Appeal
to Pragmatism
This
collection of essays evolved over a year long period of rural living which left
me much time for contemplation and rumination.
I had the great luxury of time, time to read in a serious way and be engrossed
in politics and political discussions.
These essays were born out of a larger question of why to advocate
certain political ideas, why being the operative word. Throughout time spent on reading, watching,
discussing, and contemplating, a common theme started to emerge. I believe that American politics and political
discussions have become too ideological, that is our cognition has become
centered on ideology. Our elected public
servants[1]
and our political discussions have become beholden to ideology, it has poisoned
our ability to think critically about issues and problems. We no longer seek to find the most effective
solution to our problems, but to find the solution that fits our predisposed
ideology. In short we have lost our
ability to objectively analysis problems, to compromise, and be pragmatic in
our solutions. United States elected
public servants, political commentators, and each citizen would gain much by
adopting more objective, pragmatic ways of thinking and analyzing
problems. I believe the United States
will be able to craft better policies and solutions to the myriad of problems
it is currently confronting be adopting a more pragmatic approach to policy
making. This collection of essays is an
appeal to pragmatism for the United States.
A
significant downside to a lack of pragmatic thinking in the United States is
that it produces policy solutions that do not have the best interests of the
United States at heart. We are not
asking the question, “What is the most effective policy for the United States?”
but rather, “What is the most effective policy for the United States that fits
my preexisting political ideology?” This
method of thinking prioritizes political ideology over the most effective
solution to the problem in question. The
desire of finding a solution within or that conforms to a political ideology
overshadows the desire of finding the most effective solution for the United
States. Prioritizing political ideology
causes our elected public servants to limit the spectrum of their possible solutions,
usually to either left or right ideology.
It eliminates the possibility of a hybrid solution to a problem that
employs both left and right ideology.
The elected public servants of the United States need to be less
beholden to ideology and more pragmatic in crafting solution to our
problems.
In
addition to our elected officials crafting pragmatic solutions to problems, we
need political commentary and general public debate[2] to
be less beholden to ideology and think more pragmatically. Being so beholden to political ideology has
rendered public debate in the United States virtually nonexistent. Non-eristic debate is about the process of
discovering or uncovering a truth. The
end goal of non-eristic debate is truth.
Our public debates in the United States have become too eristic; they
are about proving a point or persuading others to one’s argument. For example, presidential debates are more
about candidates being perceived a certain way and outlining why a particular
political position is better than their opponents. A presidential debate about healthcare is not
about determining the most effective solution that provides the most efficient
healthcare system for the needs of the United States; it is about convincing
viewers that their plans are the most effective. Ideology being more influential than
pragmatic thinking exacerbates the decline and the greatest inhibitor of
non-eristic debate. How can we try to
find the most effective solution for a problem if we are unable to consider any
solutions or aspects outside our particular political ideology?
The most pragmatic elected public servants in
the United States are mayors. Mayors are
the most pragmatic because they are closer to problems and their solutions to
those problems than any other elected public servants. Mayors are also the easiest to connect to
their solutions to problems and thus, the easiest to hold accountable for the
results of their solutions. Mayors do
not have the luxury of hiding behind vague existential threats like terrorism,
communism, the religious right, the left wing agenda, or the right wing agenda
as national politicians can. Mayors are
forced to find pragmatic solutions to problems that are the most effective
because they are held to a greater degree of accountability. They cannot blame their failures on others as
easily or distract their constituents by evoking vague existential
threats. Mayors are often the most willing
to adopt creative solutions to problems and work with opposing political parties. Cory Booker, the former mayor of Newark, NJ
is a prominent example of a pragmatic elected public servant. Mayor Booker negotiated public sector
cutbacks with unions, expanded government resources for those seeking work, and
embraced public-private partnerships.
The incredible results in Newark during his tenure are sufficient
evidence. I think we should consider
mayors as a more viable option in nationwide elections; their experience is
more suited to pragmatic thinking.
Cities have become the true engines of policy innovation in the United
States by embracing more objective pragmatic thinking. We also need to hold our national elected
officials more accountable as well.
In an ideal situation,
an elected public servant would be able to eliminate a government program
simply because by objective measures it does not work. As time elapses, original factors governing
problems and their solutions change.
Economic conditions, demographics, and society change with time. It is often the case that conditions outgrow
a problem or outgrow the original solution to that problem rendering the
solution and perhaps the problem irrelevant.
It would be nice if our elected public servants could eliminate a
government program for those reasons. Or
perhaps, several academic studies have been conducted and they come to the
conclusion, in an objective analysis, that the government program in question
is ineffectual. The pragmatic solution
would be to eliminate the program.
Unfortunately, in our current world where ideology holds so much sway
over our thinking, we cannot get rid of that government program. That government program becomes more than
just that specific program. It becomes a
representation of whether particular political ideologies are possible. The right declares the death of government
programs and how government policies are ineffectual and, as is often the case
with the right, immoral. The left holds
up the program as a defense of government’s ability to help individuals and the
role the government plays in solving problems in the economy and society. In reality the operative question is the
effectiveness of the government program in question, not whether government can
work to solve problems or not. I think
it would be substantially more productive for the United States to view
programs and solutions in this way, not as part of a larger ideology. I would implore United States elected public
servants to move towards a more objective, pragmatic, fact driven
government.
[1] I
use the term elected public servant deliberately, instead of politician.
[2] I
mention general public debate, because political debate does not just occur on
televised ‘debates’ or in Congress. The
vast majority of debate in the United States happens in coffee houses, dinner
tables, parties and other public/private forms every day. These debates are just as important as any
televised debate on CSPAN.
No comments:
Post a Comment