Home › Blogs › markamerica's blog ›

Pragmatism: The Death of Reason

Submitted by markamerica on Sun, 09/06/2009 - 13:07
in

so terribly gone

0
Your rating: None

Comments

You remind me of the FDR days.

Submitted by Joe the Bartender on Sun, 09/06/2009 - 13:51.

The Republicans taking control in 1994 is what dooms you now. We all remember the Republicans breaking the Contract With America.

This is the same nonsense we went through during the FDR years. Republicans calling other Republicans who supported SS sellouts got FDR elected four times and Truman twice. The Republican Party was a dead and stinking corpse when IKE brought it back to life. That's right, an old pragmatist saved the party you now lay claim to.

Hardly, Joe, but thanks for reading!

Submitted by markamerica on Sun, 09/06/2009 - 14:02.

You make my point, oh so well. When the Republicans put forward the Contract with America, it was indeed a conservative platform. And you are quite right: They soon dropped it.

Many of their promises were stillborn, some because they were dealing with a Democrat in the Whitehouse, but still more because they sold out on the basis of electoral victory, which was oh so clearly a short-run, pragmatic view.

When the pragmatists turned the Contract with America into a "Well-Maybe with America," they doomed themselves.  It was not the conservatives who did this. It was your beloved pragmatists.

M

 Was it being pragmatic that

Submitted by In between on Sun, 09/06/2009 - 14:35.

 Was it being pragmatic that brought the republicans down or ideology? To me it was ideology. Bush was many things from being liberal on Medicare part D and he believed in ideology till it brought this country down. Namely neoconism, corporate fascism,  militarism, laissez-faire, and religionism. You cannot run the country on any of these ism's. We saw for 8 years of lies, deceit, arrogance, ignorance, arrogance, and blunders. We saw the trickle down and ignoring all areas of our economy and running up deficits and debt. I see nothing the republicans have to offer with the nonsense we have seen over the last 8 years. 

 

Now if you want to be pragmatic, then invest in your country, your people, and in the future.

Spoken like a true Progressive

Submitted by Joe the Bartender on Sun, 09/06/2009 - 14:55.

Invest in your country, your people and in the future....
I agree. The progressive movement was founded by Teddy Roosevelt, a Republican but that was back in the days when Republicans supported liberty and progress.

Problem is, progressive today just means left wing kook the same as conservative just means right wing kook. Words keep changing. I think it's a conspiracy to keep us old farts confused and abused. I don't care what they say. No more free beer until I get an IKE or a Goldwater!

Your Welcome

Submitted by Joe the Bartender on Sun, 09/06/2009 - 14:35.

Nice try on the spin but it doesn't make your point. You want to separate pragmatism and reason but that's where you fall flat on your face. Pragmatism is the practice of reason. If you don't base your reason on pragmatism you have nothing left but faith.

Faith will always lose because God just doesn't take sides. If he did, BinLaden would be dead and we would have found the atom bombs Saddam was hiding...or Republicans claimed he was hiding.

It boils down to trust. Republicans have nothing they can point to and say "trust me".

Did you know...

Submitted by markamerica on Sun, 09/06/2009 - 14:55.

..that I am an atheist, and that faith is the one thing of which I am not capable?

Faith is, strictly defined, a belief in the unsubstantiated...

I am quite willing to substantiate my claims. All you have done is throw down some humbuggery and politely call me names. Feel free to substantiate your claims.

M

Please don't whine

Submitted by Joe the Bartender on Sun, 09/06/2009 - 15:17.

We're adults here.... I hope.
An Atheist runs on faith exactly the same as any other. You take it on faith that the Republicans will not lie to you again. You take it on faith that Republicans can fix the economy they broke. You take it on faith that the Patriot Act will never be used against you. You take all of these unsubstantiated claims on faith.

I take the Atheist view that if they lie to me once they'll stick it to me again. You can substantiate and I can refute. I've been playing this game for a very long time.

What names did I call you?
Please feel free to call me any names you like and they don't have to be polite. I never get offended and will never complain or ignore you.

