, 2009 3:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Another good post by Robert Reich!
Let's face it: No uncompromising liberal is ever going to ascend any higher in politics than Dennis Kucinich has. Obama does have core values, but he is a brilliant politician who creates the illusion that he is middle-of-the-road as he nudges the country slowly to the left of center. Sure, I have complaints. but I would have had just as many complaints about FDR. I say keep the heat on Obama, but let him do his job.
May 6, 2009 12:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
People generally need to better understand the concept of "optimal" as opposed to "ideal."
As in, ideally one might be able to fly to the sun on wax wings, but actually attempting to do so will probably produce sub-optimal outcomes.
May 6, 2009 3:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Very well put.
May 6, 2009 5:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
"People generally need to better understand the concept of "optimal" as opposed to "ideal.""
And when the ideal is to get a little bit pregnant, what is the optimal?
.
May 7, 2009 12:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's actually a useful analogy. The goal is actually to be "optimally" pregnant, not just pregnant. Also, no pregnancy or child is "ideal" barring the supernatural.
By that I mean: right time, right person, right DNA, healthy development, carried to a full term, delivered in a hygienic space with optimal medical care, etc.
No environment, parent, or child is 100% perfect. Every pregnancy deals with considering practical matters or ignoring them at peril.
You might still insist the state of pregnancy is binary. You could pick an arbitrary moment such as the fertilization of the egg and call that pregnancy, uterus implantation, a number of cell divisions, etc.
Regardless, the point remains that whatever moment you define as "becoming pregnant" is momentary, shaped by the practical considerations before and afterward.
May 7, 2009 4:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
More concisely:
"Getting pregnant" is a momentary act, a binary state change, therefore no fractional pregnancy possible, by definition. Though the definition is somewhat arbitrary.
"Being pregnant" is the ongoing state, shaped by practical concerns, before and after.
That's a good analogy for politics in that some rush to d the deed, but fail to fully prepare or consider outcomes. Consequently there's a lot of "failed pregnancies" in politics.
May 7, 2009 4:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
I might write a thriller: The Virtuous (pragmatic) Murderer.
One of the Major scandals of contemporary Liberal Individualists is how far they have sacrificed common universal moral values on the alter of individual preferences
May 6, 2009 5:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am assuming you have a halo over your head. Your self righteousness is showing. Tell me what you've done for society lately and maybe I'll listen to you.
May 6, 2009 9:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well it works like this - per Oliver Wendall Holmes: Law often wants to be ethical, but can't always be ethical. Law has to be "efficable" - it always has to work.
Judges make decision, that is law, for very narrowly framed questions. In answer those questions, Holmes said, judges can choose from the market place of ideas (meaning ideologies, or philosophies). Over time the answer applied is the one that best answers the narrow question. That means choosing from one epistomologie for one question, choosing from another for another questions. Ethics is only one consideration, efficacy is another - again, unlike ethical systems, the law has to work.
Over the centuries, English common law developed a bias towards liberty. But it was only a bias. Liberty prevailed when it made sense where it didn't prevail upon justice, fairness, equity, etc...
The end result is that over a thousand years of English common law, ours is a system that is a patch work of ideologies (or philosophies) - brought to us by the mechanism of pragmatism.
The essence of law has a lot to do with intent. So an intent of good will and a mechanism of pragmatism will give you an optimum outcome. Every philosophy makes sense when it answers the question at its core - but questions out on its periphery it looses its efficacy. The patchwork model is the most efficable, pratical, the one that makes the most sense.
That's true if you are a man of good will or a murderer. But then the common law knows what to do with you regardless of which you might be.
May 6, 2009 9:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
In a word "neoliberalism," same as anyone else who can afford to get elected to office in a state other than Vermont.
May 6, 2009 10:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Despite all the critique and second-guessing that can be levelled at him, I love this post by Dr. Reich and the constructive comments that have ensued here (eventually).
I don't think Reich is arguing that Obama and his administration are pushing a pragmatism removed from ideals; rather, he's saying that Obama is not articulating his ideals sufficiently like he did several times in the campaign, i.e. in a way that can galvanize others to work on his behalf because they resonate with them also. And that would be VERY practical.
Of course it's a much more difficult task now, outside of the energy of a hysterical media-driven political campaign, but it does appear to be a primary difficulty of the moment facing our new President. As is typical, Dr. Reich fails to offer any solution the problem he articulates. But perhaps he's deliberately leaving it to others to do, or perhaps he's just as lazy as the rest of us.
May 7, 2009 1:10 PM | Reply | Permalink