'Pragmatic' means 'practical'

[HughMoran]

Pragmatic

Meaning:

Guided by practical experience and observation rather than theory

Synonyms:

hard-nosed; hardheaded; practical; pragmatic

Context examples:

a hardheaded appraisal of our position / a hard-nosed labor leader / completely practical in his approach to business / not ideology but pragmatic politics

Similar:

realistic (aware or expressing awareness of things as they really are)


I'll take a high-school educated auto mechanic with 50 years experience (yes, my grandfather) over an MSME (Masters in Mechanical Engineering) any day of the week.


I just thought I'd post this since I've noticed an ever-increasing use of the word pragmatic as a pejorative.

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[canetoad]

2. Good point

I've never considered 'pragmatic' to be an insult, part of the word's definition being; dealing with things in a way that is based on practical rather than theoretical considerations.

As I age, I tend to seek out professionals (vet, doctor, dentist, mechanic) who are pragmatic and experienced.

[depakid]

6. "Pragmatic" in the above sense- as opposed to fighting for principles is what's got Kevin Rudd

in trouble. He went from the most popular PM in Australian history to being on the verge of being rolled in a matter of less than 5 months because the electorate began to question whether he really stood for anything- or could be trusted to follow through on the issues.

This despite keeping Australia out of recession and creating employment numbers that are envy of all the world.

[11 Bravo]

3. At DU it means "sell-out".

[notesdev]

4. Pragmatic in politics means

selling out to whoever forks over the largest campaign donations, or buying votes with the public treasury.

There's a reason it's used as a pejorative.

[amborin]

5. +1 in politics, 'pragmatic' = 'politically expedient'

[Individualist]

18. +1

[Clintonista2]

58. Actually it means getting the most while sacraficing the least. eom

[notesdev]

74. Funny that

how it works out what gets compromised and what does not

[Sebastian Doyle]

85. The evidence of the last 30 years have shown exactly the opposite is true

Just the so-called "health care" fiasco alone - sacrificed far too much and gained next to NOTHING.

[jgraz]

101. I beg to differ

Those politicians who label themselves "pragmatists" ALWAYS seem to get the most for themselves and their cronies while sacrificing the least.

[Iggo]

88. I thought that was what 'efficient' meant.

[Clintonista2]

90. You're right. Pragmatism is efficient. eom.

[LanternWaste]

94. I imagine we all interpret definitions

I imagine we all interpret definitions to better suit our own personal world views and opinions...

[Oregone]

7. I thought it was synonymous with "capitulate"

And sometimes "colluding with"

[HughMoran]

9. Bastardization

[Oregone]

13. Well, shame on the capitulating, colluding politicians for bastardizing the word

[HughMoran]

14. name one.

[Fumesucker]

17. Joe Lieberman..

Not to put too fine a point on it.

[jgraz]

41. win

[HughMoran]

43. Fail.

He's not a Democrat.

[Fumesucker]

46. Where did you specify Democrats?

You asked for an example of a capitulating colluding politician and I gave one..

I guess you forgot or didn't know the fact that Lieberman was the Democratic VP candidate in Y2K?

[jgraz]

49. He said it with his *mind*

What, you didn't pick that up? :rofl:

[HughMoran]

53. C'mon, there must be a better example than that

What party did you think I was talking about, Republicans (like Lieberman)?

[Fumesucker]

59. As another poster pointed out, Lieberman was a long term chair of the DLC..

You know, the *pragmatic* Democratic organization..

Now you claim he's a Republican?

Lieberman is the *ultimate* pragmatist he will even switch parties and philosophies in order to accomplish his goals

[jgraz]

67. Of course, when he was a Democrat, he NEVER pushed for compromise with the right.

:eyes:

[HughMoran]

96. So all the fury in this thread is based on Joe Lieberman?

Do I have to use the Brooklyn Bridge line?

[Fumesucker]

100. No, you asked for an example..

And got the best one available..

That does not mean there aren't plenty more where Lieberman came from.

[donco6]

71. There is no better example. n/t

[bvar22]

50. Democratic VP candidate in Y2K

AND
Chairman of the DLC through most of the Bush years when the "Centrists" thought it was "pragmatic" to capitulate to the Bush Administration, and "Pragmatic" to go along with the Bush Supreme Court nominees of Alito and Roberts.

Since the Right Wing will NEVER compromise with anyone else, it is "pragmatic" for the Democratic Party to move ever to the right in order "to get things done".
QED, the last 30 years,
but especially visible during the year long Health Care Reform debate....the Democratic Party Leadership moved always to the Right, surrendering on issue after issue, and gaining NOTHING in return.
THAT is what your Political Pragmatism has bought us....Capitulation to the Right Wing.
Thanks....not.
:thumbsdown:

[HughMoran]

106. So that's all you got - Joe Lieberman

Universally hated ex-Democrat who's loyal to nobody?

