Skip to main content

I like to offer ideas to people.  They may find them useful, or they may not.  No harm, either way.  I also like political philosophy.  For this reason, I offer some ideas on a political philosophy for my fellow Progressives.  

There are many reasons why people may regard themselves as “Progressive.”  I offer you those ideas which have provided a philosophical foundation for case there are seekers of a similar nature out there.

                            All Life is Problem Solving - Karl Popper    

The human brain is the result of millions of years of adaptive problem-solving by life on this planet.  It’s been a process of accretion, not logic, so it’s not perfectly logical.  But the brain is a calculating organ, and, as an organ evolved over millenia, it calculates on both conscious and older sub-conscious levels to solve problems associated with survival.  

Obviously, association with other people has presented a successful survival adaptation for us.  But nature and social life continue to present us with problems, so we are constantly calculating, consciously and subconsciously, the potential risks, costs and rewards that various actions will present to us.  

In sociology, this viewpoint is represented by Exchange Theory.  I would summarize the major premises of “Exchange Theory” as being that

1.    Social interaction of any kind involves a conscious or unconscious calculation of benefits and costs, or expected benefits and costs;

2.    The benefits and costs being calculated include the material, such as money and imprisonment, and the non-material, such as honor and dishonor; and

3.    The objective of this conscious or unconscious calculation is to manage benefits and costs so that benefits outweigh costs to the greatest extent possible.

These principles apply from the smallest social groups, such as families, to the largest, such as nations and multi-national organizations.

I was surprised to discover that Aristotle, in his essay “The Polis,” long ago suggested that social groups were formed on the grounds of the benefits they provided.  At least, that is what I see in his following observations:

“Every State is a community of some kind, and every community is established with a view to some good…”
“In the first place there must be a union of those who cannot exist without each other; namely, of male and female, that the race may continue…”
“But when several families are united, and the association aims at something more than the supply of daily needs, the first society to be formed is the village…”
“When several villages are united in a single complete community, large enough to be nearly or quite self-sufficing, the state comes into existence, originating in the bare needs of life, and continuing in existence for the sake of a good life.”
Thousands of years later, Petr Kropotkin noted in his treatise “Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution,” that our spheres of association provided the mutual support we needed for our survival, and that our spheres of association changed over time to meet changing conditions, such as migrations:  
Sociability and need of mutual aid and support are such inherent parts of human nature that at no time of history can we discover men living in small isolated families, fighting each other for the means of subsistence.  On the contrary, modern research, as we saw it in the two preceding chapters, proves that since the very beginning of their prehistoric life men used to agglomerate into gentes, clans, or tribes, maintained by an idea of common descent and by worship of common ancestors.  For thousands and thousands of years this organization has kept men together, even though there was no authority whatever to impose it.  It has deeply impressed all subsequent development of mankind; and when the bonds of common descent had been loosened by migrations on a grand scale, while the development of the separated family within the clan itself had destroyed the old unity of the clan, a new form of union, territorial in its principle--the village community--was called into existence by the social genius of man.  [CHAPTER V]
Combining these ideas, I would say that we live together in social groups on the basis of exchanges we expect to enhance our well-being and probability of survival.  The social groups vary in size and complexity, and they can change over time, in response to changing conditions.

Survival of the social group and its members is not guaranteed.  The social group and its individual members, through action or inaction, can defeat the purpose of or even destroy the social group.  If the social group is to survive, it behooves the social group and its members to act in ways which are likeliest to result in the well-being of the social group and its members.

How do you determine what that is?  You could take actions on the basis of whimsy, tradition, doctrine or some authority’s pronouncements.  But the likelihood of survival is greatest if  the actions of the individual and social group are based on reason, observation and experience, and are responsive to changes in the natural and social environment.  This is where Pragmatism comes in.

Pragmatism, as a philosophy, basically asserts that propositions should be judged primarily by their real-world results, not their origins, their emotional support, or their reinforcement of existing beliefs.  If an idea is found to work in the real world, again and again, then it should be accepted on that basis, at least until a better idea comes along, or it is discovered to have lost its utility.  As I see it, philosophical pragmatism is essentially an argument for the application of scientific principles to all of the problems which life presents to us – including social, economic and political problems.

This is reportedly the message of philosopher Karl Popper, in his book The Open Society and Its Enemies.  According to Bryan Magee,

“Because he regards living as first and foremost a process of problem solving [Popper] wants societies which are conducive to problem solving....a society organized on such lines will be more effective at solving its problems, and therefore more successful in achieving the aims of its members, than if it were organized along other lines.”

