A Pragmatic Government

Posted on November 7, 2008
Filed Under Peirce, Politics |

Over on Peirce-L there was an interesting bit of post-election discussion. The debate was whether Obama was a pragmatist. Here meaning the more philosophical sense of Peirce, James and Dewey rather than the more typical sense of the term.

Joseph Ransdell, whose writings I almost always read, offered some interesting comments.

“I would say, then, that Obama is primarily a “man of action” (as distinct from being primarily a theorist) with only a limited interest in philosophy itself at this point, though he is doubtless capable of acquiring a taste for and developing a natural talent for philosophy as an activity.”

However he went on.

Nevertheless, I agree that he is a pragmatist in the sense of exemplifying a Deweyan ideal in particular of the kind of intelligence a first-rate politician should exhibit, which does not require any special understanding of or interest in philosophy itself. Bear in mind that the office of President is an executive office, not a legislative or judicial office, and therefore should be filled by someone whose time is NOT devoted to the pursuit of theoretical understanding for its own sake, which is not the mindset appropriate to the task of practical decision-making in real time, but who can and does think about practical matters in a way that a sound theoretical philosophy of politics and government would approve of.

He then quoted from Peirce.

[I] do not know that the theory of reasoning is quite vitally important. That it is absolutely essential in metaphysics, I am as sure as I am of any truth of philosophy. But in the conduct of life, we have to distinguish every day affairs and great crises. In the great decisions, I do not believe it is safe to trust to individual reason. In everyday business, reasoning is tolerably successful, but I am inclined think that it is done as well without the aid of a theory as with it. A Logica Utens, like the analytical mechanics resident in the billiard player’s nerves, best fulfils familiar uses. (CP 1:108)

[i]n practical affairs, in matters of Vital Importance, it is very easy to exaggerate the importance of ratiocination. Man is so vain of his power of reason! it seems impossible for him to see himself in this respect, as he himself would see himself if he could duplicate himself and observe himself with a critical eye. Those whom we are so fond of referring to as the “lower animals” reason very little. Now I beg you to observe that those beings very rarely commit a mistake, while we ___ ! We employ twelve good men and true to decide a question, we lay the facts before them with the greatest care, the perfection of human reason presides over the presentment, they hear, they go out and deliberate, they come to a unanimous opinion, and it is generally admitted that the parties to the suit might almost as well have tossed up a penny to decide! Such is man’s glory!

The mental qualities we most admire in all human beings except our several selves are the maiden’s delicacy, the mother’s devotion, manly courage, and other inheritances that have come to us from the biped who did not yet speak; while the characters that are most contemptible take their origin in reasoning. The very fact that everybody so ridiculously overrates his own reasoning, is sufficient to show how superficial the faculty is. For you do not hear the courageous man vaunt his own courage, or the modest woman boast of her modesty, or the really loyal plume themselves on their honesty. What they are vain about is always some insignificant gift of beauty or of skills.

It is the instincts, the sentiments, that make the substance of the soul. Cognition is only its surface, its locus of contact with what is external to it. (CP 1:110)

Now to me it is still far too early to say what of Obama’s character is due to electioneering sophistry and what is actually authentic. That was one problem with the national public having a person with little experience in national affairs. We just don’t have data to judge. I think we ought give him, at this early date, the benefit of doubt though.

I confess that I have some concerns due to selections or rumored selections of his cabinet. Emanuel is one I worry about pragmatically. Not because I think there’s much surprising about someone who is a Delay like pitbull. I suspect that’s as much to keep his own party in line as to do anything to Republicans. Rather it is what a person like that says about being open pragmatically. (We’ll ignore the egregious rumored appointment of Kennedy I talked about the other day. I hope that the uproar nips that in the bud.)

The interesting question is whether pragmatism would only be about “getting things done” regardless of other factors. Certainly that is one sense of how the term is used popularly in our culture. I’m not sure that sense lines up with the pragmatic uses (at least for Peirce or James). If pragmatism is about how we know via a recognition of fallibilism and then inquiry so as to see what remains stable in our beliefs after investigation then “getting things done” seems the opposite of pragmatism. That would be because pragmatism would be about seeing what works whereas “getting things done” is about making something work whether it is natural to do so or not. It would be the opposite of honest inquiry and instead a kind of violence of stabilizing our beliefs such that the resist change independent of inquiry. That is it becomes a mechanism of resisting inquiry.

The danger in politics is the cheap allure of short term expediency. That is giving the appearance of things working by gimicking the system rather than trying to see what actually works. This counterfeit of inquiry is too often the siren song that I think politicians find impossible to resist. Ignoring the particulars of his choices or our current President let me say that I hope Obama looks to what really works rather than playing with the political system to make sure that “works” becomes an other word for “get what I want to be the case.”

Now I’ll leave aside the discussion of whether Emanuel fits into one side or the other. I’ll just say that looking at our short term history there have been many politicians who portray themselves as uniting both parties. (I believe the term was “I’ll be a uniter not a divider.”) Part of being known for “getting things done” is knowing what to say. Paper doubts and beliefs are irrelevant for what works though.

I’ll also say something in a pragmatic context about early judgments. You hear a lot today about how people knew from day 1 how bad George Bush would be. And how great Obama will be. I think that the Peirce quote above touches on that. I believe when we judge past Presidents we judge with the benefit of hindsight. The danger in applying such hindsight to foresight is that the future is vague in a way the past is not. I don’t think things were quite as clear 8 years ago as they seem now. So perhaps because of all that has transpired the last two decades I take a slightly more skeptical stance towards judging the future. I’ve simply seen too much counterfeit of inquiry. It is simply too easy to get a confirmation bias due to our ideological wishes. We project onto political figures what we want them to be (and to our political opponents what we fear them to be). Sometimes we are coincidentally correct. But I’m not sure it’s terribly often the case that our reasoning was valid.

Anyway, to get back to my main point I think that we have two senses of “getting things done” with one blocking inquiry and one opening up inquiry. While I hope that Obama is like the latter I think it too early to say. I just think that some of what he does with his cabinet will give some insight into how he will govern. But it’s too early to draw many conclusions at this stage.

Comments

Leave a Reply