It has become common-place to hear various political commentators use the words ideology or ideologue as part of a negative label for anyone or any decision they don’t like. In fact, just recently, a very prominent politician remarked that:
“It is important that we make decisions based on facts and evidence as opposed to ideology.”
A further statement was that we needed to
“embrace pragmatism, not just as a governing strategy but also as a basic value.”
Certainly, no one argues with facts. As Melvin Laird, and later Daniel Moynihan, was fond of saying, “we are all entitled to our own opinion, but we are not entitled to our own facts.” But, both Laird and Moynihan understood the difference between opinion and ideology, the first simply a view on a given situation that is not necessarily based on fact or knowledge, the second, an organized set of beliefs that form a social or political philosophy.
Facts alone cannot provide answers, because facts alone can be assembled in any number of ways to reach different conclusions. How they are assembled into an ‘argument’ is dependent at least in part by what you believe. In the United States we all, or most of us, certainly, share an ideology that is Judeo-Christian in origin, and we also share a political philosophy based on the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Is it wrong to consider these roots as we assemble facts and try to determine the correct course? Or should we make our decisions simply based on ’facts and evidence’ and try to ignore our beliefs?
Pragmatism has been hailed as a new approach. One writer recently remarked that it is time to ‘embrace pragmatism, not just as a governing strategy but also as a basic value.” But, what is pragmatism? Pragmatism is simply a philosophy, a belief (an ideology) that holds that the truth or worth of any idea is measured by its practical consequences. In other words, the value of any idea is in the outcome, which can also be summed up with: the end justifies the means. This is a basic ‘value proposition.’
Is this something we should strive for?
There is an old saying: “Fiat Iustitia, ruat caelum” – “Let Justice be done though the heavens may fall.” It is the opposite of pragmatism. It suggests that you do the right thing, regardless of the outcome.
But to do ‘the right thing,’ to ‘do Justice’ is to say that you have a standard of right, of justice against which behavior will be weighed. That is to say, you must have a set of beliefs, an ideology. To reject ideology and claim to act based on facts alone is to, in fact, reject any true sense of justice or right.
An excellent example of how facts can be assembled to reach the wrong, and in this case outlandish, conclusion is Jonathan Swift’s masterful piece of satire: “A Modest Proposal: For Preventing the Children of Poor People in Ireland from Being a Burden to their Parents or Country and for Making Them Beneficial to the Public.” As everyone knows, Swift recommended that the Irish children be eaten. It is so well crafted and so outlandish (and immoral) it served the purpose of resetting the entire discussion and pointing out the obvious: these were real people, husbands, wives and children and that real, moral solutions needed to be found.
In a similar manner, discussions about such issues as health care, when conducted from a position of ‘pragmatism,’ can lead to equally immoral proposals. How soon will it be that health care is denied someone because the central management office has decided that the cost is too high given the actuarial tables forecast of expected remaining lifespan, but there is enough money for assisted suicide so that the individual won’t be a burden to the state or the family? In fact, this type of ‘pragmatic’ decision-making has already taken place. (Look up Barbara Wagner of Oregon). It will only be a matter of time – perhaps a few years, certainly within a decade or two, when analysis of your DNA will allow fairly accurate assessments of the likelihood of someone contracting various diseases and other maladies, allowing your doctor to identify you as someone who will cost the health care system a great deal of money. Pragmatic decisions would drive a government health care plan to save money by eliminating you early, before you cost too much.
There are many issues beyond health care that are being addressed to day in which politicians are calling for ‘pragmatism over ideology,’ for working above party and beyond partisanship. Winston Churchill once observed that:
I have noticed that whenever a distinguished politician declares that a particular question is above Party, what he really means is that everybody, without distinction of Party, shall vote for him.
We should all work together to solve the problems of the day. But calls to ‘be pragmatic,’ to ‘abandon ideology,’ and the like are often at best disingenuous and more likely dangerous. Ideology is what makes us Americans and what makes us (hopefully) just. We abandon ideology at our peril.
