Tag Archive for 'pragmatism'

Some common criticisms from the left, right and Christian

Written by Colin. Published on July 21, 2008 ago in Philosophy, Politics and Religion. 5 Comments
This entry is part 4 of 4 in the series Libertarianism, Christianity and Foreign Policy Q&A

The first two instalments explained why libertarian foreign policy is neither right wing or left wing. The third argued that libertarian foreign policy is compatible with biblical mandates. Finally, I would like to summarize some criticism from left, right and Christian.

Despite the fact that the Democrats and Christian libertarians have different reasons for supporting a decreased military presence in Iraq, doesn’t the similar result justify grouping them?

Perhaps we should look at a more absurd scenario to judge this principle. My neighbour has a car I like and I offer him $10,000 for it – which he accepts. But what if I steal it instead? Both result in me getting the car from my neighborur. However, one is moral and one is not.

The democrats have no principled opposition to aggression in foreign policy. They are driven entirely by polls (with a few exceptions). Many libertarian Christians, on the other hand, do not support war out of steadfast philosophical opposition to aggression.

I basically agree with these views, but they are not pragmatic. These are merely “theories” which work on paper but cannot happen in real life.

I think the term “theory” is potentially misapplied here. This is not a “theory” in the positivistic sense- where it needs to be “tested” in order to be proved true or false empirically. But the Christian libertarian foreign policy is an a priori argument based on human action and biblical truth. Neither of these foundations require empirical results in order to be verified.

But the more important concern is with the pragmatism of compromising with something one knows to be wrong to achieve a “right” end. Christianity requires us to give the results to God, and walk in faith and obedience. We are not be bend God’s truth to accommodate our political goals – but rather to trust in his sovereignty and obey his gospel. It may not be pragmatic for a soldier to disobey his commanders asking him to kill civilians – but what is the Christian thing to do? It may not be pragmatic for a tax collector to repent and refuse to steal from others – but it is right.

These are the tough decisions for Christians to make because they require us to put our faith into action, despite what our senses and reason tell us. But this does not exempt us from our duty to obey.

Christians Should Vote Their Ideals – Not be Partisans

Written by Hungry Sasquatch. Published on November 15, 2007 ago in Current Events, Politics and Religion. 19 Comments

I had this great idea for an article about why we should vote idealistically instead of pragmatically…and then Colin wrote it (read here). He told me I should write mine anyway since there’s a lot to say on the subject, but I suspect he just wants to sue me for plagiarism. So with that irrational paranoia in the back of my mind, I tried to hit on some points he didn’t address.

The Republican/Evangelical Christian alliance
About once a week, I’ll see an article in the paper about how conservative Christians are having a hard time choosing a Republican candidate to rally around. Giuliani is the devil, Romney is a Mormon, etc. The pickings are so slim, evangelical leaders are talking about supporting a third party candidate if they aren’t satisfied with the eventual nominee. The GOP is alarmed by this talk, as it should be: In the 2004 election, one third of republican voters identified themselves as conservative Christians. And how does it respond to this potential crisis? Does the GOP attempt to cater to the concerns of a third of its constituency? No. The repeated cry is, “Don’t support a third party candidate! Then the Democrats will win. We’ll have eight years of Hillary, and you know you would hate that. Voting third party is the last thing you want to do.”

I beg to differ. Why should anyone vote for a candidate who doesn’t represent their views? Why should anyone support a party that casually disregards the things they care most about? Suppose Giuliani wins the republican nomination, and every conservative evangelical who doesn’t actually like him decides to vote for a third party candidate. What happens? Giuliani loses 20-30% of his expected support, the third party candidate gets slaughtered, and a Democrat comes to power for the next four years. The renegade voters may feel like they did more harm than good, but do you really think the GOP will run out another Giuliani for the next election? Not if they have any sense. By being willing to take a short term hit in the name of idealism, Christians (and anyone else, really) CAN bring meaningful change to the system.

Questioning the alliance
The Republican party obviously benefits from evangelical attachment, but is this union good for the Church? As Christians, we are devoted to a higher calling, to a Kingdom that transcends this world. And yet, the church so often seeks power and influence through the Republican party and its “moral emphasis,” to the point where we’ve got way too many eggs in the elephant’s basket. Fortunately, younger generations of conservative evangelicals are growing uneasy with this unholy matrimony. Increasingly, younger Christians consider things like poverty and the environment to be moral issues, areas traditionally emphasized by democrats.