John Dewey, one of the foremost philosophers of pragmatism, used the same idea to argue specifically in favor of democracy and democratic education:

The social condition for the flexible adaptation that Dewey believed was crucial for human advancement is a democratic form of life, not instituted merely by democratic forms of governance, but by the inculcation of democratic habits of cooperation and public spiritedness, productive of an organized, self-conscious community of individuals responding to society’s needs by experimental and inventive, rather than dogmatic, means.
Such an objective is anathema to contemporary American conservatives.  One conservative author goes so far as to say that Dewey’s principles “departed from those of the American founding:”
“In the founders’ view, by contrast, the natural rights of the individual correspond to a series of natural duties, the scope of which vary with the social relationship in question. Thus, while parents are obliged to promote the comprehensive good or welfare of their children, and to sacrifice their personal concerns accordingly, the obligations they owe unrelated adults are far more minimal — e.g. to refrain from interfering with their freedom, to honor contracts with them, and, at the outside, to promote their (mere) preservation. Beyond these duties, individuals are entitled to pursue their own concerns, a right that government, in turn, is obliged to respect. While individuals are free to assume a more robust obligation to unrelated others, as through a church, government itself is not the agent for advancing it.

From Dewey’s (and the progressives’) standpoint, so minimal an understanding of obligation allows men to pursue a degree of selfishness that is developmentally primitive and hence morally disgusting.”

It is not only disgusting, it is also counterproductive and destructive to the fabric of any social group larger than the family.  It is an understanding worthy of the Donner Party at the depth of its hunger, but not of a social group intent upon survival of the group as a group.  

Furthermore, the Founders demonstrably did not hold to a minimally intrusive, laissez-faire, anti-social view of government.  Alexander Hamilton proposed that Congress create a national bank to address the debts of state and national governments, and national tariffs to nurture American manufacturing.  John Adams signed into law the Alien and Sedition Acts, supposed to protect the Federal government from dangerous immigrants and libel.  Thomas Jefferson instituted an embargo prohibiting Americans from trading with England and France, supposing that this would cause England and France to respect American ships and sailors.  And fifty-six Founders signed the Declaration of Independence, which begins with the proposition that all people have equal rights to“Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness,” and they create governments specifically “to secure these Rights.” This is not a prescription for laissez-faire administration.  This is an affirmation that a government’s role, responsibility and objective is to ensure that its members, regardless of status, are protected with respect to their lives, liberties and ability to do the things they enjoy.

In fact, the whole point of the Declaration of Independence was to declare that the government of Great Britain had abdicated its responsibilities toward its American members, even injured and exploited them, to the point that it was necessary for the American colonists to establish their own independent states, to ensure that they would be able to enjoy the “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness” to which they believed they were entitled.

We Americans continue to see our government as responsible for recognizing our social equality and ensuring our equal rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.  This is why U.S. administrations, Republican and Democratic, have sought over the years to institute policies and programs related to such things as public health, public education, civil rights, environmental protection and labor laws.

It hasn’t been a 100-year conspiracy of progressives to create a “socialist utopia.”  It is the result of a progressive, pragmatic evolution of human relations.  We live and work together for mutual aid in survival and happiness.  We share common needs, and we learn from experience that working together with other people enhances our ability meet those needs.  This requires coordination.  It is out of this need for coordination that governments arise.  The more effective a government is at coordinating and ensuring our mutual survival and happiness, the longer it will remain.  Eventually we learn that the survival and happiness of the social group is best achieved by ensuring that the  “mutual aid” we all seek is “mutually” enjoyed by all members of the group, not just a particular individual, class or sub-group, and that the “aid” we seek addresses all of the challenges we face in life, not just defense.  As a result, the majority of us do not subscribe to the Donner Party ethics of contemporary conservatism.

We are not alone.  Centuries ago, Alexis de Tocqueville noted that:

   “Variety is disappearing from the human race; the same ways of acting, thinking, and feeling are to be met with all over the world. This is not only because nations work more upon each other, and are more faithful in their mutual imitation; but as the men of each country relinquish more and more the peculiar opinions and feelings of a caste, a profession, or a family, they simultaneously arrive at something nearer to the constitution of man, which is everywhere the same. Thus they become more alike, even without having imitated each other. Like travelers scattered about some large wood, which is intersected by paths converging to one point, if all of them keep their eyes fixed upon that point and advance towards it, they insensibly draw nearer together--though they seek not, though they see not, though they know not each other; and they will be surprised at length to find themselves all collected on the same spot. All the nations which take, not any particular man, but man himself, as the object of their researches and their imitations, are tending in the end to a similar state of society, like these travelers converging to the central plot of the forest.” [Democracy in America, Volume II, Part III, Ch.17]
This is because life presents similar problems to people everywhere.  And wherever people seek to solve life’s problems by reason, observation and experience, and they are responsive to changes in their natural and social environment, they will experience a progressive, pragmatic and democratic social evolution.  The alternative, in fact, is not so good.

