Rich Lowry is puzzled

To appreciate the fundamentally underlying psychological projection of the intensely ideological right, you simply must read Rich Lowry's "Rush was right." It's a fascinating look into how a political observer can so misunderstand the world by approaching it from exclusively one-dimensional cognition. Lowry's opening "insight" reveals pretty much everything he has to offer: 

If you listened to Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Laura Ingraham, you got a better appreciation of Obama’s core than by reading the president’s friends and sophisticated interpreters, for whom he was either a moderate or a puzzle yet to be fully worked out.

It's neither particularly friendly nor especially sophisticated to note what has been--to those of us who are resistant to Lowry's ideological macular degeneration--so plain to see, for years. Barack Obama is no determined centrist, but he's also no leftie or rightie, and what's more he's scarcely a "puzzle" to be worked out. He's simply a pragmatist, of the FDR school of incremental, conservative-progressive pragmatism, which means he favors whatever works in digestible portions--whether served from the left or the right or the moderate middle--and to hell with fixed philosophical preconceptions.

This is not hard. This is not complicated or abstruse. And this certainly, once again, is no modern-day puzzle. Pragmatism has been around at least since Christ--O, for heaven's sake, just go ahead and give unto Caesar and quit your bitchin' and all that--although, true enough, it was formalized as a uniquely American non-philosophical philosophy in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

Yet, though not hard, complicated, abstruse or puzzling, pragmatism is indeed outrageously offensive to the ideologically fixated--to those who view the world from only one angle; and if distortion arises, then it's the world that must change, and not their views.

Comments

[shsavage]

I'll remember this, PM, the next time you rage against Obama for not being further to the left of center.

[japa21]

PM has always been aware of Obama's pragmatism and is generally in accord with it. There can be a difference of opinion as to what is possible or what risks are worth taking.

Personally, I think Obama was ultra conservative in his risk atking in his first term. Part of it may have been naive but I think a larger part was long term pragmatism. One of his goals was to get reelected, both for some degree of selfish reasons and because he knew what a GOP administration would be like. If he pushed too hard for some things that may have, indeed, been possible, he may well have factored in whether or not it would impact reelection, and played it safe.

Without the burden of w3orrying about reelection, and with the GOP showing the entire world their true colors, I think, although he will remain pragmatic, it will be less risk averse.

[Beulahmo]

@shsavage,

I believe PM's differences with Obama have been about strategy more than ideology (As I type this I realize I may be using the wrong term -- I'm still not clear about what is considered "tactics" and what is considered "strategy".) Anyway, I think most of us, PM included, presume that President Obama would like to move policy as far to the left, when appropriate, as is practical at any given time. Where I see the biggest differences between PM and Obama is in making calculations based on predicted outcomes. Sometimes it seems like PM believes Obama could get away with pushing further left than it appears President Obama calculates. Of course, it's all about predictions, which are difficult to make when one is an inexperienced noob like me. PM, however, has a lot of experience in studying political dynamics and power leverage, and seems to be ever mindful that it's THERE that pragmatism (distinguished from ideological "vision") determines successful and durable change.

[Peter G]

Maybe this explains why I admire your president so much. I've spent my whole working life trying to find pragmatic solutions to real engineering and safety issues. Very seldom are these solutions calculable to the last decimal point. What drives me to jaw clenching distraction are clients who wish wholeheartedly or believe with equal passion that the world is wrong and therefore the pragmatic solution to competing technical or personal or financial interests is unworthy of consideration. This is not to say there is only one unique solution to every problem. What is true is that there is only a narrow range of pragmatic solutions that can address a real problem. I think your president gets that.

[Robert Lipscomb]

Obama's single biggest misjudgment was to assume that the GOP was not be so cynical, so asinine, so evil as to actually, knowingly and willfully, conspire to throw the country into another Great Depression as a means to regaining power. I confess that neither was I.

By this time four years ago, the GOP was already expediting the implementation of this strategy.

Since then, most of us wonder whether Obama has learned his lesson. Even as I currently trumpet his current aggressiveness and prowess, I realize that four weeks ago, I was writing that I was afraid he did not have the stomach to take these guys down.

[Jon Ponder]

Spot on.

[Frank Hummer]

Obama is as ideologically fixed as anyone I've ever heard of. "incrementalism"? In which direction?! Leftists who speak of "pragmatism" have no understanding of the fact that, in order to determine "what works", one needs some set of values against which things are judged. Free markets and lower tax rates "work" to those on the right, but not to those on the left. Notice that Obama never takes us "incrementally" in the direction of fewer regulations and greater freedom. Those of us on the right know that it is due to Obama's leftist ideology. The fact that Obama knows the limits of what he can get away with at any one time doesn't make him a centrist ideologically. PM has said nothing that substantively refutes either Lowry or Rush. Leftists often have difficulty spotting leftism for the same reason that fish don't know they are wet; they can't conceive of anything else.

