The guys over at Open Left are taking the New Year off and running a few “greatest hits”. One golden oldie was a post by Daniel De Groot titled In Defense of Ideology. In the post, Groot attempts to demonstrate the “underlying fiction which claims there is some practical ideal route of policy that can eschew ideology itself.” But by framing the argument in such a way that pragmatism seeks an ideal is to miss the point of pragmatism all together. If you have an ideal in mind then it is impossible to remove ideology. According to Dictionary.com, pragmatism is:
A philosophical movement or system having various forms, but generally stressing practical consequences as constituting the essential criterion in determining meaning, truth, or value.
Pragmatism is not about reaching an ideal solution. Instead, the pragmatist seeks to find the best solution possible given a set of circumstances. Ideology should play a role only in prioritizing certain problems over others.
De Groot quotes Glenn Greenwald at length:
If one discards the need for ideology in favor of “pragmatism” and “competence” — as so many people seem so eager to do — then it’s difficult to see how one could form any opinions about questions of this sort beyond a crude risk-benefit analysis (i.e., ”pragmatism”). Are there military and economic benefits to be derived for the U.S. from invading Pakistan? Bombing Iran? Lending unquestioning support to Israel? Escalating our occupation of Afghanistan? Remaining indefinitely in Iraq and exploiting their resources? Propping up dictators of all types? Deposing Hugo Chavez? Torturing suspected terrorists for information, or detaining them without process? If so, then those who are heralding “pragmatism” as the supreme value — or at least something that should trump “ideology” — would have no real basis to oppose those actions. It is only ideological beliefs that permit opposition to those polices even if they are “beneficial” to our “national self-interest.”
Setting aside the use of quotes around “competence” (which seems to imply that competence should join pragmatism in being subservient to ideology; [cough]Bush![cough]) the real problem with this statement is that he really is equating pragmatism with a crude cost-benefit analysis, very crude. Pragmatists have countless reasons for opposing the examples he provides and can do so without ever coming close to violating the internal logic of pragmatism. Greenwald’s problem is that he takes the cost-benefit analysis through only one iteration. Yes, initiating air strikes against Iran would destabilize a regime which has created foreign policy problems for the United States for a very long time. But that does not make taking such an action pragmatic, for the simple reason that if you take that line of reasoning one step further, it is immediately apparent that the consequences of such an action would be hugely detrimental to U.S. national interest. Air strikes would undermine the growing populist revolt in Iranian cities, provoke a possible nuclear response against allies in the region, and be seen by many in Europe, Asia and Africa as a gross misuse of American power. Sure, the Israelis would love us for it (unless they got nuked in response) but what does that accomplish? Not a damn thing. We would likely wind up with a new regime with an equal or even more reactionary anti-American stance. Parallel pragmatic arguments can be made against doing everything else on Greenwald’s list. They are all very bad ideas.
Earlier in Greenwald’s piece, he asks:
If, on a pragmatic level, the consequences of attacking Iraq had been different than what they were — if we had been able to invade and occupy relatively quickly and derive substantial material gain from doing so, including somehow making ourselves marginally “safer” — would that have made the Iraq War a just and desirable action? Isn’t more than pragmatic calculation necessary to inform foreign policy decisions?
First of all, the consequences of an action, whether going to war or buying coffee are the same no matter what the context. To speak of the consequences “on a pragmatic level” is incoherent. Secondly, yes, if the consequences of an action are different (and those consequences are foreseeable) then the decision reached by a pragmatist may be different. This is not to say that the conditions he details above would have made the Iraq War justifiable. It still would not have been. (If Blix’s inspection team had uncovered an active nuclear program capable of striking U.S. allies, then, perhaps, war could be justified.) I am merely making the point that pragmatists base their decisions on what the likely consequences will be, which stands in stark contrast to an approach that favors ideology, which leads to dismissing methods that do not fit within the ideology despite the chance that those options might accomplish goals that are in line with the ideology.
De Groot ends his piece by saying:
Ideology is not a dirty word. ”Ideologue” may be, but they’re not the same thing. Without it, we are adrift in a sea of problems, without a compass or a destination in mind.
Granted, everyone has their own point of view. Ideologies are necessary, if only so that we can decide which problems to address first, which costs we’re more willing to bear to reap which benefits. But an ideologue is someone who puts ideology above all else, which seems to be what De Groot and Greenwald are arguing for.
Of course we cannot do away with the concept of ideology. But the ideologies we seem to cling to today are too rigid to be helpful in governing today’s society. The challenge in governing today’s society is to fix our ideologies so that they don’t hamper our own efforts at advancing them. My initial posts on this site, for instance, outline an ideology that is highly flexible and cannot be fixed to any one point on the political spectrum. By developing new ideologies that focus on the quality of the results instead of the nature of the solutions, lawmakers would be better able to develop pragmatic policies (i.e., effective and within the realm of possibility) that voters would largely approve. Ideology must take a back seat to pragmatism. No matter what ideology a majority may hold to, voters will quickly start looking elsewhere if you fail to get things done.