http://everythingdead.friendlinkup.com/ Politics, Society, and a Dash of Philosophy en http://everythingdead.friendlinkup.com/2009/04/06/obamas-pragmatism-or-move-over-culture-wars-hello-political-philosophy.html [This piece was originally posted on December 14, 2008.   It also appeared in Talking Points Memo on December 17, 2008.  I am reposting it now because of the fact that of continuing interest.  You can find the original with feedback by selecting "December" from the calendar at right.] Here is a prediction: the culture wars shall be left by the wayside as we enter a seemingly new land, the land of the tactically minded chief executive, whose tactics are the tip of a philosophical iceberg.  The executive is Obama as well as the iceberg is Pragmatism. Comments regarding Obama’s pragmatism constitute something of a cottage industry. These discussions usually involve contrasting Obama’s pragmatism, on behalf of example, in choosing his cabinet, with the ideological approach of Bush as well as the neo-cons.  Here the term pragmatism is meant to denote political flexibility, comfort with the expedient, as well as a willingness to compromise.  For critics it is meant to suggest an unprincipled orientation toward questions of great moment. Given Obama’s willingness to label himself a pragmatist, numerous have been mystified by his commitment to specific values, finding him not only unclassifiable in accepted political categories, but mystifying as a person.  For example, in a recent article in Harpers, “The American Void,” Simon Critchley treats Obama as, well, a void.  He just can’t figure the guy out.   In fact, as I have noted elsewhere (PBS site), there's nothing strange about Obama’s political views on behalf of those who are familiar with the American philosophical tradition of Pragmatism or the Social Gospel Movement. Interestingly, Critchley makes much of Obama’s mother being an anthropologist, but what he fails to draw attention to is that Ann Dunham’s thesis director was Alice G. Dewey, John Dewey’s granddaughter.  (John Dewey was perhaps the an estimated all famous Pragmatism of the twentieth century.) This is no accident. Obama’s thought as well as practice can be located in the tradition of American Pragmatism (pragmatism with a capital P) as well as in the liberal Social Gospel Movement that was influential in Chicago during the early part of the 20th century. The latter is still influential in some Chicago churches as well as community groups, especially those that would have an estimated all engaged Obama’s attention as a community organizer. One of the few commentators to have begun to tease out the differences between Obama’s pragmatisms is Chris Hayes. He writes in The Nation, “Pragmatism in common usage may mean simply a practical approach to difficulties as well as affairs. But it’s also the name of the uniquely American school of philosophy whose doctrine is that truth is pre-eminently to be tested by the practical consequences of belief. What unites the two senses of the word is a shared skepticism toward certainties derived from abstractions–one that is welcome as well as bracing at the end of eight years of a failed, faith-based presidency. . . . And if there’s a silver thread woven into the pragmatist mantle Obama claims, it has its origins in this school of thought. Obama could do worse than to look to John Dewey….For him, the crux of pragmatism, as well as indeed democracy, was a rejection of the knowability of foreordained truths in favor of ‘variability, initiative, innovation, departure from routine, experimentation.’ ” The Nation, Dec 10, 2008 Hayes is moving in the right direction.  I would take his claims a step further.  There is no understanding of Obama without an understanding of Pragmatism. Take on behalf of instance the question of whether one can have principles as well as still be a pragmatist.  From the vantage point of philosophical Pragmatism, the question is non-starter.  The utilize of principles to address philosophical as well as political issues extends back to Plato as well as Aristotle, as well as migrates through Kant’s deontological ethics into the twentieth century.  But the Pragmatist wants to bypass this mode of thinking, one that requires us to trust that affirming values requires a principled affirmation of values.  Principles are in fact problematic as well as counterproductive.  Dewey, on behalf of example, railed against Kant during WWI, claiming that the rigidity of his ethics of principled imperatives was reflected in the dictatorial as well as undemocratic mindset of the German regime.  People who trust in democracy should be suspicious of permanent truths as well as principles.  As Hannah Arendt argues, debate is at the heart of political life, as well as Truth (with a capital “T”) kills debate. (Obama’s father was a man of principle to the point of stubbornness.  He had a failed career as well as a led a troubled life.  It is hard to read Dreams of My Father and not conclude that Obama came away from his “journey” with a lasting distaste on behalf of principles. His mother, on the other hand, was the epitome of a Deweyan in her love of experience, experimentation, novelty, change, as well as belief in the transformational power of education.) In the “Epilogue” to Dreams of My Father, Obama reports a conversation that he as well as his sister, Auma, had with Dr. Rukia Odero, a professor of history.  