C'mon, don't be shy.

[jgraz]

113. Yes, Hugh. None of us can think of a single other Democrat who fits that criteria.

:eyes:

[HughMoran]

115. I'm still wating

I got all eternity...

[jgraz]

122. Go ahead and wait forever. The rest of us know what's going on.

[bvar22]

119. Oh, you want more?

It only takes one example to invalidate your hypothesis,
but if you want more....

We can start with these friends of Joe Lieberman.
He was their Chairman.
They voted Lieberman as their leader...elevated Lieberman to the position of
Best and Brightest of the DLC.
The man we most want to follow!


The DLC New Team

(Screen Capped from the DLC Website)


"If we don't fight hard enough for the things we stand for,
at some point we have to recognize that we don't really stand for them."
--- Paul Wellstone

[HughMoran]

120. "invalidate your hypothesis"

Since I never posted a hypothesis, I stopped reading your post immediately.

[Name removed]

126. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[emmadoggy]

123. Exactamundo.

:thumbsup:

[kenny blankenship]

8. Or "cowardly and without principle"

as it often happens in practice.

[HughMoran]

11. No, that was the definition of George W Bush

[Sebastian Doyle]

89. It's more like the definition of the DLC

Chimpy stood by his "principles" (for lack of a better word).

Yeah, they were fucked up and accelerated the destruction of this country, but he stood by them.

[kenny blankenship]

107. I can't think of anything Bush wanted that he didn't demand from Congress

Generally he demanded things and generally he got them. That was his manner of putting in requests - with an implied "or else!" at the end of every message. He even tried to demand privatization of Social Security. He didn't get that one, but he didn't let its reputation of being the infamous 3rd rail of politics deter him from asking for it. I don't know if that's courage, but it sure as hell isn't political timidity. His idea of compromise on that initiative was to propose the hollowing out and implosion of Social Security. Often he simply imposed things he wanted (universal warrantless wiretapping) without asking anyone. Or else he selectively enforced and interpreted the law through his novel use of signing statements. Courage? I don't know if Chimpy had enough brain cells to be cautious about anything. Chutzpah? Absolutely! His manner of "consulting" with the representatives of the so-called opposition party was typically expressed in the form of daring the punks to get in his way. His sneering manner was a fit with his principles - the trouble was that both were as close to Fascism as this country has ever seen.

Swaggering arrogance is not the precise opposite of cowardice, but it is far bolder than meekly stating that you'll sign whatever bill Congress and its lobbyist paymasters send you, as Obama did with the health fiasco.

[HughMoran]

110. Bush wasn't that successful

...& it can be argued that our system is set up to minimize radical change.

"

Aaron Wildavsky, a great American political scientist, argued that there are “two presidencies.” Presidents are powerful in foreign affairs, but are institutionally weak in domestic affairs, even under ‘unified government’ where their party holds a congressional majority. Weak parties, strong interest groups, a separation of powers and checks and balances mitigate against strong executive leadership or indeed any sort of leadership. The founding fathers, concerned about tyranny, designed the system to be deliberative, slow, inefficient even. While tax cuts, education and Medicare reform and a strengthening of conservatives’ grip on the federal judiciary may not, to an European observer, seem a particularly impressive list of achievements, they in fact represent a very good return for President Bush’s first term, and more so when the political context, especially pre-9/11, is considered.

Crises help centralise power in the executive over the legislature and the central government over the state and local governments, and Bush certainly benefited from this dynamic post 9/11. His approval ratings rose dramatically and he used his new-found popularity to retaliate quickly in Afghanistan, reorganise the federal government security apparatus and win domestic approval for the invasion of Iraq in early 2003. As a war president, he invoked patriotism and continuity to overcome a strong challenge from Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry in November 2004 and enhance the Republican Party’s majorities in both House and Senate; but Iraq was also Bush’s biggest mistake, and the catalyst for many second-term failures.

Given the constraints noted by Wildavsky, very few presidents are able to leave a significant mark on the American political system. Those great presidents that do, such as Lincoln and FDR, are according to historian Stephen Skowronek “reconstructive.” Only rarely is the American system amenable to such change, but the opportunity usually arises during times of great crisis or flux. The apparent tragedy for Bush is that 9/11 offered him the opportunity to restructure the presidential branch and reframe the political system in his own image for decades to come, but he chose to wage a possibly illegitimate and seemingly un-winnable war that curtailed future choices and reforms.