Originally posted to Alex Budarin on Sun Jul 08, 2012 at 05:59 AM PDT.

Also republished by Community Spotlight.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Thoughtfulness (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TomP, linkage, AaronInSanDiego

    I didn't think we still allowed that around these parts.

    You can call it "class warfare" -- we call it "common sense"

    by kenlac on Sun Jul 08, 2012 at 06:06:20 AM PDT

  •  One important fact we need to keep repeating (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    sfcouple, bnasley, Mike Taylor

    is that the gop isn't really conservative.
    Only when a Dem is in the WH.
    They want socialism for big business, but not for poor or middle class people.
    They want corporate welfare. For the 1%.
    They like intrusive, big-brother government when it comes to reproduction.

    This is a great diary packed with knowledge and insight, but it's important that we recognize that there is a fundamental fiction, lie, falsehood at the root of the "conservative" project.
    There's a limit to how seriously we have to take their "ideas".

    You can't make this stuff up.

    by David54 on Sun Jul 08, 2012 at 06:31:47 AM PDT

    •  David54, excellent comments and I would (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      add something to your last line:

      They like intrusive, big-brother government when it comes to reproduction
      and who has the right to marry, and what is the correct and proper religion.  

      "It took us a couple of days because I like to know what I'm talking about before I speak." President Barack Obama 3/24/09

      by sfcouple on Sun Jul 08, 2012 at 09:25:50 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  speaking of pragmatism, local minister today (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TomP, Smoh, linkage, bnasley, WB Reeves

    is preaching on "Modern Miracles in Modern Life", people whom modern medicine could not cure but then were restored through the miracle of prayer.
    His own example is how he had a slip and fall and was paralyzed and abandoned by doctors until his ability to walk was restored by prayer.
    Actual history was he had a slip and fall when he weighed 400+ lbs and landed on his os coccyx and apparently had an "insult (bruise) to his spinal cord".  His doctors recommended bed rest and time as curatives.  While his progress was slow (with some suspicion of malingering), he did recover but over six months, and not suddenly as one would suspect with a miracle.  This sort of "medical miracle" viewed pragmatically, reminds me of Granny Clampett's (Beverly Hillbillies) cure for the common cold which when taken, only took 3 weeks to work

  •  nice essay. (0+ / 0-)

    Dewey and Popper are interesting folks.

    I'm from the Elizabeth Warren and Darcy Burner Wing of the Democratic Party!

    by TomP on Sun Jul 08, 2012 at 06:56:50 AM PDT

  •  They Believe in Community, Just Not Nationally. (5+ / 0-)

    They're not individualists other than the tiny percent of libertarian loons.

    They're tribalists. They expect clan, church, community, and at most the states to be the support network.

    Conservatives never accepted the Constitution, in which the concepts of states' "rights" or sovereignty do not exist, nor in any of the amendments.

    Those ideas are from the Declaration of Independence and the Articles of Confederation. That's the original intent the conservatives and their judges are imposing on a Constitution that put an end to them because they couldn't run a functional society for even one decade.

    Another reasons the corporatists demand limiting authority to the lowest most local level is that they have built their enterprises national and global in extent. The smallest government is the easiest for their global interests to overpower.

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Sun Jul 08, 2012 at 06:57:57 AM PDT

    •  Read the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      pee dee fire ant

      You might want to glance at Article 1, sections 8-10 if you have not recently done so, and also spend some time  with the Supreme Court decisions which bear on that language.

      Amndment 10:

      "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

      The recent ACA commerce clause anxiety is illustrative.

      Where are we, now that we need us most?

      by Frank Knarf on Sun Jul 08, 2012 at 09:28:14 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Conservatives (0+ / 0-)

      do seem to have a strong fondness for the Articles of Confederation period.

      I came across a George Washington letter recently, where he was pissed off and frightened with what was going on at the time. Puritanical busybodies were trying to clamp down on his dancing theatergoing ways.

      If he couldn't dance...

