The Pitfalls and Possibilities of Orwellian "Pragmatism"

pragmatic [1]

Definition: of or pertaining to a practical point of view or practical considerations.

If you've been reading the newspaper or watching television recently, you probably noticed the sudden ubiquity of the word "pragmatic." President-elect Obama has repeatedly used the term to describe his new administration, citing it in juxtaposition to "ideology." The media has followed his lead with lines like the one we see in today's Politico [2], which says Obama's new economic adviser Christina Romer "shares much of Summer's centrist, pragmatic perspective on economic issues."

Glenn Greenwald has written extensively on the Orwellian nature of the term "pragmatic" (here [3] and here [4]) noting that the term - and others like it ("competent," etc.) - were used to describe Dick Cheney when he entered the vice presidency. I just want to add one thing - politicians and the chattering class may be portraying "pragmatism" as substitute for ideology, but any honest look indicates that "pragmatism" is mostly being used in the political debate as a euphemism for conservative ideology - and not some new and reformed conservative ideology, but the same stultified and rigid one that was just resoundingly rejected by the electorate.

Lawrence Summers, for instance, is a rigidly ideological figure. He championed the deregulatory schemes that brought us to this economic emergency - schemes that were the definition of "ideological" in that they weren't based on empirical evidence, but on prospective theories about what they would and would not do. Same thing with Tim Geithner and the bailout. Same thing, in fact, with Iraq War hawks who are going to fill Obama's administration.

Somehow, the definition of "pragmatism" or "competence" means only having been part of the last three decades of impractically conservative government, as if that "experience" (another Orwellian term) getting us to this point is desirable in a new administration; as if the "inexperience" of the people who were right in their criticism and pragmatic in their alternate policy proposals are undesirably impractical; as if we should, say, trust the oil companies that created global warming - and not the environmental advocacy groups that had been sounding the alarm - to now lead the fight to stop global warming.

Now let me say, the fact that Summers, Geithner and others are ideological actors is fine at a certain level.

I'm not uncomfortable with ideology - and clearly, neither is Barack Obama judging both by his ideologically progressive platform, and by his ideologically conservative appointments.

What I am uncomfortable with is the use of the term "pragmatism" as a name for conservative ideology, because when it is used that way, it implicitly says that non-conservative ideology is not pragmatic. If pragmatism means "pertaining to a practical point of view," then when you label one thing like conservative free-market fundamentalism as "pragmatic" there is the implicit suggestion that the opposite of that ideology - like, say, progressivism - is not "a practical point of view."

That's the whole goal, of course. Whether it's the constant perversion of the term "centrism" [5] or the Orwellian use of the word "pragmatism," the objective from the media and political Establishment is to marginalize progressivism in this, a supposed "center-right" nation [6]. And what better way to do that than bill discredited free-market fundamentalism as undebateably practical, and anything else as impractical, pie-in-the-sky idiocy?

What's particularly annoying - though not surprising - about this right now is that if there was ever a time for a paradigm shift, it is now. We're facing a potential depression that is a direct result of conservative's ideological and decidedly un-pragmatic policies. Our own history during the Great Depression indicates that the pragmatic way to deal with such a massive crisis is through some good old fashioned ideological progressivism.

Obama, I think, knows this, and is doing something of a dance - one that doesn't seek to challenge or change the Orwellian shenanigans, but to manipulate them for his own - and likely progressive - ends. It could be really brilliant (as long as what he's doing isn't the opposite - an attempt to sell policies crafted by conservatives with a marketing team made up of progressives [1] - I don't think it is, but we can't be totally sure just yet).

As I told Rachel Maddow this week [7], his initial moves suggest a president who hired ideological free-market conservatives, and who will order them to push ideologically progressive policies - all under the mantra of "pragmatism." And doing that is certainly very pragmatic. Assessing the Washington landscape and the economic situation, Obama - in a very pragmatic way - seems to have determined that the practical thing to do is pass progressive legislation, and that the most practical way to do that is to have that legislation carried by free-marketeers whose conservatism gets them painted by pundits as "pragmatists."

Indeed, if Obama can and does do that, he would be both the most pragmatic and progressive president in contemporary history - proving once and for all that "pragmatism" is no substitute for progressive ideology, but in these tough times, a synonym for it.