Or so says some. Yes, the title is a snark, but it reveals, I think, an important problem. It seems to me that this sort of thinking is precisely the problem, as it ends up bowing to the status quo and the dictates of polls and conventional wisdom. Thus, for instance, we've seen a democrat leadership that voted for the war in Iraq, that voted for the Patriot act, which consistently sides with corporations to the detriment of workers, and which thinks it's of vital importance to make sure there's no graphic sex. Recognizing that it is no longer distinguishable from moderate Republican positions, it then decides that "framing" is the true solution to our problems. That is, if we just talk about things differently, then we'll win back our power.
Well I say No!
More below the fold.
Pragmatism is precisely the problem, because pragmatism is the philosophy of both complicity and subordination to the status quo. Why? Because pragmatism restricts itself to what it believes is possible within a socio-historico situation, arguing that anything else is impossible. Just read James. Just read Dewey. Just read Peirce. In all of these cases there is always an analysis of the socio-historico situation and claims about what is and what is not possible in that situation. If you read more contemporary pragmatists such as Richard Rorty, all politics becomes a game of compromise and consesus, which is premised on the idea that there are a shared set of assumptions between positions and that the middle point is always the best. As such, a democratic party that hitches its wagon to the logic of pragmatism is necessarily going to end up treating the talking heads and the polls as its guide as it must map the socio-historico situation in order to determine what policy decisions are possible at this point in history. This is the whole problem with the framing game as well.
Now someone will respond to me that it is perfectly reasonable to hitch your wagon to what people are prepared to accept or what strikes them as "common sense". Hence we get the whole position of "framing". The idea is that we must frame our positions so as to appeal to the common sense or the received wisdom that characterizes the thought of voters. I'm all for good communication, but I think this is a mistake. This strategy would only be desirable if we didn't have a Republican machine that has spent billions of dollars and shed liters of sweat getting out there and defining what common sense is through the media, talk radio, mailings, and clever soundbites. In short, adopting the policy of pragmatism or "what is reasonable to the common sense of our time" just means that democrats are doomed to become "republican-lite" and move further to the right. The problem is that many in the current democratic party don't have any courage of conviction. That is, they've capitulated to the rightwing noise machine and now believe that Americans are too turned off by words such as "liberal" for them to make any real difference. In an attempt to circumvent this problem, they've begun to act and talk more like Republicans by taking on Republican policies. Yet when you talk like your opposition you've already conceded victory to your opposition. The key is to transform the very coordinates of debate. This is why liberals are currently fleeing the democratic party and why diaries like this are being written. One of two things is going to happen in the future: either the democratic party is going to pull itself together and start seriously endorsing progressive principles (and, more importantly, acting on progessive principles) or its going to die. There is no third way. These principles are very simple: they consist of liberty, equality, justice, and reason. They are principles that are universal. They are principles that pertain to all and not simply to some privileged group such as corporations, whites, men, Americans, or Christians. And they are principles that are public. That is, they are values that we can agree upon publically and through reason, even if a number of our other values are essentially private or a matter of custom. In short, these principles are the foundations of a flourishing and peaceful community. Whereas governance founded on particularism-- the rule by the customs of a particular group such as Christians --always lead to conflict because one's only choice is either to agree or be excommunicated.
The issue of having courage of conviction is tremendous. It's not simply about having values. It's not simply about talking about values. It's about being willing to act on values even when those values seem unpopular and out of step with "popular common sense". Democrats seem to lack faith that they can actually change the contemporary socio-historico setting, and for this reason they're perpetually capitulating. But this attitude shows a remarkable ignorance towards history. I've repeated it now so many times that I'm beginning to feel like a broken record, but look at history. Nobody thought that the American revolution could be successful, but it was. Nobody thought the French revolution could be successful but it was. Nobody thought Civil Rights could be successful, but it was. Nobody thought women's emancipation and suffrage could be successful but it was. Nobody thought the labor movements could be successful, but they were. Nobody thought Darwin, or Freud, or Newton, or Copernicus, or Einstein, or Galileo could be successful, but they were.
In each one of these cases we had movements that violated all "common sense" or all expectations of what was possible in the given historical situation and in each case we had radical transformations of our culture as a result of the committed involvement of a devoted group of revolutionaries.
It is vital to risk disagreement. It is vital to risk saying things that seem to go against all received wisdom. It is vital to stand up for one's principles even when people are filled with fear and lusting for revenge. People will disagree. People will think you're mad. People will think what you say is impossible. But this is all apart of the struggle. For every person that disagrees, there will be a few fence sitters who are won over to your position and who go out and talk to five more people.
This is what hardnosed political engagement is all about: making what is believed to be impossible, possible... Not capitulating to the received wisdom and "common sense" of the day. It is the refusal of the Democratic leadership to engage in this sort of militant struggle that makes it so difficult for me to today count myself as a democrat. Yes, I have consistently voted democrat. Yes I have consistenty worked for democrats. Yes I generally feel that their values are my values. But increasingly it's becoming harder for me to believe these things. I feel as if I am asked to support democrats because they are called democrats, rather than because of what principles they actually endorse and act upon.
I am disgusted with all those democrats who voted for the war. I knew better at the time. They should have known better. I don't accept the argument that they were duped by Bush. They were looking at polls rather than standing up on principle. Reason dictated to me that something was amiss in the buildup to the Iraq war. Here and there I heard remarks that evidence wasn't as strong as the administration was claiming. I was suspicious of the way in which Bushco spoke as if the decision had already been made when the U.N. investigators were still there. I saw all these things and yet I don't have any special intelligence clearance. Why didn't my representatives see these things as well? I think they did, but were too afraid to speak up for fear of bringing about the wrath of an American people drunk on lust for revenge and bloated with fear. These are not sound grounds for making decisions. I am disgusted with all those democrats who voted for the Patriot Act. I am disgusted with all those democrats who voted for the Bankruptcy bills. And so on and so on. They were afraid to stand up, they were afraid to fight, they were afraid to go against conventional wisdom... A wisdom created as a political tactic by the right wing.
The splendor, the majesty, the militant granduer of Howard Dean was that he was willing to stand up and say something that went entirely against conventional wisdom during the elections. He was unbelievably successful in doing so even if he didn't win. What would have happened if the democratic power-brokers had also gotten behind him and supported him in that message? Where would we have been today. I refuse to side with a party which has become only a label or a brand name. I identify with principles, not names, and if that party is not representing those principles it is not my party. What we need is more Deans and people who are willing to take the risk of following their principles rather than engaging in the politics of compromise with rightwing agendas. The "values" question shouldn't even arise for democrats because we're already clear on our values: liberty, equality, justice, and reason. What we need to do is act on these values. Being "pragmatic" is just another word for capitulating to the right, rather than changing the rules of the game altogether through one's devoted interventions and action. We've had too much pragmatism. Now it's time for something else.