I really do value your opinion, even when I oppose it, and the same holds true for anyone I debate. I'm a saloon keeper in a remote area of the mountains. I debate miners and loggers every day and we are known to be a little rough around the edges. I know city slickers are easy to offend but I sometimes forget while having fun. Again, sorry if I offended you.

Thanks for the civil uncivility...

Submitted by markamerica on Sun, 09/06/2009 - 15:31.

Really, I understand, but I do not take anything on faith. I assume that unless otherwise regulated by voters' choices at the polling places, republicans, like any others, will abuse their grant of power. All unchecked power eventually does so.

One of the ways to avoid this, in my view the only way, is to deny them the power in the first place.

The federal government is far too entrenched in too many facets of daily life.  Pick a subject.  They're in all of it.

Religion? They're in it. Banking? They're in it. Manufacturing? They're in it.  The capacity of my toilet tank?  They're in it. There is no limit to the power to which they shall arrogate government reach.  Your funeral?  They're in it.

I trust no politicians, ever, for precisely these reasons.  At this point, my view is one of de-construction and dis-empowerment for government. It has grown too big and too monstrous to contemplate.

As for your particular wording, I too am capable, but I'd prefer to keep it on friendly terms. I can hurl epithets with the best of 'em.

M

I've Met My Match!

Submitted by Joe the Bartender on Sun, 09/06/2009 - 16:55.

lol...
We're really the same. Only our tactics differ. You're trying to defeat Obama. I'm not. I know I can't defeat a populist but I also know his court will do that on their own. Roosevelt pulled it off because he had the power to make his party march in lockstep. Those days are gone and we've still got the commercial paper bubble waiting in the wings. After that crash we'll be looking at deflation. This really isn't a good time to be a president.

Republicans need new blood. That's what it will take to win back libertarians and that is crucial. Republicans can nominate the candidate but they can't win without libertarian votes. It's always been that way and it's just simple demographics.

Every populist can be beaten...

Submitted by markamerica on Sun, 09/06/2009 - 17:08.

They're the easiest of all to defeat, in fact, because it is the popularity of their personnae that dictate their success. Just ask Obama. He has watched his popularity come sliding down, in part for his own words and actions, but also in part because of his own failures to say and to do. It's a no-win for a populist, in the long run, because they will always discover they've created a monster over which they have no control.

As for the libertarian segment, it is true, and I can witness it. I am a part of that segment, and it is I who abstained from voting in the Presidential election. Wonder why McCain lost? It isn't because Obama did so well, or that turn-out was so huge. It's because the folks to whom Republicans would ordinarily turn in a tight election stayed home.

Republicans do need new blood, but it is precisely the compromisers and pragmatists they should set aside. (I use the current definitions of those terms.) I am a man who does not compromise, by their definition of it, but who will always consider a compromise where there's something actually to be gained.

I am a practical man too, in that I don't believe in doing things that don't work, but also, I do not believe in pretending what has never worked will work this time. Enjoyed it! Thanks!

M

 Republicans lost because we

Submitted by In between on Sun, 09/06/2009 - 17:38.

 Republicans lost because we saw 8 years of crap. Add to that a president who says "Free trade is good" as we lost our jobs in the Midwest. The whole Midwest voted for Obama. It was years of ignorance, arrogance, neglect, lies, deceit, and blunders. I don't think Obama is that good, it is just we would have voted for Joe from Kokomo to get away from the last 8 years.

At this point there is not one republican out there that understands what is going on.

Let me help you out...

Submitted by markamerica on Sun, 09/06/2009 - 17:57.

In Between, it seems you're not 'in between' at all. Under which President did NAFTA commence? Just asking... Under which President did the collapse of the industrial base of the Northeast and Midwest collapse? How long has that zone been known as the 'rust belt,' anyway?

I grew up in the rust belt. There is at least one very good reason I am no longer there: I will never again reside in a closed-shop state. The notion of seniority, which ignores all else, including productivity, destroyed the Midwest and the Northeast. Unions' never-ending demands for the unearned and the unsustainable destroyed the Midwest. Government growth destroyed the Midwest.

You sound like a young person, but forgive me if I've missed. Stick around for a little while, and I'll try to explain to you why your current assumptions are incorrect.

