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

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.

"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....

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.

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