Filed under: National Issues
The President and others like to talk about being pragmatic rather than ideological. When people think about pragmatism, they think “practical”. Given that, it sounds very rational to be pragmatic, does it not? And therefore, it makes sense that we should dismiss ideology in favor of being pragmatic, wouldn’t you say? It sure is hard to argue with someone who is calling for government to be pragmatic and not ideological, eh?
But what is ideology? Relating to politics, the dictionary defines ideology as, “A set of doctrines or beliefs that form the basis of a political, economic, or other system.” In other words, universal principles are ideology. Is Obama saying that policy should not conform to a set of universal principles (such as the Constitution, i.e. the law) , but that it should be made on an issue by issue basis depending on what the government thinks would best address the issue? That is pragmatism turned totalitarianism.
The thing is, everyone subscribes to one form of political ideology or another; whether it is the ideology of the founding fathers who built the foundation of our government with biblical principles, or it is the progressive socialist ideology of Marx, Stalin, Hitler, and others, or something else entirely. We all have an ideology. Pragmatism is even an ideology for some—the idea that government should be directed purely by “practical” human reason—but often times the idea of pragmatism is used as a guise in order to give other ideologies, such as socialism, the appearance of being very reasonable.
The great problem with pragmatism as an ideology (or as an “alternative” to ideology) is that it is as subjective as human reason. A person can only determine what is practical through the means of their own limited knowledge and mental faculties. One man who has never learned about history or human nature might hear about the needs of people to receive medical care and think it is very pragmatic that the government should provide it for them. Why not, after all? He knows no better. Another person, who is well studied and has a firm understanding of the foundation of our country, of history, and human nature, is confronted with the same issue; but she understands how inadequate tort laws and government expansion have exacerbated the problem, as government programs tend to do, and that the growth of government always means the shrinkage of liberty, and so she stands against it.
Both are pragmatic from their point of view, so which of them is following pragmatism rather than ideology? The word pragmatic is purported to denote being practical, but it is often used in politics and in philosophy to discount the wisdom of conservative principles, history, and the Bible in particular, in favor of a so-called progressive, socialist ideology for mankind which exalts human government as the solution for the problems of the world. Both the Bible and history teach a different lesson—which is why progressives attack/revise both.