Thanks for posting!

M

 Yes, we know that Clinton

Submitted by In between on Sun, 09/06/2009 - 18:18.

 Yes, we know that Clinton signed the papers and backed by republicans. However, papers or not, we have seen for 30 years our jobs go to Japan with cheap labor first, then the overtaking of markets. We saw them take our steel, our textiles, our TVs, and our cars. What we know now is that our jobs is going to Mexico, to China, and to India and it is cheap labor at first. We cannot compete with third world labor. Therefore, you have to invest in your people, in your country, and in the future. And you don't go around saying as the president saying "free trade is good" while people are losing jobs. And on top of that cities and states are going broke.

So what are we doing today? We are using taxpayer money to bail everyone out. Hence, we never invested in our country, in our people, or in the future.

1. Invest in your country. Become energy independent doing everything. Also, you cannot ever neglect the infrastructure. 

2. Invest in your people. Mandatory vocational training for all and starting in the sophomore year in high school. 

Hudson Institute > Promoting U.S. Worker Competitiveness in a Globalized Economy

You do whatever it takes to create jobs, jobs that will stay in this country. Very hard to do as most jobs go overseas. Even in Ireland, which is favorable to business in which the republicans talk about for jobs is vulnerable as Dell has left for Poland. So in this age of globalization anything can happen. 

Invest in the future. That is all sciences and innovation. Stop playing religious games on embryonic stem cell research in which we have lost scientists to Singapore. 

As we get rid of the old industry, the investment in the new will create jobs. 

So all your tax cuts did not do this. It only created deficits, debt, and chaos as nothing was done. We are where we are.

 

We have seen the games of no seniority. Favoritism to the boss. Now come up with some answers.

You, Limpball, Shamity all have big mouths, but have no answers.

 

 

 

 

before I forget

Submitted by markamerica on Sun, 09/06/2009 - 15:35.

I live on a 40 acre horse farm, on the Texas prairie, so 'city slicker' I'm not. No offense taken.

IM

So It Begins

Submitted by ToddLuvsLounging on Mon, 09/07/2009 - 00:07.

Radical Libertarians and Radical Conservatism are going to challenge for power within the GOP. The GOP establishment are playing with fire and it will soon burn them. I can't wait until primary season, when establishment conservatives compete with the New Angry Right. When the Crists, Portmans of the GOP are forced to take the No Government pledge in angry primary town halls. Good times.

Pragmatism = Failure

Submitted by mike from nc on Mon, 09/07/2009 - 11:28.

Excellent piece, Mark. And dead on. Conservatism fails when it's principles are compromised. All that happens when "pragmatists" make deals with the left, is that the pendulum swings to the left. We gain nothing, and may ultimately lose everything. When conservatism is clearly defined, articulately presented, and passionately defended - it resonates deeply with Americans. Reagan was successful precisely because he would not compromise. Bush did not succeed precisely because he did. History is there to teach us if we will just study it, accept it without revision, and learn from it. Gingrich's success in 1994 was because of his "articulate and don't compromise" attitude. McCain failed becasue he didn't even pretend to be conservative.

You rightly say that when conservative victories come the pragmatists claim credit for them, failing to realize it was in spite of them, not because of them. Conversely, when conservative defeats come, pragmatists blame the idealogues, rather than accepting responsibility themselves. In that way, they are much like liberals. The failure of their ideas is never because the idea was bad to begin with.

"In Between" claims that tax cuts created the debt and the deficit. Speaking of revisionist history - "there is none so blind". His investment program is just more of the same tax and spend rhetoric that has failed for generations. "Mandatory vocational training for all" - so much for liberty I guess. How very statist.

more at http://commonconservativesense.com

 Obviously, you want to

Submitted by In between on Mon, 09/07/2009 - 13:38.