One such example is immigration reform. Bush and his political svengali Karl Rove figured they could build a long-term Republican majority by winning over the large, quickly growing, Democratic-leaning Latino population. Rove always argued that the Republican Party, with its pro-family policies should be the natural home of hardworking, socially conservative Latinos, but that they were alienated by the party’s restrictionist, anti-immigration image in the 1990s. To redress it and leave a formidable electoral legacy, Bush proposed in his second term to legalise the status of, and offer a “path to citizenship,” for over ten million undocumented immigrants, mainly Latinos. The ambitious plan failed, but it would have stood a much greater chance of success had Bush been a popular, powerful political force. A potentially significant legacy was doomed by his earlier actions and decisions."

[kenny blankenship]

111. He was a shitload more successful advancing a Puke agenda than Clinton was in advancing a Dem agenda

No, he wasn't that successful - he just rolled over the American political landscape like fucking steamroller for 8 years, whereas his Democratic predecessor, who did all he could to appease Republicans by adopting most of their agenda, barely escaped being lynched. By all rights Bush should be in a jail awaiting trial. Just being free when he should be trading bits of string and cigarettes with Serbian war criminals is proof of his runaway & continuing success. He didn't wreck this country by NOT getting his way. He succeeded like Solomon. He did what he wanted how he wanted and the consequences fell on his successor's heads, not his. Obama will spend his whole term living in the house that Bush built, a prison house of imperial wars and extra-constitutional rule. You may not like that house any more than I do, but Bush succeeded in building it and saddling his heirs with it. That stays true so long as Obama refuses to denounce Bush and pull his house down. If your aim was to make me laugh, you are likewise successful.

[HughMoran]

112. Another fact-free opinion post

Yeah, there's no disagreement that Bush is shit, but Obama has had as many significant victories (or more) than Bush did in his first 17 months. Just saying shit doesn't make it true. Also,

"Obama Denounces 'Era of Profound Irresponsibility'
Submitted by Bob Fertik on January 8, 2009 - 5:15pm

In his major economic speech today, President-elect Obama blamed the current recession on the "era of profound irresponsibility" from Wall Street to Washington DC.

We arrived at this point due to an era of profound irresponsibility that stretched from corporate boardrooms to the halls of power in Washington, DC.

__________________________

"Obama's counter-terrorism advisor denounces Bush-era policies
John Brennan accuses the previous administration of promoting a 'global war' mind-set that served only to 'validate Al Qaeda's twisted worldview.'
August 07, 2009|Greg Miller

WASHINGTON — President Obama's counter-terrorism chief on Thursday repeatedly rebuked the Bush administration in a speech designed to make the case for a broader approach to fighting Islamic extremism.

In his first public appearance as the White House counter-terrorism advisor, John O. Brennan said that President George W. Bush's policies had been an affront to American values, undermined the nation's security and fostered a "global war" mind-set that served only to "validate Al Qaeda's twisted worldview."
"
__________________________
"
Obama denounces Bush for sending too few troops to Afghanistan
By Bill Van Auken
11 September 2008

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama blasted as too little and too late the decision announced by President Bush Tuesday to withdraw 8,000 US troops from Iraq and divert combat units to Afghanistan."

[NNN0LHI]

10. Recommended for common sense

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Fumesucker]

15. The means justify the ends..

That's the political definition of pragmatism.

[KG]

23. pragmatists enjoy every crumb.

[Chulanowa]

16. It's used as a pejorative because many DU'ers are ideological purists

And any compromise to accommodate reality is seen as an affront to that ideological purity.

[Fumesucker]

19. It couldn't have anything to do with us older posters watching the country drift to the right..

Steadily now for over thirty years?

Every "pragmatic" compromise takes us further to the right when the right refuses to ever compromise and the left always does.

[Individualist]

20. See my sig line

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

21. How "pragmatic" were those guys that signed the Declaration of Independence?

Or, the people in the labor, womens, civil rights, movement? If they had been "Guided by practical experience and observation rather than theory" they would never dared to take on Great Britain, the bosses, the male patriarchy.

Moderation in temper is always a virtue; but moderation in principle is always a vice. Thomas Paine

[G_j]

24. That Tom Paine quote is excellent

:thumbsup:

[Radical Activist]

62. They were very pragmatic.

Calls for independence had been made years before the Declaration was signed after many attempts at reconciliation with England. The waited to build the support they needed throughout the colonies. They also waited until they felt they had a pragmatic, realistic chance of building an army that could win independence.

The most successful leaders of the labor, civil rights and womens movements were all called sell-outs at some point because of the pragmatic compromises they made to achieve important victories. That includes Martin Luther King, John L. Lewis and many others I'm guessing you admire.
There's no virtue in making strategic mistakes out of some misguided concept of ideological purity.

[jgraz]

65. Sorry, capitulating to John Boner does not make one Martin Luther King, Jr.

:eyes:

[Radical Activist]

70. You'll have to provide some context.

I don't know what you're outraged at Obama for today.

