_The false pragmatism of a "pragmatic compromise" with failure_ (http://www.openleft.com/diary/18733/the-false-pragmatism-of-a-pragmatic-compromise-wit h-failure) by: _Paul Rosenberg _ (http://www.openleft.com/user/Paul%20Rosenberg) Sun May 16, 2010 at 14:00
How do you make a "pragmatic" compromise with failure? Pragmatism, after all, is concerned with what works. And failure, by definition, is what doesn't work. You can no more make a pragmatic compromise with failure than you can tell an honest lie. Yet, the idea of a pragmatic compromise with failure is the very essence of the Obama presidency--except when compromise blends imperceptibly into full-scale mimicry. Bush's war on terrorism was an utter failure, killing hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis, Afghans and others for no good reason, just like Osama bin Laden said that America always wanted to-and thereby recruiting more potential terrorists than bin Laden ever dreamed of. Obama's compromise was to kill fewer Iraqis and more Afghans, plus assorted other dark skinned people from Pakistan to Yemen to Somalia. Bush's response to global warming was to ignore it and give oil companies everything they want. Obama's compromise was to pay attention to global warming and still give oil companies everything they want. Bush's attitude towards civil liberties was to trample them underfoot gleefully. Obama's compromise is to cut back on the glee, pretending to be serious, even troubled. Bush's response to the Wall Street meltdown was tons of free cash given away by the former head of Goldman Sachs. Obama's response to the Wall Street meltdown was tons of free cash given away by the former head of the New York Fed. Bush's approach to education was to install a fellow Texan with a much-hyped, but ultimately failed educational record running Houston's school system as Secretary of Education, and instituting a narrow, test-driven plan deceptively labeled "No Child Left Behind." Obama's approach to education is to install a fellow Chicagoan (a basketball buddy, in fact), with a much-hyped, but ultimately failed educational record running Chicago's school system as Secretary of Education, and instituting a narrow, test-driven plan deceptively labeled "Race To The Top." It's no accident that conservative policies fail. They're meant to fail.... (http://www.openlef t.com/showDiary.do;jsessionid=37AA8FC0716A6437F93BD10A1C219548?diaryId=18733) Conservatism is a philosophy of elite rule, of tradition and privilege, respect for authority, doing what your betters tell you-a philosophy, in short, of enshrining yesterday's answers without even bothering to find out what today's questions are-never mind tomorrow's. Conservatism values things like loyalty-i.e sucking up to the boss, even when he's tragically wrong-and despises things like empathy-i.e. giving a damn about anyone who's not above you in the hierarchy of things. So long as things don't change too much, too fast, it can almost look like it works. Sure, you keep on making the same old mistakes over and over and over again. Failures and successes are repeated endlessly with equal vigor. But as the old Les McCan and Eddie Harris song put it so well, compared to what? There was nothing better to compare to conservatism's blind repetition of failure and success. The catastrophes that came from conservatism's failures were just part of life, a test from God for the good, punishment for sin for the not-so-good. This is not to say that better ideas didn't come along. Of course they did. But the whole idea of better ideas-which would have made for a real alternative to conservatism, that did not exist, at least as far as most people were concerned. There had been a time when the idea of progress had existed. That was back in ancient Greece, when the foundations of Western Civilization were being laid. But the West had gotten over that a long time ago... until the Crusades accidentally opened up the door to the West's past, reintroducing its classical roots from the safe-keeping of Islamic scholars, and giving rise to the Renaissance, and the birth of modern humanism. In time, this would be followed by the Reformation and the Enlightenment, three profound social transformations that infused the West with new visions of possibility-not to mention a method of continuing to create new possibilities, a method known as "science." The dynamism of the modern world made conservatism's failures strikingly evident, as never before. The generation of new ideas made the idea of alternatives inevitable to some, and thus grew the basis for comparisons that could find conservatism wanting. What's more, the pace of change was such that even things that had previously worked no longer necessarily did: feudalism, for example. America was founded on the idea of progress. It combined the philosophy of political liberalism, expounded by the likes of Hume and Locke, with older examples of republican government restructured to work on a scale that previous republics had never imagined. It was a wholesale repudiation of the conservative notion of the "divine right of kings". Indeed, it made no mention of God, and only spoke of religion to ensure that it was entirely separate from government. Over time, of course, America developed its own entrenched elites, and after the Southern elites nearly destroyed the country with their treasonous war of aggression to preserve slavery, its newly unified Northern elites consolidated power as never before. They made their money from technologically advanced industries-railroads, steel mills, oil wells, and eventually automobiles-and the association gave them the deceptive aura of being scientifically advanced as well, as if they knew exactly what they were doing... just as the pre-modern elites could claim, on the basis of being chosen by God. They hit a few bumps along the way, but after WWI, they appeared triumphant, not just over every aspect of American political life, but as the new contenders for world power, as Europe lay shattered. But then, of course, the Great Depression arrived, and showed that their mastery was all a sham. They were so thoroughly discredited that it would be another 70 years before the conservative elites got full control of things again, and within a few short years they produced another global financial disaster. At this point, the pragmatic thing to do would be to get rid of them once and for all. They have proven themselves incapable of the very things they promise above all: creating stability, prosperity, and just rewards for diligent hard work. Indeed, they are anything but "conservative" in the most appealing sense of the word, the sense they have used to gain the trust of countless millions throughout the ages. They are reckless gamblers whose only interest in conserving anything is their own iron grip on wealth and power. For everyone but themselves, everything they touch turns to ash. Again: the pragmatic thing to do would be to get rid of them once and for all-drive them from power, and consign their failed ideas to the history books. Instead, we've got a President who says that nothing is more important than compromising with their abysmal record of failure and deceit. What could possibly be more foolish than this? It is a path that's utterly guaranteed to prevent us from solving any of the problems that now confront us. Indeed, the notion of pre-compromising with with failure ensures that we won't even have the briefest of discussions of ideas that might actually work. In nominating Elena Kagen to the Supreme Court, Obama praised her for "her openness to a broad array of viewpoints; her habit, to borrow a phrase from Justice Stevens, 'of understanding before disagreeing'; her fair-mindedness and skill as a consensus-builder." There's no doubt this is how he sees himself as well. But what increasingly bothers progressive critics is the flip side of that: the question of whether he has any clue at all about understanding those whom he supposedly agrees with. My answer to this, quite frankly, is "No!" It's not that he doesn't understand the nature of liberal/progressive thinking--although that's certainly true. The problem is much deeper than that: Just like Dan Quayle, he doesn't understand some of the most basic facts in the various major issue areas. He does not understand that a war response to terrorism is like fighting fire with gasoline. He does not understand that massive deficit spending is what finally ended the Great Depression, and that "fiscal responsibility" is what caused the Recession of 1937/38, which considerably prolonged the agony of the Great Depression. He does not understand that global warming is a physical process that can't be negotiated away in the Senate. He does not understand the difference between free markets and monopoly capitalism. He does not understand that Glass-Steagall worked, and that it was repealed because it worked. The list goes on and on. It would be one thing if Obama understood these basic facts, and yet felt that political compromises were necessary to accomplish immediate political goals. In that case, he would stand up and argue the facts for the best possible policy before making the necessary compromises in the end. That's what Ronald Reagan did over and over again--despite the fact that his "facts" were all imaginary. The bottom line here is simple: There's nothing pragmatic about being factually ignorant. There's nothing pragmatic about getting things done when the things you're getting done only make the problems worse. -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