 Obviously, you want to ignore problems when they arise. We saw the "guns and butter" spending under Bush. You cannot have tax cuts and a war not paid for at the same time. This is the same as what LBJ did. You also only need two to three years of tax cuts to jump start an economy along with the fed. Instead, Bush drove the country into the ground with tax cuts and not cutting spending. He also ignored globalization and kept saying "free trade is good" as we lost the jobs. What we saw was years of money going to Iraq, our jobs going overseas, the neglect of our infrastructure, the trashing of science, lies, ignorance, deceit, blunders, and failures in capitalism. So here we are today bailing everyone out. And with all that failure, people voted in a socialist because they were ignored. 

Since you have given no answer to the globalization problem (in which all westernized countries have to deal with) I reiterate mandatory vocational training. You cannot have it like in the past of some people going to college and others going to the factory. The days of going to the factory and having a 30 year job is over. Again, we have to compete with third world labor and republicans have given no answer to it. Just ignorance. This is the reason why, the republicans always fail the middle class. 

Both parties are guilty of failures and there is no perfect economics. The trickle down never gets down to the last 20% or 30% of the population. We don't want tax and spend and we need to fix what trickle down does not do. You invest in your country, in your people, and in the future. Since that is not what was done, we are sitting with bailouts. We saw 8 years of failed ideology.

 

We Need Principled Pragmatism

Submitted by Doug King on Mon, 09/07/2009 - 23:59.

Mark America,

I've never visited this blog before and I enjoyed your article.  I also like the way people discuss views and disagree respectfully.

I must say I think you presented a bit of a false dichotomy by making a "pragmatist" sound like someone "who will sell out any principle in the name of electoral victory."  If I understand, you feel being stubbornly and "idealogically bound to firm [conservative] principles" is better. 

While I agree we should reject politicians whose sole motivation is winning elections, I don’t think stepping down from our holy mountain of correct principles in order to meet the other party half way is necessarily a bad idea. Anyone committed to marriage or who has normal teenaged offspring knows that you cannot always have it your way, that differences are not always deficiencies, and that there is great value in going along with the other side at times. This assumes, of course, you see value in the other person and want a good relationship with that person.

 I have been a die-hard, conservative Republican since my early teens. For years (I am now 53) I eagerly supported the GOP agenda. In the 1980s I once argued with my atheist friend about prayer in public school, asserting it was a good idea. I’m a lot wiser now. I’ve lost track of my friend, but I think we would agree on much more now (including banning prayer from the classroom). I was a stubborn purist on what I perceived to be correct, conservative principles, and I was wrong.I’m still conservative, but I’m tired of this culture war. Demonizing our fellow citizens who dare disagree serves no good. I don’t see them as bad or stupid or un-American. I oppose Obama’s deficit spending, but let’s admit it – even President Reagan presided over record deficits at the time. Pundits routinely characterize their opponents as Communists, racists, conspiracy nutcases, Nazis, etc. This just distracts from the serious issues, even if such claims are true for some individuals. No political party -- let alone President -- is, has been, and ever will be perfect. If (and that’s a big if) the GOP is smart and principled, they will move to the center. This would be smart because it would make it easier to win elections. Even more importantly, moving to the center would be principled because America is a big, diverse country that needs be governed from the center. We've got freedom of religion, thank God.  And freedom of speech and thought.  We can't expect everyone to be conservative.  We need our liberal-leaning countrymen, just as they need us. President Lincoln went to war to preserve the union. What are you fighting for in this culture war? Please don’t misunderstand me. I do not want Republicans in Congress to rubberstamp President Obama’s utopian programs. But if President Obama moves to the center, I hope conservative Americans will be the first to meet him there. 

PS I apologize if this comment doesn't come out legibly.  I'm struggling with formatting.

Civil War?

Submitted by thepete on Tue, 09/08/2009 - 23:43.

So what are the Right and Left to do with their differences?  You are clearly against pragmatic government leaders who try to get things done in Washington.  According to you, it is a horrific vice to merely budge on principles.  Your view shows me that you clearly have very limited experience in real world situations. 

Sit in on a business deal, ANY business deal in corporate America.  Without give and take NO deal would ever get done.  Show up with the attitude you are proprosing in your article and you will be flat on your ASS and out of that meeting in 5 minutes.

"If you come to a negotiation table saying you have the final truth, that you know nothing but the truth and that is final, you will get nothing. "

- Harri Holkeri