But there's no doubt that King was accused of selling-out to pragmatic concerns many times throughout his career. For example, when he and other civil rights leaders pressured John Lewis to tone down the language in his speech during the march on Washington. They wanted the message to be acceptable to the mainstream audience they would reach that day.

But go right ahead with your simple-minded, black and white thinking. It makes it easier to hold onto your self-righteousness.

[jgraz]

76. You provided the context. I'm responding to your ridiculous comparison.

You seem to not understand the difference between King, who chose a non-violent path based on his faith, and current Democrats, who choose the path of least resistance based on their own weakness and greed.

King was called a sell-out for refusing to join the more radical elements of the civil rights movement.

Democrats are called sell-outs for being, well, sell-outs.

[Radical Activist]

81. And yet, I'm sure the people who accused MLK of selling out

were just as sure as you are that they were right. And so were the Greens who accused Paul Wellstone of selling out. No one ever thinks their views are unrealistic.

Of course there are sell-out Democrats. That doesn't make pragmatism a dirty word.

[jgraz]

132. You're "sure"? You've had a lot of talks with Malcolm X, eh?

:eyes:

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

72. They were also called "impractical idealists" by most of population.

The 1/3 of the population of the colonies that opposed the revolution, and the 1/3 of the population who didn't give a rip, were the pragmatists of the day. As were those who called for "patience" when the Labor, Women's Rights, Civil Rights, and anti-war movements were threatening the status quo.

"pragmatic" politics gave us Bill Clinton and "triangulation" and a congress full "moderates" who vote with Republicans. It is expression of "no we can't" politics.

[Radical Activist]

75. Pragmatism also gave us MLK

who was accused of selling out constantly throughout his career, and Saul Alinsky who celebrated the word, and the revolutionaries who distanced themselves from the Sons of Liberty, and Paul Wellstone who didn't see being effective as a vice. I don't let the abuse of the word stop me from using it correctly.

[jgraz]

79. I'm invoking the Inverse Godwin Rule.

Anytime you resort to comparing people to Martin Luther King, Jr, you've lost the argument.

[Radical Activist]

82. I didn't compare anyone in particular to MLK.

I'm comparing your mindset to people like H Rap Brown. You know, the guy who ran SNCC into the ground.

[Silent3]

140. 3/5 compromise?

Not that I'm against pragmatic compromise, but there were definitely some ugly compromises the "founding fathers" made. They weren't just dreamers and ideologues.

[TheKentuckian]

22. In context, it is just marketing to excuse inaction or selling the people out for

political gain.

It is a cop out wrapped in a Luntz like talking point that regularly ignores real world conditions.

[HughMoran]

32. So 'pragmatic' Democrats are Republicans in your opinion?

Democrats are supposed to be ideologues & have no concept of 'coalition' and 'what can be achieved' given the makeup of Congress?

[TheKentuckian]

48. No, not Republicans but worse traitorous enablers, overseers in the old south meaning of the word

co-conspirators, dishonest brokers, track coverer's, usurpers, and willing obedient slaves to the machine.

Also, fools that believe in a mystical compromise between right and wrong. Cowards without principle. Untrustworthy betrayers. Lying liars that lie. Minions. Bullshit artists. Backstabbers.
Rudderless, amoral, power hungry, enemies of justice, friends of the powerful, anchors for the weak.

We have built a coalition over many decades of seekers of peace, workers, educators, the poor, the disenfranchised, minorities, women, environmentalists, Labor, civil libertarians, protectors of innocents, those who pursue economic justice, and those who care about the least among us.

The coalitions the faux pragmatists desire to build is a scam to allow "stakeholders" more seats at the table and at the expense of silencing voices that represent regular folks and advocates for our needs.

You phoney "pragmatism" aides and excuses the whims of Congress rather than being a response to them.

It is a rhetorical device that allows people to pat themselves on the back and think themselves wise for selling out and defending sell outs.

[bvar22]

61. Well Said +++++++

:patriot:

[HughMoran]

77. So pragmatic actually means someone is backstabbing & amoral?

I guess if we're going over the top in our rhetoric, I might as well add 'murderer'.

Pragmatic politicians can be either good or bad, there's no use in creating a blanket definition IMO.

"Pres Kennedy's rhetoric on the situation in Vietnam exemplifies the way in which presidents balance idealistic arguments, which apply principles of genus to public problem-solving, and pragmatic arguments, which emphasize the efficacy or practicality of politics. Kennedy legitimized his Vietnam policy through his idealistic appeals, casting himself as a principled leader, and deflected criticism and built an image of expertise through his pragmatic appeals."

