Principle Versus Pragmatism
In this post, AC makes the case for Romney’s and also Bill Clinton’s pragmatism and contrasts that trait with George Bush’s rock solid unwavering ideology. Since I began reading AC and other traditional conservatives like Clark Stooksbury, I have noticed that their conservatism is very loosely defined. In fact, when I wrote an essay outlining my definition of the term, I summoned both of those two to do the same.
In Clark’s definition, he quoted Russell Kirk.
Strictly speaking, conservatism is not a political system, and certainly not an ideology . . . conservatism offers no universal pattern of politics for adoption everywhere.
AC has also revealed a similar belief in many of his posts, including of course, the one linked to above.
But my intent in this post was not to just talk about conservatism, but the belief that pragmatism makes for better governing than firm principles. While AC and Clark consider themselves to be conservatives, many liberals feel the same way. Both groups make up that middle in which both parties seem to capitulate to after the conventions every four years.
Hendrix Keats of Socrates Elegy wrote a really good post a couple of weeks ago espousing similar beliefs. In that post, he wrote:
It is not necessarily true that one will always fail and the other will always succeed relative to any given policy issue, or vice-versa. However, one without the other will always fail, eventually.
In a comment to that post he stated the following.
The basic idea is that adhering too stringently to any one mindset can create blind spots.
So who is right?
Well of course I respectfully disagree with all of the aforementioned individuals and let me tell you why. First off, I need to say that if the politician or leader has bad principles, like the ones held by certain poll watchers on both sides of the aisle, I am quite happy when they violate those principles in the name of pragmatism. If the choice is bad and less bad, I will always be happy to get less bad.
But personally, in my own life, and in my own dealings, rather than approach every issue and every problem on it’s own merit, I bring my principles to the table. If the issue violates my principles, I oppose it. If it does not, I support it. I am even willing to do this in spite of my own self-interest. I don’t see problems and solutions in the short term, but always consider the long term ramifications of violating principles. I don’t like it when politicians watch the polls and constantly try to maintain a consensus on every issue. I despise populism. That isn’t leadership. Leadership is doing what is right and what is best for the country, in spite of what the polls say. Leadership is making hard decisions and sticking to them, even when the public turns against you. Leadership is thinking more in the long term, as opposed to the short term. Leaders have principles, whereas consensus builders lack them. Leadership is, to put it simply, leading.
Ronald Reagan was the leader of a movement. The last three presidents were not. Speaking of Romney, have any of you noticed the amount of times that Mitt Romney has alluded to George Herbert Walker Bush in his speeches? I have always been critical of Bush 41. In fact, I consider the Bush-Clinton years to be a more accurate term than the Reagan-Bush years. So AC’s analogy about Romney being more like Clinton that Bush 43 actually seems pretty accurate.
After reading all of this, you may wonder why I support Romney over the other Republicans. Well I guess as much as I was not a fan of Bush 41, or 43 for that matter, I would still take a George H.W. Bush over either McCain or Huckabee. Huckabee has principles, but they are bad ones and McCain would sell out his own brother for a little air time on CNN. Hopefully though, Romney surprises us and becomes a leader. Hopefully we’ll get to find out.
Well, Clark’s point seems to depend on what one’s version of a “tolerable order” is.
Glen, I think I am actually more cynical than you. Your post felt somewhat optimistic. It was also really honest, which is highly commendable.
I think as Americans we relate to the concept of “principles” in a way that is unique to the world, and possibly to history. The United States was the product of all of the radical Enlightenment ideals. “We” basically invented the modern concept of “principles” with regards to governance. Sadly, corruption seems unavoidable.
Also, things change. That’s just a fact. So I think that some principles arguably may need to be tested from time to time to make sure that they haven’t outlived their usefulness, or been corrupted and/or perverted.
I think that principles and pragmatism exist in a state of dynamic tension. The way I see it is I am rarely sure that my version of what is correct is necessarily worth more than any other randomly selected individual. I will make my points, assertively, but in the end I accept that human society is an aggregate and I don’t claim to have all the answers.
The leadership issue is tough, because we want someone that is not overconfident to the point of hubris, but will strongly trust in their own powers when decisions have to be made. I would say that is a matter of dynamic tension as well and only the best leaders are able to manage it wisely most of the time.
But every person, regardless of religion or lack of religion, possesses a conscious and a concept of freedom, liberty, and justice. A nation has to decide on principles, principles like rule of law that hold society together. When we violate those in favor of doing what seems morally right, we set the whole system up for failure. That is why it is imperative that we have principled individuals in public office, as opposed to consensus makers. Now obviously this is difficult in a republic and obviously we don’t want a tyrant. But a principled leader, like one for instance, who believes in the constitution, will be fair to all people and all religions and cultures. He will transcend those lines, because he will be fair. A man like that is hard to find though, I know.
A nation has to decide on principles, principles like rule of law that hold society together. When we violate those in favor of doing what seems morally right, we set the whole system up for failure. That is why it is imperative that we have principled individuals in public office, as opposed to consensus makers.
So, after seven years, you’re seeing the light, as well?
.
I respect the President’s unwavering support of the war on terror, in spite of negative polling, but domestically speaking he has shown absolutely no leadership whatsoever.
I respect the President’s unwavering support of the war on terror, in spite of negative polling, but domestically speaking he has shown absolutely no leadership whatsoever.
Bush has been a bizarre combination of Ronald Reagan on national security and LBJ on domestic spending.
Basically what you just described is a Democrat prior to the modern era. The Republican party that Bush made is like the Democratic Party of the 70’s.
I saw this post on Sitemeeter and thought I’d read it again. Damn I’m a good writer sometimes.