  •  Maybe you could help the doctrinaire Marxists (0+ / 0-)

    who post on Kos to overcome their ideological fixations.
    I am too quick to simply make fun of them, and they could certainly could use a dose of pragmatism.

    But, a note of caution.  The progressive era reminds us that reason, observation and experience lead us to an understanding of nature that is only provisional, and that can serve as the basis for unfortunate political decisions when our models are mistaken for reality.  Also, pursuit of happiness is not the same thing as achievement of happiness.  Liberty and security are always in tension.

    Where are we, now that we need us most?

    by Frank Knarf on Sun Jul 08, 2012 at 09:40:16 AM PDT

    •  Doctrinaire Marxists may laugh at the suggestion. (0+ / 0-)

      That is if they can get past the plain English long enough to catch a whiff of the historical material seeping in this diary.  I suspect that's why you saw fit to ring the bell on the transitory and conditional nature of our supposed "shared destiny."  I'm not one for knocking de Tocqueville, but I view the loss of variety in favor of a few alluring world views as tantamount to breeding in weakness.

  •  Social exchange theory is attractive (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    AaronInSanDiego, Pete Cortez

    because we want to believe that there's something inherently rational underlying human decision-making--the "conscious or unconscious" calculation of rewards and costs.  Problem is, there's really no evidence to support this. Instead people seem deeply and inherently irrational in many of their most important choices. Irrational behavior was apparently a benefit (or at least not a drawback) in our evolution, and evolutionary neurobiologists are now spending a  lot of time trying to explain why that might be.  Like libertarians, true believers in exchange theory can always come up with some explanation for why a particular behavior is, by some stretch of the imagination, inherently rational, but those get pretty twisty, pretty quickly (see, for example, social exchange theories of the market). And like libertarianism, the philosophy of social exchange rests on a model of economic exchange.

    Social exchange theory is a universalizing philosophy that presumes we're all essentially alike (and what we all resemble is a Western rationalist idea of what people are).  Toqueville, while arguable brilliant and a keen observer of European and American society, is hardly an authority on "people everywhere." Exchange theory is often tied to a Social Darwinist argument about the evolution of cultures, as it is here. If only, the argument goes, we were all rational and reality based, the world would be a much lovelier place.  And that exposes the problem with the argument at its heart:  if all of our exchanges are at root inherently rational, and if rationality was the answer to our social problems, then we wouldn't have the social problems we have.  So exchange theory-based social arguments turn into arguments that people who are rational, and who know they are rational, are superior to people who either are not rational or who do not know they are rational (and thus can't understand why they're making the choices they're making). The Social Exchange solution is to tell those not-rational-because-they-don't-know-they're-rational folks to get with the program, and make the decisions that we self-consciously rational folks think they should make.

    There are other problem with arguments like this:

    ... it behooves the social group and its members to act in ways which are likeliest to result in the well-being of the social group and its members
    That's patently untrue (except if we're talking about a moralist sort of "behooving) and it treats "the social group" as if it's homogenous.  One could as easily make the evolutionary counter-argument that the species benefits most from rigid social hierarchies in which the few oppress the many, since most of what Social Darwinists call "progress" has emanated from civilizations in which that was the rule. The problem with theories of evolutionary psychology is that they're inevitably rooted in the prejudices of our own time, and they too often serve to justify those prejudices rather than to challenge them...

    "If you fake the funk, your nose will grow." -- Bootsy Collins

    by hepshiba on Sun Jul 08, 2012 at 10:43:53 AM PDT

  •  Pragmatism = Ends justifying the means. (0+ / 0-)

    Can’t argue with the effectiveness, especially if you don’t believe in Karma.

  •  The clear implication of this article. . . (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Clearly, America is doomed.  Failure to adapt means extinction.  On the brighter side, we have had our century in the lead.  Others  will benefit from our failures; they not hesitant to take the reins of power, prestige, and advancement.  After all, China's economy surpasses ours in only 3 years.

    One day, children will read about our greatness and demise like we read about the failure of the Roman Empire, the Chinese Empire, and the British Empire--with a tinge of knowing sadness and the dawning of inevitability.

    Old Hippies Never Give Up!

    by ravenrdr on Mon Jul 09, 2012 at 02:13:37 AM PDT

  •  Thank you for a great cognitive post. (0+ / 0-)

    Without a doubt, republicans represent the single biggest threat against humanity in the history of the world, and they needed to be treated as such when we take them out. Voting is not enough; we must take them out legally, and if necessary, by other means through civil disobedience. I'll leave it to your fertile and just imaginations what such means may entail.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site