[JD]

Mr. Hummer,

Reasoned argument, please. Throwing around shibboleths like "leftist" doesn't impress anyone anymore.

[Ansel M.]

@ Frank Hummer: "Leftists often have difficulty spotting leftism for the same reason that fish don't know they are wet; they can't conceive of anything else."

But smart guys like you, Frank, have no problem recognizing the value of right-wing "ideas" because you already know you're right, right? No weaselly, vacillating consideration of the merits, feasibility, and deficiencies of a policy because you already know what's "right" ... you have a "set of values"! I always find it humorous when wingnuts talk about their "set of values", as if they are the sole keepers of the only "real" values.

[Turgidson]

Ah, the old trope that liberals don't believe in "free markets." That one never gets old.

There's no such thing as a free market in practice, but let's put that aside for a minute.

Conservatives will never, ever believe this, much less admit it, but liberals aren't out to destroy the market economy. The idea is to regulate it to allow for some amount of egalitarianism and to rein in excesses and protect against crashes. And government has a role to play in guaranteeing some minimum standard of living to its citizenry, which takes the form of social insurance programs, and yes, some entitlements.

To today's hard right, that's Marxist tyranny. Whatever. They're wrong. History has shown it over and over again and will continue to do so. They can ride that sinking ship to the bottom if they so choose. We could have a discussion about how much regulation is too much, and how much government assistance is appropriate, and what that means as far as taxation levels, but that's not the conversation the right seems to want. It's all too much, always (unless they're the beneficiaries of course). As Ike said, people who believe this are a small minority and they're stupid. True now as it was then.

[Frank Hummer]

I think it's the left which won't tolerate conversations - real conversations - about these things. There are so many things to refute here that I don't know where to start. The Keynesian, big government solutions to "protect against crashes" do not work, and in fact help to cause the crashes. I'll discuss that with anyone who wants to, for as long as anyone likes. To JD, I just used the word "leftist" to describe people toward the left of the political spectrum. I would call myself a "rightist", I guess, but that term doesn't pop up much. More often we hear "right-winger". I would call myself a right-winger. To Ansel M., nothing that I said can be taken to indicate that I think those toward the left do not have values. I believe they do have values. I was just making the point that using terms like "pragmatic", or using phrases like " let's just solve these problems" completely glosses over the fact that, in order to decided what a "good" results would look like, a person (right, left or whatever) is necessarily going to use some sort of value system in order to judge the results of policies. To Turgidson, there are several things you said that I wouldn't have much quarrel with, and a few that I would. Maybe both sides feel that the other has "demagogued" the issues, or demonized the other side. I honestly feel that it can be objectively shown that those on the left have very little competition from those on the right. Ron Silver, the liberal actor who turned consevative, was asked "is it hard having conversations with your Hollywood friends on the left?" He answered, "I wish I Could have a conversation with them. But all I get from them is "Bush sucks". That's been my experience, also. Notice that nobody here has even tried to refute the main claims in the earlier post: that Obama is quite far to the left, and that a cautious strategy in implementing left-leaning policies shouldn't be mistaken for centrism, and that "fixing problems" really can't be a value-neutral. In the earlier post, I really didn't even say anything about left-wing policies themselves. I will now, though. I think that Obama and others on the left just do not understand much about the issues they are concerned about, like wage disparity, tax policies ... well, it's a long list. I also believe that they do not understand the workings of free markets (yes "free markets"). I'm sure that, as Turgidson mentioned, perfectly free markets do not exist, but I think that some economies have come very close to this. Arguments supporting things like the minimum wage (originally designed by Democrats to squeeze Black people out of the market place) I believe are superficial, short sighted, and and based on emotions thatare misguided but fit in a sound bite. Unfortunately the arguments against ...

[Frank Hummer]

... the minimum wage laws tend be boring and long. I can't fit it into a sound bite.

[shsavage]

I'm completely with you guys who admire Obama's pragmatism, and what Sully refers to as his "long game." But sometimes, in playing Eleanor to Obama's FDR, PM skates perilously close to the emoprogs, and some of his posts seem to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Which is not to say that I don't value all the postings and comment threads I read here.

[Robert Lipscomb]

Bush Sucks!

[Frank Hummer]

There it is.