_______________

"True enough, as an adolescent Obama had quenched his thirst for understanding his place in the complicated ethnic and racial landscape of the United States by reading Baldwin, Ellison, Hughes, Wright, Du Bois, and Malcolm X—a list to which he would add Toni Morrison as well as the multivolume biography by Taylor Branch of Dr. King and the civil rights struggles—but it is clear that none of these authors would come to determine his overall take on political things at its deepest and most pragmatic level. Niebuhr, perhaps more than anyone else, did.

In an interview with David Brooks in April 2007, Obama gave an interesting impromptu response:"

" is one of my favorite philosophers. I take away the compelling idea that there’s serious evil in the world, and hardship and pain. And we should be humble and modest in our belief we can eliminate those things. But we shouldn’t use that as an excuse for cynicism and inaction. I take away…the sense that we have to make these efforts knowing they are hard, and not swinging from naïve idealism to bitter realism."


__________________

"NONVIOLENCE

King argued for a strict, principled nonviolence on three levels: pragmatic, moral, and religious. He saw these three as interlocking and inseparable. But they can be distinguished for analytical purposes.

Pragmatically, he saw violence as self-defeating, because it is embedded in a network of harmful values. "Violence has been the inseparable twin of materialism, the hallmark of its grandeur and misery." "Violence grows to the degree that injustice prevails; the more injustice in a given community, more violence, or potential violence, smolders in that community." When a society feels threatened by its own inadequacies, it uses violence to prop itself up. A militant mass movement that uses violence only increases the sense of threat and therefore provokes counter-violence. This increases conflict, "which in turn breeds anarchy." Out of anarchy comes more injustice and violence.

Nonviolence is the best antidote to violence and injustice, King affirmed. But it must be employed carefully. It must be preceded by careful investigation of the facts, to be sure that there is a real injustice being done. Then there must be a serious effort to negotiate a just solution. If negotiation fails, good people must purify themselves of fear and selfish motives and then take direct action. Action is even more important than the commitment to nonviolence: "There is one evil that is worse than violence, and that’s cowardice." When King spoke of nonviolence, he always meant firm resistance: "the persistent and determined application of peaceable power to offenses against the community" There is nothing weak or passive in it. Far from backing away or easing tensions, nonviolence uses power to increase the tensions that already exist: "A community that has consistently refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue. It seeks so to dramatize the issue that it can no longer be ignored."

In King's analysis, nonviolence is practical because it offers a better chance of controlling the mounting tensions and avoiding mutual destruction. It is "an object lesson in power under discipline." It turns the tensions into a constructive energy that can move the conflict toward resolution. Everyone can see that the resistors are seeking reconciliation, not revenge for past oppression. Their tactics keep everyone focused on the evil being protested, without being distracted by personal animosities. Those who adhere to nonviolence always remember that their enemy is an evil social structure, not the people who support the structure. They accept the traditional American belief that everyone can make a new start, that all people can be redeemed. They even acknowledge that there may be some right on the opponents' side. Nonviolence "helps us to see the enemy’s point of view, to hear his questions, to know his assessment of ourselves." Thus both sides can learn and grow from the conflict.
"

...

____________________

[TheKentuckian]

84. No, just in current context and 'centrist' usage of the word.

It means seeking power for power's sake, at this point as a game of keep away from the TeaPubliKlans as cover.

History has few examples of those that sought power for power's sake failing to abuse it out of all proportion, much less using such power for the good of the many.

[Fumesucker]

78. The ultimate pragmatists were the Sonderkommando..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonderkommando

[TheKentuckian]

117. There ya go. Their spirit lives on today.

[Crystal Clarity]

102. Are we supposed to care what it meant in the "Old" South?

If we are to care about what Southerners believed to be wrong before and during the reformation, then I suppose we should just resign ourselves to believing in and agreeing with what they thought was right too? Is that what you are saying?

I consider myself to be a pragmatist... and a Liberal. The two are not mutually exclusive. A hard life has taught me that sometimes you have to give a little to get that which is most important to you and your values.

History proves that pragmatists have been the most victorious fighters for social justice you will ever know. Just because we are pragmatic does not mean we are giving in or giving up. If you doubt this, I suggest another reading of FDR's lifetime achievements.

[TheKentuckian]

114. Just to avoid any confusion, wouldn't want anybody to think of some

wise race from a comic book or science fiction novel when I was talking about slaves set a little above the rest charged with keeping order, keeping an eye out for massa, and making sure nobody takes on airs in exchange mostly for the chance to be the boss and step on a few necks.

I guess a prison chain gang overseer would almost be as apt but they actually get to go home and collect a check.

As for the "pragmatism", it must be bound up with guiding principles, clear goals, hard dealing, and lines that cannot easily be crossed or it is just a phoney, focus group tested, evasive, and amoral standard mode of operation under the guise of necessity.