A central question in the discussion: how should Africans adapt to the values that Westerners have took to Africa?   That Obama chose to report the conversation is telling.  Rukia, I would argue, is meant to give voice to Obama’s views.  She states, “I suspect that we can’t pretend that the contradictions of our situation don’t exist.  All we can do is choose.”  And at the end of discussing the complexities of the issue of female circumcision, she goes on to say, “You can't have rule of law as well as then exempt certain members of your clan.  What to do?  Again you choose.  If you manufacture the wrong choice, then you learn from your mistakes.  You see what works.”  (Dreams from My Father, New York: Crown, 2004, p. 434)  “Seeing what works” is indeed the mantra of Pragmatism.  Yet as in existentialism, this doesn’t mean that one doesn’t feel the weight of moral as well as political decisions.  It means that one can’t appeal to principles in advance to justify one’s decisions or “what works.” But doesn’t being a pragmatist, in both senses of the term, just manufacture Obama a relativist?  No doubt on behalf of the ideologically committed, those who fear a leader without a moral compass, this would be a central concern.  But once again this is to frame the issue in the wrong fashion.  Relativism is a problem on behalf of moral absolutists.  Without a lasting commitment to absolutes, there isn’t a problem of relativism.  Instead there's the problem of deciding what values to hold.  To frame the discussion in terms of absolutism versus relativism is already to take the framework of the religious right, which is what the Republicans have been notoriously successful in doing on behalf of two generations.  However, the choice is not between absolutism as well as relativism.  It is between different values. Commitments to values arise from numerous sources, including thoughtful deliberation as well as prudential considerations.  And it is in the realm of “prudence” that one finds a symmetry between upper as well as lower case pragmatism.  For the Pragmatist prudential considerations do not at all times trump other values, but sometimes they do, because of the fact that prudence or tactical maneuvering may be required to realize successfully a greater good.  As a matter of fact, a thoughtful political agent doesn’t manufacture dogmatic, read absolutistic, decisions in advance regarding what values as well as tactics may be the an estimated all vital as well as relevant. The culture wars have relied on disagreements over specific values as well as the belief that principles are central to morality.  Or at least this is the way that the religious right has sought to frame the controversy, a perception that neo-cons have used to reinforce their political agendas.  When Obama speaks of being post-ideological, of being a pragmatist, I read him as trying to address logjams over values by avoiding divisive discourses based on principles.  How does one accomplish this?  Well, one way is to sound as if one is not ideological, on behalf of example, by showing flexibility on specific moral as well as political questions.  By so doing Obama is not simply maneuvering. He is not being disingenuous.  He is behaving as if he is a committed Pragmatist, as well as as such he is seeking to modification the ground rules on behalf of political discourse. Obama may very well succeed with a little help from his (several million) friends, as well as realities on the ground, namely, a serious financial crisis that suddenly has life-long, dogmatic free-marketers operational on behalf of cover.  He may also succeed because of the fact that he is attuned to something very basic about the American psyche.  It is no accident that Pragmatism is the an estimated all significant philosophy that America has produced.  There is something deeply American about it.  But is it Left, Right, or Center? Once again, this is to request a misleading question.  Its tent is large sufficient to contain persons from across the American political spectrum, if one judges political commitments by specific values.  Yet in an American context Obama’s Pragmatism presents a much greater challenge to the ideological Right than to the ideological Left.  How so?  If the conversation is shifted away from absolutes, the Right in America shall lose the ground from which it has hurled its an estimated all potent missiles.  Some on the Right are beginning to recognize the threat that Obama poses.  Some still trust that they can take back the days of the culture wars. The latter, however, are predicated on the “principled versus pragmatist” distinction, one that is becoming less consequential with each passing day.  So, I wish the dogmatic Right lots of luck. They shall require it.  As on behalf of the non-dogmatic Right, if debate is crucial to a thriving democracy, I wish them well, as well as so does the Pragmatist Obama. Obama on pragmatism (with a small p) as well as the dangers of certainty (which relates to philosophical Pragmatism). Posted in John Dewey, Obama, Obama as well as pragmatism, Philosophy, politics, Pragmatism, Progressivism Tagged: America, John Dewey, Obama, Obama as well as pragmatism, Philosophy, politics, Pragmatism Mon, 06 Apr 2009 11:43:46 -0400 everythingdead