I’ve been reading the discussion sparked by Chris Hayes’ latest piece in The Nation—"The Pragmatist," about Obama’s much-discussed pragmatism—with interest. Pragmatism is a subject dear to my heart, something I studied in grad school, though the kind you study there and what goes by the name in political discussion bear little resemblance.
Hayes is absolutely on point here:
... pragmatism requires an openness to the possibility of radical solutions. It demands a skepticism not just toward the certainties of ideologues and dogmatism but also of elite consensus and the status quo. This is a definition of pragmatism that is in almost every way the opposite of its invocation among those in the establishment. For them, pragmatism means accepting the institutional forces that severely limit innovation and boldness; it means listening to the counsel of the Wise Men; it means not rocking the boat.
I won’t rehash the whole discussion, but something relevant to Gristian subjects popped up today. Andrew Sullivan draws attention to what he calls a "great comment" over at The American Conservative, under a post by Daniel Larison. The commenter says this:
One of the best examples of Obama’s pragmatism is his appointment of Chu as energy secretary. Imagine that, and actual expert scientist in charge of energy research and development! Rather than a politician or military official or a "green" progressive environmentalist, Obama picked a guy who actually knows science. Is this being "centrist", or is it being pragmatic in the real sense of the word.
This misses something crucial: Chu is a "‘green’ progressive environmentalist.” Read this or this and tell me he’s not. He’s a progressive environmentalist because he "actually knows science." He says we must act boldly because circumstances, if seen clearly, demand boldness.
Obama himself couldn’t have been clearer:
[Chu’s] appointment should send a signal to all that my Administration will value science, we will make decisions based on the facts, and we understand that the facts demand bold action.
This is what I’ve been trying to get at since the primary: Obama understands, in a way many of his contemporaries still do not, that we’re witnessing "a convergence between circumstances and agenda," as he put it on Meet the Press last week. When it comes to the climate crisis, the financial crisis, or the healthcare crisis, the facts demand bold action, and that means a bias toward "variability, initiative, innovation, departure from routine, experimentation," in pragmatist John Dewey’s words. It means activist government. Today, progressivism is pragmatism.
In this sense, Chu really does represent the essence of Obama’s approach. He’s someone with the intelligence and empiricism to see that the status quo is unacceptable and that radical change is the only sensible—pragmatic—response.
U.S.-Russia climate and energy efficiency cooperation: A neglected challenge
Autos, smart grid and clean tech: DOE turns on the money
Comments View as Flat
randino Posted 9:47 am
16 Dec 2008
Chris Hayes' article in the Nation
was a keeper. Like varieties of chilies, good work comes in various flavors. Hayes is like a fine curry that slowly rachets up the heat, not the habanero that mugs you. Bright guy we can look forward to hearing much more from.
Randy Cunningham
Cleveland, OH
Randy Cunningham
Permalink
Colin Wright Posted 1:51 pm
16 Dec 2008
Still Chu'ing on this one...
I think I agree with some of DR's great leaps in this piece. I could imagine that Obama is aware of Dewey since his kids attended the UC Experimental School. I could imagine that he has read Cornell West.
But I don't know enough about Chu. While Dave can write: "He's a progressive environmentalist because he "actually knows science." In other words, given the state of the world today a scientific temperament leads inexorably to progressive environmentalism"
I cross my fingers. Because there are many different types of scientists. Some have bravely spoken out (like Hansen) but many more sit on the sidelines, and a few shill for the denial industry. (Then there are the racists like Shockley and Watson, Nobelists each. Nobel Prizes seem to send many scientists "off the deep end".)
Still perhaps in essence DR is right. Even as science has led to an intoxicated technocratic vision of man-conquering-nature, and become corrupted by corporate interests, it is still a beacon that pulls us from superstition towards rationality. Without the painstaking work of climate scientists we might still be scratching our heads about the melting polar ice cap. So perhaps "science + humanism + pragmatism" can still pull us out of this climate mess, and Chu will not disappoint.
Permalink
Bob Wallace Posted 2:24 pm
16 Dec 2008
This doesn't ring true to me...
"This is a definition of pragmatism that is in almost every way the opposite of its invocation among those in the establishment. For them, pragmatism means accepting the institutional forces that severely limit innovation and boldness; it means listening to the counsel of the Wise Men; it means not rocking the boat."
The pragmatist who finds themselves working within an "establishment" recognizes the institutional forces, consults the Wise Men, and then seeks a path that rocks the boat as little as possible.
(I never seemed to get that last part correct.)
What Hayes is describing it "the company man".
Obama is in a very unique position. He is coming to power at a point in time when things are more fucked up than they've ever been fucked up in our lifetimes. Even the lives of us older farts.
Obama has the huge advantage of not having to worry as much as normal about the "establishment". The establishment was so damaged during the last eight years that he has to build a new one. The Wise Men have largely been publicly recognized as fools. The majority is screaming for a good hard boat rocking....
Permalink
Jones Posted 4:01 pm
16 Dec 2008
picking nits...
While I strongly agree that Chu seems to be a "green progressive environmentalist", I think the commenter's point still stands, at least in spirit. Lest we forget, there is probably as much dogmatism, groupthink and closemindedness within the environmental and progressive "communities" as there is in any movement. Some people just have the good fortune of being on the right side, through no merit of their own.
I think objectivity is a better word for the type of pragmatism we're discussing here--the freedom from idealogical frameworks which, often in insidious ways, limit the information we allow ourselves to consider. Obama seems impeccably objective, and is making choices for what I think will be an excellent administration.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 4:55 pm
16 Dec 2008
Pragmatic idealism
Maybe Chu has it. But why did he repeat that old saw about coal emitting more radiation than nuclear power? He is definitely flawed. Can he overcome it?
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
wesrolley Posted 1:04 am
18 Dec 2008
Analysis of Chu nomination rarely mention nuclear
Chu will head what was once called the Atomic Energy Commission. We have Joseph Romm taking Jim Hansen to task for supporting the idea of 4th Generation Nuclear power.
Why, then, does he not apply the same logic to Chu and the support for nuclear that keeps showing up in his part comments, if you care to look for it.
If Chu is going to be the ultimate pragmatist, then he will surely insist on the full costing of nuclear power, without subsidies, without government guarantees, with ground to ground chain of responsibility for uranium and any produced nuclear material. If they do that, then maybe nuclear will die as being the 2nd least cost effective solution (after coal) to our needs.
Wes Rolley CoChair - EcoAction Committee Green Party US
Permalink