Pragmatism cannot be an all purpose shield to excuse bad policy and failure to work in the interest of the people.

The word is not a magic bullet and a free pass to just do whatever you do.

[jgraz]

108. Beautiful ++++++

:thumbsup:

[Robeson]

129. Now THAT, is a post...

...:thumbsup:

[Stinky The Clown]

25. In a political sense, many here do, indeed, consider the word a pejorative, synonymous with . . . .

. . . . . "stand for nothing."

[HughMoran]

35. So you can't have an ideology if you also try to get things done within the confines of

the political realities of the day?

[Stinky The Clown]

37. That wasn't your point and that wasn't the purpose of your OP

You intended to poke a stick in the eye of Obama critics. You did it. Now you're getting pushback. If I thought for a moment you wanted an honest debate, I'd be happy to have one. You don't.

We will never agree, so why even engage?

[HughMoran]

42. Yes, it was my point

I'm not the one being negative here?

Why are you bailing out of the discussion before it even starts?

I've noticed the increased usage of this term as a pejorative, I thought this was a necessary post to clarify what 'pragmatic' means.

I'm being pilloried for it. Enjoy the pile-on. :shrug:

[Individualist]

47. No it wasn't.

You're going to hurt yourself from all that contortion/distortion.

[bvar22]

64. An honest debate...

...would not be a pragmatic way to advance the "Centrist" Anti-Working Class Agenda.
.
.
.
:patriot:

[HughMoran]

91. So you're just going to cast asparagus at me

and run away...?

:rofl:

[HughMoran]

99. Attack and run?

[jgraz]

26. A handy translation guide (for those who need it)

When They Say: Pragmatic
They Mean: Corporatist
Example: "Rahm Emanuel's campaign was a pragmatic success."

When They Say: Grown-up
They Mean: Corporatist
Example: "Unlike Dennis Kucinich, Hillary Clinton is a grown-up."

When They Say: Rational
They Mean: Corporatist
Example: "Harold Ford advocates a rational approach to foreign policy."

When They Say: Reasonable
They Mean: Corporatist
Example: "Max Baucus wants to adopt reasonable restrictions on greenhouse gasses."

When They Say: Centrist
They Mean: Corporatist
Example: "Diane Feinstein's centrist views have not been popular in the more liberal areas of her state."

When They Say: Bipartisan
They Mean: Corporatist
Example: "Joe Lieberman led a bipartisan effort to compromise on the Roberts nomination."

[donco6]

28. +1 for this very handy guide. n/t

[Fumesucker]

30. +1

[Stinky The Clown]

38. Excellent!

[jgraz]

40. Feel free to use it where needed

:D

[TheKentuckian]

86. Fuckin A!!!

[Octafish]

121. That's a most practical Guide.

Handy, too. Thank-a-you, jgraz.

[WillyT]

128. LOL !!! - Most Excellent Guide !!!

Perfect in fact.

:toast:

:yourock:

:hi:

[HughMoran]

135. So mindless reflexive thinking is what you're promoting?

...and all those who agree are thus admitting they are incapable of having intelligent dialog?

Noted.

[jgraz]

137. Exactly, Hugh. You nailed it.

The rest of us stand in awe of your stunning insights.

[HughMoran]

138. Finally.

I've been waiting a long time for you to admit that!

:rofl:

[Radical Activist]

139. Pretty much.

No surprise from this poster.

[Marr]

27. When discussing politics, "pragmatic" means:

"Whatever the powers-that-be will agree to".

There is no such thing as pragmatic, meaningful change. If you begin with the assumption that you can't inconvenience the status-quo, you have no business talking about "hope" and "change".

[HughMoran]

33. Can a President 'change' things without forming 'coalitions'?

Is the President a dictator?

[Bluenorthwest]

36. Is the President a Preacher?

Is the President a bicycle? Is the President a civil servant? Is the President an outdated office? Is the President a plate of eggs and beans?

[Marr]

131. Is the President just a faceless bureaucrat?

The President can lead-- he can set an agenda and put pressure on his party to support it. He can make his own path, so to speak. He doesn't have to just look at the map and choose a nice, paved route that the powers that be find acceptable.

[Bluenorthwest]

29. So tell us, oh teacher, how can a person be both 'faith based'

and pragmatic? When a person says 'my invisible pal tells me to be against equality' how is that based on observation? Is that person claiming they actually see and hear this being?
That is part of the problem, you see, is that Obama alternates, one day he is a cold realist, pragmatic to the point that principle seems antiquated by urgent need. The next, he is preaching faith in the invisible, claiming that such unseen things should inform our law and our treatment of our neighbors who are different.
That is not being pragmatic, nor faith based, that is called 'situational ethics' and it boils down to 'whatever works'.
If a man wants to claim to be pragmatic, and then wants to beat me over the head with his faith dogmas as well, I say that man can pick one, and stand upon it, but they are mutually exclusive philosophies.

