Deceptions

The Dishonesty of Pragmatism

Whenever a public spokesman or talking head decry ideology in favour of (open-minded) pragmatic solutions, beware.  Lurking behind the statement is always a particular ideology, all the more destructive because hidden.  The appeal to pragmatics over ideology is a subterfuge, a deceit.

The common stereotype is that someone who is ideological in his approach to matter of justice or equity or the role of the state is blinkered, myopic and empty headed.  The pragmatic man, however, comes forth without preconceptions, focusing only upon the facts and realities.  The pragmatic man is subtle, clever, open minded, scientific, rational and so forth.  There is, of course, a natural fit between pragmatism and evolutionism.  Under the latter, things emerge.  New entities come into existence.  Conditions change permanently (or at least for a time).  Ideology tries to prevent all this, locking man into ancient rules and formulae which bear no relationship to the complexities of our modern world. 

Consider how "reasonable" John Kenneth Galbraith sounds to our modern ears:

I react pragmatically.  Where the market works, I'm for that.  Where the government is necessary, I'm for that.  I'm deeply suspicious of somebody who says, "I'm in favour of privatization," or "I'm deeply in favor of public ownership."  I'm in favour of whatever works in the particular case.  [John Kenneth Galbraith, C-SPAN, November 13, 1994.  Cited by Jonah Goldberg, The Tyranny of Cliches, How Liberals Cheat in the War of Ideas (New York: Sentinel/Penguin, 2012), p. 39.]

Whenever we hear such sentiments, beware.  Whilst appearing to be the reflections of sweet reasonableness, lurking just beneath the surface will be ideological commitments as rigid as any--commitments which cannot withstand scrutiny, and which, therefore, must be disguised and hidden. 

Consider the following from Napoleon Bonaparte:

We must lay the blame for the ills that our fair France has suffered on ideology, that shadowy metaphysics which subtly searches for first causes on which to base the legislation of people, rather than making use of laws known to the human heart and of the lessons of history.  These errors must inevitably and did in fact lead to the rule of blood-thirsty men. . . . When someone is summoned to revitalize a state, he must follow exactly the opposite principles.  (Napoleon Bonaparte, 1812.  Ibid.)

This from the man who, in the name of Liberty, Equality and Fraternity sought to overrun Europe and "liberate" it from tyranny.  Each of those three causes is a profoundly ideological statement and commitment.  In the name of that ideology, Napoleon caused rivers of blood to flow.  The dichotomy between ideology and pragmatic is a false one.  The pragmatic man is always profoundly ideological, only deceitfully so.

Karl Marx was profoundly anti-ideological.  His belief was that all political ideologies were nothing more than conditioning of classes in society resulting from the way goods were made: a product of who "owned" the capital, and who provided the labour.  Ideology was simply conditioning: therefore, all ideology was bunkum.  Anyone who disagreed with Marx was subject to the following withering, ad hominem rebuttal: "your argument is nothing more than your class interests talking."  Marx and Marxists alone stood outside the pathetic class-conditioned ideologies and brought a true scientific pragmatism to ideology.  Yet, now even the most obtuse realise that Marx and Marxism were profoundly ideological. 

Behind the professed pragmatist is a deceitful, dishonest ideologue.  Always.