Against pragmatism

The vapid philosophy of modern politics

by Alex Worsnip / December 29, 2012 / Leave a comment

Like many modern politicians, David Cameron presents himself as a pragmatist. What does that really mean? (photo: University Hospitals Birmingham)

Politicians, commentators, academics—everyone loves the word “pragmatic.” Tony Blair told us on his election in 1997 that what counts is not “outdated ideology” but “what works.” David Cameron famously wrote that he doesn’t “believe in ‘isms’” because “words like communism, socialism, capitalism and republicanism all conjure up one image in [his] mind: extremism.” Earlier this year, Nick Clegg eagerly urged a group of business leaders that the Liberal Democrats would be “sensible and centrist; pragmatic—not dogmatic—at all times.” Over in the US, one of the Democrats’ most effective strategies in the November election was to portray the Republicans as out of touch, crippled by their anti-pragmatic moralism.

Modern politicians—taking their cues from advertising and business—tend to use words which come attached with an aura of positive buzz, often without having a grip on what they actually mean. “Pragmatism” is a classic example. In this case, however, the harm done goes beyond the annoyance caused to pedants and opponents of “political mumbo-jumbo.” Rather, it allows politicians to subtly stifle dissent, and causes us to neglect the most fundamental questions about what our society ought to look like.

It is great to see that you are enjoying the Prospect website.

You have now reached your allowance of 3 free articles in the last 30 days.
Don’t worry—to get another 7 articles absolutely free, just enter your email address in the box below.

You are in complete control of which 7 articles you choose to read. Register now to enjoy more of the finest writing on politics, economics, literature, the arts, philosophy and science.

When you register, we’ll also send you our free Uncertain Times e-book which analyses the big ideas changing our world AND we’ll send you our free weekly newsletter. (If you prefer not to receive the newsletter you can unsubscribe at any time).

Prospect takes your privacy seriously. We promise never to rent or sell your e-mail address to any third party.
You can unsubscribe from the Prospect e-mail newsletter at any time.

DEBUG messsage: regular

The party conferences: the leaders are here to stay

Peter Riddell / October 11, 2012

All three party leaders can be pleased with their speeches, even if they stayed clear of...

Living in an electoral cloud… (image by @respres)

Living an augmented election

Tom Chatfield / April 16, 2010

I watched the electoral debate last night online, over a Subway sandwich and some late...

Share with friends

Comments

Alyson
December 29, 2012 at 23:46
Indeed it is time that politics was more open about its underpinning principles viz competition, fair play and economic philosophy. The old my gang your gang politics of left and right has gone, along with militant unionism and home-grown bosses. Globalism and the welfare state are the new polarities, with QE the elephant in the room. The debt run up by the bankers, which GB agreed for the state to underwrite, in order to save global monetarism, demands we address the lack of transparency in accounting and accountability, and the gap between players and the grafters for whom a living wage is no longer a realistic expectation. The current debt economy is still working in its way. Perhaps it just needs to be refloated with new money shared equally across the board, and then let's see where that takes us next. Values and individualism need to be spelled out more honestly by savvy political journalists so that we need not all be sold down the river by the few who understand the rules of the game.
Reply
chris
December 30, 2012 at 12:49
I disagree with your framing the debate of pragmatism in terms of pure ideology. That is less meaningful given the nature of Conservatism in the abstract (preservation of the status quo) and in practice (measured change of the status quo). The primary reason that we are not still having the ideological debates of the past is that Communism failed ('End of history') and Keynesian demand management only led to rising prices. Blair saw that the electability of the Labour party relied on modernising it (removing clause 4) and moving it to the centre ground. There is no inherent reason why a social democratic party should not claim a tougher approach on crime . Likewise Cameron' s shift to the centre is arguably making the Tories more l I keep the 19th century Liberals. It may tempting to blame pragmatism for the obfuscation in modern day politics; the notion of what metric the government should be assessed against are conflicting (GDP vs equality). But I would argue there is a vigorous debate ongoing between Labour and the coalition. Moreover if the complaint is against the very notion of austerity falling on the poor then it should be remembered how we got here in the first place through provision of middle-class benefits etc. Furthermore, while this article criticises the lack of debate regarding the burden of austerity affecting the current generation, I would argue that it is fairer on the next, that will be paying off the £1 trillion in debt that we have run up.
Reply
Leeds Debating Union
December 31, 2012 at 04:26
Great article Alex
Reply
amy
December 31, 2012 at 15:11
Nineteenth century laws were not made in light of today's far reaching technologies, and laws have changed at a much slower pace than these technologies, therefore the effects that laws have on public safety made a practical difference between then and now/then. The argument that "pragmatism" is used to as a means of quieting dissent is not a convincing one to my mind, even though it is good to think about what is being proposed and to voice your concern, but not against pragmatism.
Reply
jaypal
January 1, 2013 at 05:15
careful with some of the words used. words such as ineliminably am not sure exist. Also the word is highfalutin and not high-falluting which does not exist
Reply
Luke Alexander
January 9, 2013 at 00:19
Nice picture
Reply
Edward Harkins
January 21, 2013 at 13:52
Surely the exemplar in the matter of pragmatism and politics has to be Harold Wilson, UK Prime Minister in the 1960s and 70s? Indeed, a well-regarded biography of him was entitled 'Pragmatic Premier: An intimate portrait of Harold Wilson' (by Ernst Kay), The witty and teasing title prompted the common response of 'what did he mean by that'? Harold Wilson had utterly divided audiences. There were those who saw him as a true moderniser of 'British' socialism whilst remaining loyal to its precepts. There were some weirdos who inhabited the inept UK security services of that time and who were convinced he was a double agent for the USSR's KGB!. Conversely, there were others on the Left who heartily loathed him; seeing him as an idealogical-averse, commitment-free manipulator. (He himself described himself at one stage as the spider in the middle of a web, tugging at the strands, controlling it all). 'Pragmatic' maybe covers it all. Some of this about Harold Wilson may sound like a precursor of Tony Blair and the Labour Party - but there is a notable and honourable difference. Harold Wilson stood up to intense bullying and threats from USA President Lyndon Johnstone who desperately wanted the UK to committed troops to the USA's Vietnam fiasco. Despite the UK's financial penury and desperate need for USA support, Wilson prevailed and kept the UK out of the Vietnam morass. In contrast, Tony Blair keenly and precipitately committed to the USA's Iraq misadventure. The rest is as they say, history. Incidentally, I believe that it remains true that Tony Blair took the UK into more wars than any other Prime Minster ... that was not very pragmatic.
Reply
Jimmy Combs
January 31, 2014 at 20:00
Alex, nice article. I like to think of myself as a pragmatic person. In the United States we have a constitution and laws that allow Pragmatism to not be destructive. Democracy by itself though, I believe to be very Anti-Pragmatic. Post-Aparthied South Africa is to the delight of the media and Western World is now democratic. But both Blacks and Whites are way worse off than they were during the apartheid. The same thing happened to Rhodesia (Zimbabwe). These countries are complete disasters today. - Here is the Rhodesian Prime Minister in a video where he claims to be "A pragmatic person" And I'm totally on his side. - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0S2NKlMW0vc Placing SA under sanctions was completely wrong and counter-productive and now democracy in Africa has led to low-functioning, un-productive societies. This same issue is happening in black communities in America today as a result of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Reply

You can log in to post a comment under your subscriber name.