[Fumesucker]

31. +1

[Bluenorthwest]

34. And of course, as always...

the lecturing OP can not contend with discussion, nor so much as a follow up question for clarity's sake. Oh, no. They declare and run, which is pragmatic when you are declaring a passel of blather in a public place, I suppose.

[sufrommich]

39. It's used as a perjorative on sites like Free republic too.

A purist is a purist is a purist.

[jgraz]

51. Here, it's just used to justify policies favored by Free Republic.

A corporatist is a corporatist is a corporatist.

[sufrommich]

54. Have you seen Free republic?? Nobody here would last long

trying to justify their nutball ideology.

[jonnyblitz]

57. I see people here trying to justify war escalation which is part

of freeper nutball ideology.

[sufrommich]

69. Lyndon Johnson tried to justify war escalation too,

along with fighting to pass massive civil rights legislation. There is no purity in politics.

[jonnyblitz]

60. I see people here championing charter schools which is part

of freeper nutball ideology.

[Name removed]

56. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bvar22]

55. Party above Principle...

...is simply another demand for Purity.

You seem to miss the paradox.
As soon as one points at another and cries Purist, they have become a Purist.

[sufrommich]

68. Except nobody is arguing party over principle. There

are left and right of center democrats in the Democratic party. Unless you can point to a time when there wasn't, then what is your argument?

[WeDidIt]

44. Excellent OP!

:thumbsup:

[PufPuf23]

45. The path of least resistance is not pragmatic nor practical

Maintaining the status quo for special interests is not pragmatic not practical, just expediant.

My Dad had an 8th grade education from a two room, mostly American Indian school, and was of the smartest humans I have ever met. He was practical. In his early 70s when the doctor told him to cut back abit he bought and spent the next 4 years reading the Britannica cover to cover. Except 3 + years in Europe during WWII, he lived in a remote rural town and was pretty much a black and white thinker with a good heart. He liked FDR (I am partially named after FDR) but also Reagan and did not get the disconnect.

Here at DU pragmatic to some has become a pejorative because the term is used as a cover for not being realistic and practical and being a cover for business interests and the wealthy over the common population.

Education is good and necessary in today's complex world because we must depend more upon each other in so many ways.

[HughMoran]

52. So pragmatic now means "unrealistic" and "impractical" and is related to business int. & wealthy?

Is today 'opposites' day?

BTW, I am the Mechanical Engineer in my O/P, but the only reason I'm a good engineer is due to the practical things I learned from my grandfather (& parents).

[Bluenorthwest]

73. You are simply ignoring all of the reponses you can not deal

You do not understand the meanings of the words you are touting, at all. Are there segments of your engineering work that you leave to faith? If so, do you tell your clients and inspectors this fact?

[PufPuf23]

98. Seems that every day is some Orwellian opposites day for some at DU

Triangulation is not necessarily pragmatic (in your own definitions) nor realistic nor practical nor good in outcome but is politically expedient and a good way to obtain and maintain power.

BTW We have a similar history and appreciation.

Starting about age 10 I spent much of my summers crushing gravel, logging, or road building with my Dad. Days off were prospecting, fly fishing, or hunting depending on the season.

I rebelled and went to work for the US Forest Service under Youth Opportunity Corp age 16 (because it was easier even though I was paid less) and lied and said I was 18 to get a regular job the next summer and ended up a career Fed age 19. Age 21 I went to UC Berkeley to study forestry, primarily ecology and soil science and it was arranged I could work partime at the USFS regional hq research station then in Berkeley. I also quit hunting at 17, was anti-war, and then went to that hippy school (my Dad) when Reagan was Guv and declared war on Cal. Quote my Dad: "You are talking in circles like a government man, what are they teaching you?". The Feds pigeon holed me in my duties (timber sales and road development) because logging and road building were like breathing whereas I wanted to be an ecologist. The Feds paid my at GS-9/11 salary to return to university so I would actually qualify (civil engineering coursework) for the forest engineer job I already occupied. Later I quit the Feds in 1985 after Reagan declared war on the USFS and corrupted the NEPA process against the environment and for big industry much like today's MMS. I went back to Cal for a Haas School MBA. etc etc.

My Dad and I were always friends and at one point came to the peace that neither of us would ever be practical in the same sense. I learned so much from him. I home hospiced him when he passed away in 1996 age 86. I am glad neither of my parents see what has happened in our country.

[HughMoran]

104. Thanks for sharing your story

My dad is an 8th grade educated 'hippy' - I feel so lucky that my dad never bought into the 'system'. We've often egged each other on as to who could be the more 'radical' - lol.

