Unshakable idealists among both the left and right often question pragmatism's devotion to principle. Pragmatism, to the politically pure and philosophically pious, seems such a lady-of-the-evening kind of thing; the concerned parties may get some or even much of what they want, but damn it's tacky, tainted, and ultimately unrewarding. Because of these defects, "principle" is marooned.
I'd argue that the more proper way to assess pragmatism is to instead acknowledge its chief virtue, which is that, merely, of incrementalism--little victories, one at a time, until the sum of your little victories in pursuit of a magnificently principled victory is large itself (think Social Security in the late 1930s, think Social Security today). On the other hand if you admire idealists' rigid piety and their stern devaluation of Pragmatism as the woefully Unprincipled, then Mitt Romney was there, yesterday, to help make your case:
I need to get 50.1% or more and I'm appreciative to have the help of a lot of good people.
By that he meant Donald "The Birther" Trump--from whom the taking of cash might technically be regarded as pragmatic, but from whom, as well, the cheaply perfumed stench of whoring opportunism smothers any principled motive by Mitt.
Comments