“It is important that we make decisions based on facts and evidence as opposed to ideology.”
A further statement was that we needed to
“embrace pragmatism, not just as a governing strategy but also as a basic value.”
Certainly, no one argues with facts. As Melvin Laird, and later Daniel Moynihan, was fond of saying, “we are all entitled to our own opinion, but we are not entitled to our own facts.” But, both Laird and Moynihan understood the difference between opinion and ideology, the first simply a view on a given situation that is not necessarily based on fact or knowledge, the second, an organized set of beliefs that form a social or political philosophy.
Facts alone cannot provide answers, because facts alone can be assembled in any number of ways to reach different conclusions. How they are assembled into an ‘argument’ is dependent at least in part by what you believe. In the United States we all, or most of us, certainly, share an ideology that is Judeo-Christian in origin, and we also share a political philosophy based on the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Is it wrong to consider these roots as we assemble facts and try to determine the correct course? Or should we make our decisions simply based on ’facts and evidence’ and try to ignore our beliefs?
Pragmatism has been hailed as a new approach. One writer recently remarked that it is time to ‘embrace pragmatism, not just as a governing strategy but also as a basic value.” But, what is pragmatism? Pragmatism is simply a philosophy, a belief (an ideology) that holds that the truth or worth of any idea is measured by its practical consequences. In other words, the value of any idea is in the outcome, which can also be summed up with: the end justifies the means. This is a basic ‘value proposition.’
Is this something we should strive for?
There is an old saying: “Fiat Iustitia, ruat caelum” – “Let Justice be done though the heavens may fall.” It is the opposite of pragmatism. It suggests that you do the right thing, regardless of the outcome.
But to do ‘the right thing,’ to ‘do Justice’ is to say that you have a standard of right, of justice against which behavior will be weighed. That is to say, you must have a set of beliefs, an ideology. To reject ideology and claim to act based on facts alone is to, in fact, reject any true sense of justice or right.
An excellent example of how facts can be assembled to reach the wrong, and in this case outlandish, conclusion is Jonathan Swift’s masterful piece of satire: “A Modest Proposal: For Preventing the Children of Poor People in Ireland from Being a Burden to their Parents or Country and for Making Them Beneficial to the Public.” As everyone knows, Swift recommended that the Irish children be eaten. It is so well crafted and so outlandish (and immoral) it served the purpose of resetting the entire discussion and pointing out the obvious: these were real people, husbands, wives and children and that real, moral solutions needed to be found.
In a similar manner, discussions about such issues as health care, when conducted from a position of ‘pragmatism,’ can lead to equally immoral proposals. How soon will it be that health care is denied someone because the central management office has decided that the cost is too high given the actuarial tables forecast of expected remaining lifespan, but there is enough money for assisted suicide so that the individual won’t be a burden to the state or the family? In fact, this type of ‘pragmatic’ decision-making has already taken place. (Look up Barbara Wagner of Oregon). It will only be a matter of time – perhaps a few years, certainly within a decade or two, when analysis of your DNA will allow fairly accurate assessments of the likelihood of someone contracting various diseases and other maladies, allowing your doctor to identify you as someone who will cost the health care system a great deal of money. Pragmatic decisions would drive a government health care plan to save money by eliminating you early, before you cost too much.
There are many issues beyond health care that are being addressed to day in which politicians are calling for ‘pragmatism over ideology,’ for working above party and beyond partisanship. Winston Churchill once observed that:
I have noticed that whenever a distinguished politician declares that a particular question is above Party, what he really means is that everybody, without distinction of Party, shall vote for him.
We should all work together to solve the problems of the day. But calls to ‘be pragmatic,’ to ‘abandon ideology,’ and the like are often at best disingenuous and more likely dangerous. Ideology is what makes us Americans and what makes us (hopefully) just. We abandon ideology at our peril.
No comments:
Post a Comment