[donco6]

63. I guess using it in a sentence isn't a good idea.

Who knew?

[pecwae]

124. Depends on the subject matter.

Doncha know?

[Radical Activist]

66. Pragmatism is why I didn't run a write-in campaign for President.

Sure, I could do it and I'd have a candidate to vote for who agrees with all of my views. But, what would it accomplish?

Recognizing the difference between effective pragmatism and selling-out is something every activist has to work on. I think a key factor is whether you can keep the ultimate goal in focus and keep taking actions that bring you closer to that goal.

[Name removed]

80. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Clintonista2]

83. are you ok?

[seabeyond]

87. my father said i was pragmatic, as if it was a bad thing. i had to agree with him

but i dont see it as bad.

[William Z. Foster]

92. they are misused

In politics "pragmatic" and "practical" are stalking horses for moving to the right, just as "personal responsibility" means poor people are punished and rich people go free.

Ironically, the things promoted as "pragmatic" and "practical" are often the least pragmatic and practical things. They are the cowardly or expedient things, for the purpose of favoring the wealthy over the working people and deceiving people about that.

[Ardent15]

127. + a million

[NJmaverick]

93. yes, yes it does

[WCGreen]

95. Like many words in the English language, it can be used many ways...

Pragmatic means, to a whole bunch of people, a decided lack of ideology.

[HughMoran]

97. ...and to many others it means the effective application of one's ideology

to achieve goals that help all the people.

[TriMera]

103. In this instance

pragmatic means maintaining the status quo.

[HughMoran]

109. "this instance"?

The textbook definition I posted says nothing of the sort.

[LaFeminist]

105. Pragmatic usually means "centrist Democrat or Centrist Republicant"

or "not liberal," when the word comes out of the pen of a mainstream pundit.

[JHB]

116. it's only used as a pejorative here because the word has been misused here...

...by self-described "pragmatists" who vastly overestimate their practicality. If I may be forgiven for something so esoteric as a Civil War analogy, it's like George McClellan describing his gerneralship as "bold and daring".


Pragmatists who live up to the label use all the tools at their disposal to get the best deal they can.

What's been the administration's biggest obstacle? The congressional Republicans' Soviet-grade lockstep obstructionist voting phalanx. What have the self-styled "pragmatists" done to break that up? There are a number of tactics for doing so, most of which could be pursued simultaneously, and none of which rely on "theory"; they are some of the oldest political tactics in the book.

If those things or anything like them were being done there'd be visible signs, and those would go a long way toward mollifying the discontent you so regularly chide. Sure there'd still be some who'd call it ineffective and too little (there always are), but there would be fewer of them -- a lot fewer -- than the present state of affairs. Keeping your base from faltering is part of practicality too.

And if you can't make your own list of the tactics I'm talking about -- at least in the same ballpark -- then that's a hint that calling yourself a "pragmatist" doesn't make you one.

[HughMoran]

118. Well, that was rather insulting to everybody

..."if you can't make your own list of the tactics I'm talking about ... then that's a hint that calling yourself a "pragmatist" doesn't make you one."

Seems like a cop-out argument to me.

And why are you attempting to make it about me?

"mollifying the discontent you so regularly chide."

Oh, really? This is the first post I've even seen from you, so much for our previous discussions where I've 'chided' you.

[JHB]

125. A "fair cop" not "cop out"

I'll cop to being insulting, not to everyone, just to self-styled "pragmatists".

There's no "cop out". What counts in congress is the numbers, and the biggest obstacle is the Republicans' Party-line voting that lets them obstruct nearly everything. How do you bust that up, at least enough that they can't block cloture of a filibuster? That would give the administration much more room to maneuver and give it a lot more leverage in carrying out its policy priorities. That's an honest, pragmatic political question, and I'd like one of the people who stress the need for pragmatism (doesn't have to be you, this isn't about you) to answer it. Because at least that would show they're thinking about it. Right now it doesn't seem if that sort of thing is even on the radar screen.

Seems like we're getting neither the 50-year-experience mechanic nor the MSME. And that's why the word "pragmatism" gets such a beating around here.

As for making it about you, pot, kettle, black. The only part of my post about you specifically is where I said you regularly chide discontent and criticism of the administration. I didn't say a word about me nor any exchange between us, and you have dozens if not hundreds of posts to that effect.

[inna]

130. innocuous-sounding thread with poisonous msg, unrec'd

[Ichingcarpenter]

133. Pragmatic means being a Corporate Whore

But I guess you knew that

[HughMoran]

134. Back for more eh?

[maryf]

136. my father had a MSME

hard-nosed; hardheaded; practical; pragmatic
all of those too...not very realistic though...