The Source of Political Pragmatism

[MineralMan]

Unless you can assemble a collection of like-minded voters who will make up a majority of voters, you will not find success in electing representatives at any level who will always meet your expectations in a representative republic. Since no two people hold exactly the same ideals and principles, no such majority can exist. That's the hard truth. To expect ideological compliance with your particular set of ideals from a representative who must gain a majority of votes to be elected is to court constant disappointment.

That's what political pragmatism is about. Realizing that a majority does not share a particular set of ideals is the first step in understanding how political reality works in the United States of America.

We will never elect someone who meets anyone's or everyone's expectations. There is no such person. It is impossible. Look at the electorate in any particular jurisdiction to find your representatives. The representatives will generally reflect that electorate. To expect more is foolish, and will always lead to disappointment.

If you understand that, you cannot be other than a pragmatist.

[elleng]

1. Thanks again, MM; you've said it (and defined me.)

[MineralMan]

2. Thank you. I do not expect many to agree with my post.

In fact, I expect exactly the opposite. I don't expect too many logical arguments against what I said, though. We have the system we have. Even changing that system requires majority agreement that it should be changed, and that doesn't exist, either.

[pscot]

3. And how does a pragmatist respond

when one side controls the media and uses propaganda techniques to systematically misinform and manipulate the voting public, and indeed, to underminedemocratic government? What's the appropriate pragmatic response when one side is trying to destroy everything you value?

[MineralMan]

7. You are communicating on the "media" right here.

You are part of "the media." DU has its place in "the media." It's not the New York Times, certainly, but it's part of "the media."

What are you doing to promote your point of view effectively? What are you doing to convince the "voting public" of anything?

See the link in my signature line, and ask me how 2010 went in my precinct and districts. Look up Betty McCollum.

You can do something. If you are not doing something, then that's the problem. I find lots of people with ideas who are not doing anything to make them happen. Find something to do. That's my advice, and this has been my opinion.

[JuniperLea]

18. I would say...

Anything within your power that isn't against the law or as morally bankrupt as what they are doing.

[NNN0LHI]

4. Recommended

Because it is the truth regardless of whether people want to believe it or not.

Don

[EFerrari]

5. All of the greater apes are pragmatists.

It's really only man with his ability to tell stories and so, to persuade, that has the opportunity to enlist and organize others to work for the common good through innovation.

That's why gorrilas are an endangered species and we are not. Yet, anyway.

Pragmatism is really nothing to write home about.

[Zenlitened]

6. Sounds awfully passive.

Pragmatism is about finding consensus, leadership is about building consensus.

Sure pragmatism has its place. But sometimes, leadership is called for.

[MineralMan]

8. My DU friend, you have no idea what I do. I'm far from passive.

And what I do is to build majorities. Consensus is impossible. I'm pretty successful at it, too, at least in my little area of operation. See the link in my signature line. Read about the turnout in that precinct and the results. I walked every inch of it and talked to every person I could find in 2010.

[Zenlitened]

19. Well, I congratulate you on your successful leadership.

Although I'm surprised you misunderstand the word consensus. It is, in the context of elections and governance, synonymous with building majorities.

(No, not an expectation of "ideological compliance," the term you use in your OP. That's a complete strawman, itself.)

In any event, I imagine that in order to build these majorities, you did not merely ask people where they stood on the issue.

I imagine you went beyond that, and attempted to persuade them to support your point of view, at least in the instance of a particular election.

That's leadership. There was no guarantee that your efforts to persuade would be successful, yet you made the attempt anyway.

Hardly pragmatic. But successful nonetheless. And by your very success you disprove the rather poorly-constructed argument of your OP.

Again, congratulations.

[Armstead]

9. I don't expect anyone to share all my own opinions and expectations.

But I think it's totally reasonable to think that there is a large proportion of the population -- perhaps a majority -- who share my basic goals and principles of basic liberalism and progressive populism -- and we should be represented by the political party that is supposed to be the counterbalance to right wing conservatism and the interest of wealthy corporations and individuals.

That's not asking too much.

[MineralMan]

12. If that were true, then we'd already be there.

It is not true. Your expectations do not match the reality. There is not a majority that agrees with even your basic goals and principles. If there were, they would be the operating principles. You need to convince more people. That must be the goal. We cannot expect; we must convince. That is my whole point.

[Armstead]

17. No -- Money and power and Democratic spinelessness prevents it

I think if you polled everyone about their basic goals and values on various issues, I'm quire confident there would be a large proportion who also believe in basic values and specific goals of what they would want to see.

But the folks with money and power have -- through a combination of sheer power and clever manipulation of the media and corrupting politicians -- prevented those shared goals from having actual representation.

I'm not saying everyone is a diehard liberal or progressive. and I'm not talking about fringe positions. But I am confident that a significant proportion of the population do support that, or would if they thought there was anyone who represented it.

[sabrina 1]

10. And then, there's Leadership.

Pragmatism did not get us Civil Rights, Leadership did.

Pragmatism did not get us Social Programs which have saved the lives of millions of Americans, Leadership did that.

Pragmatism did not get women the right to vote or any of the other rights they have, Leadership did that.

Pragmatism did not get Gays the rights they have been fighting hard for and will not get them full, equal rights, Leadership will do that.

Pragmatism did not gain America's Independence, Leadership did that.

Pragmatism will not get us to a point of viewing Medical Care as a right, not a commodity, Leadership will do that.

Pragmatism is compromise, which is fine sometimes. But some issues are too important to be dealt with pragmatically.

And people's minds can and have been changed on major issues, but that takes Leadership, not acceptance of the status quo.

[MineralMan]

11. Pragamatism is not the opposite of leadership, you know...

Truly it is not.

[sabrina 1]

13. I am well aware of what pragmatism is.

Pragmatism minus the counterbalance of pursuit of ideals, is useless. One can recognize facts such as not everyone is going to agree on issues, something I assume everyone here on DU understands, without leaving it at that. Pragmatists generally deride those unwilling to leave it at that. That derision is aimed at Leaders who are generally pragmatic enough to recognize the obvious fact that not everyone will agree with them, but who believe that eg, equal rights is an important enough issue to over-ride those who disagree and well worth fighting for.

And electing people over and over again, who, one knows will never fight for those ideals may be pragmatic, but it will never achieve anything, as we have seen over the course of the past several years.

Maybe you don't mean it, but many of your posts make wrong assumptions about DUers.

This OP, eg assumes that people, presumably people on DU since that is where you chose to post it, expect to elect representatives that are in total agreement with them on every issue. You also assume that DUers are under the impression that what they believe everyone believes or should.

Where did you get those ideas from? I truly am interested.

[markpkessinger]

15. THANK YOU! +1000 n/t

[ljm2002]

14. There are still some problems though...

...you mention this as something that pragmatists realize is true: "a majority does not share a particular set of ideals". Yet, poll after poll shows that 80% of the populace supports higher taxes on the rich, 70-something wants the government to leave SS and Medicare and Medicaid alone, and a healthy majority wants an end to the wars. So why isn't it pragmatic to hold those positions?

The fact is, our politics currently is like a funhouse hall of distorting mirrors, where the information that people get is twisted and contorted and downright false, and hence their votes do not truly reflect their ideals.

[PotatoChip]

16. It's possible if it is you who has been elected.

Assuming you agree with yourself 100% of the time. }(