I have a problem with the Obama definition of 'pragmatic'

[bigtree]

from his remarks today introducing his national security team:

To succeed, we must pursue a new strategy that skillfully using, balances, and integrates all elements of American power, our military, and diplomacy, our intelligence and law enforcement, our economy and the power of our moral example. The team that we've assembled here today is uniquely suited to do just that.

In their past service and plans for the future, these men and women represent all of the those elements of American power and the very best of the American example. They've served in you uniform and as diplomats. They have worked as legislators, law enforcement officials, and executives. They share my pragmatism about the use of power and my sense of purpose about America's role as a leader in the world.

It's really not clear whether Mr. Obama's 'pragmatism' is the best representation of that term. If it's true, as defenders of the make-up of his national security picks insist, that Mr. Obama will stand firmly on the left of where his decidedly centrist choices stand, then he's just contradicted that notion with his presentation today.

Mr. Obama has declared that his nominees 'share' his pragmatism, meaning that he believes that the mushy middle is 'pragmatic.' But, there isn't really a definition of pragmatism which defines where that 'center' actually sits.

Obviously Mr. Obama feels that the moderate tone he has adopted since the more populist rhetoric of the campaign is 'pragmatic.' But, he's not bothered to present any progressive voices with the same pragmatic embrace that he has these centrists in his transition.

It is true that pragmatism is an attempt to reconcile ideological arguments into a reasonable compromise, but it's also true that many progressive views and approaches toward issues and governing can also be 'pragmatic' in their execution and result. It's just a convenience, which is generated by the choices Mr. Obama has made to represent and advise him so far, that he's able to assert that these choices represent some pragmatism.

It's also true that the progressive voices who have been shunned by his transition are being marginalized in his administration into a category which suggests their approach may be unreasonable or extreme. Marginalizing independent progressive voices and presenting his centrist choices as 'pragmatic' is not an approach I expect or understand from the new president.

If he is to provide the dominant progressive voice in his administration as supporters of his actions in this transition suggest and produce the pragmatism he promises, he'll need to define himself outside this inner circle of centrists and moderates. The best way to do that would be to bring some dominant progressive voices into his administration and present them with the same definition of their approach as 'pragmatic' that he's now associating with just one side of the ideological divide in our party (and elsewhere).

[FrenchieCat]

1. Seems clear to me....

"we must pursue a new strategy that skillfully using, balances, and integrates all elements of American power, our military, and diplomacy, our intelligence and law enforcement, our economy and the power of our moral example."

Did you expect him to break out in a Kumbaya holding hands with his nominees or something? :boring:

[bigtree]

9. no, I expect for him to have a wider spectrum of views in his administration

. . . then he can talk about compromising or reconciling those views. Right now, it's his supposed progressiveness balanced against the centrists and moderates he's chosen, most prominently on his national security team.

The op really wasn't 'clear' to you was it?

[Oregone]

2. Question: How damn "pragmatic" do you have to be when you control the legislative and executive?

Im becoming really confused on this at this point. Pragmatism is born from necessity, whereas someone does the best that is possible under the circumstances, rather than the ideal. The last I checked, the circumstances permit the ideal, and hence, all this talk of "pragmatism" is simply a cover for being a "centrist".

[bigtree]

11. it really is his attempt to define his centrist picks as mainstream

. . .and the only conclusion I can draw from that is that he considers more progressive choices outside of that 'pragmatic' mainstream.

He can fix this though, by elevating and touting progressive choices in the same vein. He really hasn't yet though. I'm still waiting.

[gravity]

3. The progressives have to be pragmatic themselves

If you aren't willing to compromise and work with others who don't always agree with you, then you have no use in the Obama administration.

[Mari333]

5. there are progressives in the obama administration? n/t

[bigtree]

7. There are plently of progressives who are pragmatic

They just aren't being represented or promoted by the leader of our party yet.

[frazzled]

4. You are misunderstanding the use of the word 'pragmatism,' I believe

You say "It is true that pragmatism is an attempt to reconcile ideological arguments into a reasonable compromise."

No, I don't know quite where you are getting that idea. Obama's use of pragmatism is closer to the philosophical use of the term dating back to William James--meaning "eschewing the ideological altogether." That is very, very different from reconciling ideological arguments into a compromise. Ideology doesn't even enter the picture in pragmatism.

I recommend highly the book by Louis Menand called "The Metaphysical Club." It is about the pragmatist movement in the United States after the Civil War, when ideology was felt to have led to excessive carnage, and the great thinkers began to shy away from ideology in favor of a program of pragmatism. It's a long read, but very very interesting on American history in the second half of the 19th century.

[bigtree]

6. there's no way that he's 'eschewing ideology altogether'

Neither are the folks he's chosen. If that's his claim then it's bull.

[cali]

8. lol.

your antipathy toward Obama has long been clear. Funny from such an ardent Hillary supporter.

[bigtree]

10. you can't make every argument assuming everyone is still fighting primary politics

If we were, then I would get credit for the areas and efforts where I did and do support this president. You can't pigeonhole me into your petty little box.

[DainBramaged]

12. (sigh)

[H2O Man]

13. "Pragmatic"

is from the Latin "pragmaticus," which meant to be skilled in a field such as law or business. In the current use, it means the ability to use power to accomplish what is possible, as opposed to idealism, which tends to aim for goals beyond one's power to achieve.

The two words were often used to describe John and Robert Kennedy. Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., famously pointed out that President Kennedy was considered a pragmatic politician, though he was in many ways an idealist; while Robert became known as an idealist, though he was actually pragmatic.

The word is, at times, used in association with ideology. However, Obama is clearly using it in the original sense, meaning that he is looking to accomplish that which he has the power, or ability, to achieve.

[bigtree]

14. Oh yes, I think you are correct in how Mr. Obama is using the term.

But, what I've seen in the past few weeks is a promotion of centrists and moderates he's chosen to represent and advise him as 'pragmatic.'

I've gotten the impression that he's using that term to justify the choices against criticism of his lack of progressive choices, in that he feels these centrists and moderates are what's required to 'accomplish that which he has the power, or ability, to achieve' as you say, and that more progressive choices would hurt that effort. I'm not convinced of that. I think we have a great opportunity to assert the fullness of our Democratic values and present those for debate. I don't believe this is a time for timidity or apprehension based on what opposition figures in Congress or elsewhere might think of that assertion of progressive principles and initiatives. I think the notion that these folks, as some have asserted, will provide 'cover' for some progressive agenda from Mr. Obama himself doesn't square with the history of these opposition actors in Congress. I don't think the effort will do much for those folks outside of the government either, who he may be trying to influence, to promote the institutional change he's promised. I think it's past time to put our best progressive foot forward.

I must say, that I've become convinced of the value of asserting our progressive politics by some very prominent posters here at DU. Nothing, in my view, could be more pragmatic than the exercise of progressive politics which is inherently geared toward ultimate resolution of issues in our political system as opposed to half-steps and equivocations. That's the type of advocacy that I want represented wherever Pres. Obama asks for advice and counsel.

[Enrique]

15. you're speaking a different language than he is

Obama rarely if ever speaks ideologically. Your post is based in ideology.

[bigtree]

16. I believe he's well aware of the ideologies of those he's surrounded himself with

. . . as he is his own, even though he may well not express them directly. I don't believe that most of these politicians and principles he's chosen will shed their ideology as they operate. I don't believe he will either, whether he speaks of it or not.

In a lot of ways, these labels are just shorthand for a set of positions and principles which reflect past performances and advocacy of these politicians and their confidants. In the case of the Obama transition, the choices he has made are mainly folks who have supported issues and positions which are associated with moderates and centrists. We can refuse to categorize those, but we're still left with a decidedly conservative mindset that most of the appointees share. Conservative in the sense that these individuals have not demonstrated a commitment to press for progressive change in the operation or result of government. There's an attitude from many of the appointees that is wedded to preserving the status quo on many issues or restricting the measure of change on others. So, the labels are just shorthand for expressing those intentions and characteristics of these appointees' perspective and belief.