It’s unrealistic to expect all Christians to vote for the same person or care about the exact same set of issues. But what if a substantial percentage stood up and said, “We are people of peace and we won’t support a candidate who wants to keep fighting a war indefinitely. And Jesus taught us to care for the poor, so we will not stand behind a candidate who has no plan for helping them.” If enough of us took a stand like that on the issues that matter most to us, the major parties would be forced to react. At the least, they would be forced to embrace those causes in order to win our votes. And who knows, maybe we can even bring an end to the two-party system that saps our elections of diversity. But none of this can happen if we give into the fear of pragmatism.

The Dangers of Political Pragmatism

Written by Colin. Published on November 7, 2007 ago in General. 37 Comments

Generally in presidential elections, voters really aren’t ecstatic over either candidate A or B (yes, even if there were a C and a mythical third party, people still could care less). Instead, they cast their vote based on who will likely not screw it up the most.

This election is no different – if Clinton and Giuliani win out, we will see republicans likely tossing out more than half of their major ideals to vote for a guy who, relative to the emblematic republicans of old – looks like Chairman Mao.

Why in the world do they do this?

The answer is pragmatism. Republicans see Clinton as a rabid, feminist, socialistic… well, Clinton. So even though they are actually voting for an anti-gun, pro-choice, pro-taxer, big spending, illegal immigration supporting, big-government politician – it’s ok because the pragmatic alternative is supporting Hillary. Forget the fact that, for all intents and purposes, they are voting for a democrat in everything but name.

Ironically, these people openly talk about why they are sorely disappointed with George W. Bush’s big-government legacy, as though they totally forgot that Bush openly ran as a big-government conservative. His immigration stance, spending-philosophy, government health care and big-government education program were all out in the open in both 2000 and 2004 – but republicans were terrified of Al Gore and John Kerry. Again, pragmatism.

Where Strategic Thinking Goes to Die
This is the ultimate danger of such a voting philosophy – pragmatism is only good for one battle – one moment in the thousands of moments of A versus B. When we elect a president, for example, we aren’t picking a winner and then everyone goes home. They stay in office for at least four years – and they do all the irresponsible things that we ignorantly hoped they wouldn’t do, but blatantly indicated they would.

As it has been said before – the lesser of two evils is still evil. And pragmatism is not a strategy -it’s suicide. Death by hanging or by jumping off a cliff?

Genuine strategy, the kind that is above base pragmatism, takes into account total wins and losses in each battle, and attempts to gain victory in the end. In other words – it’s not the end of the world if one battle is lost!

The candidate that a voter actually likes may be in tenth place, or in some obscure party which has no chance of winning. Of course, the battle will certainly be lost and the candidate will be soundly defeated – but that is one less person choosing not to play the game when the rules are stacked against them. It’s one more kid picking up their ball, and going home. Eventually, the only ones left are the bullies and thugs, and their threats and lies are exposed for the world to see.

That is the moral victory – and yes, even in amoral politics there are moral victories – the size of both A and B’s electorate and donation base just got smaller. Eventually, and maybe it takes twenty years, the politicians realize that a good number of people are actually voting on principles and not pragmatism and adjust accordingly. Now that would be real change!

The Motivation for Pragmatism is Fear
Are pragmatists afraid? Yes. They get caught up in every election – which is built up by both A and B – that this is the defining battle between the two sides. They and their pundits will say that compromise is essential, because there is just too much at stake. If you don’t vote for A, B will raise your taxes, socialize your health care and make you use lightbulbs that cost $400 a piece. But if you don’t vote for B, A will instate a draft, round up the Muslims and start arresting you for jaywalking.

It’s fear people. The heart of pragmatism exposed.

How to Break the Cycle
In choosing pragmatism, the only safeguard built into the plurality system is neutered: idealism. When democrats, for example, who overwhelmingly oppose the war, pick Clinton who has no qualms about keeping troops in Iraq another five years – they are saying that they don’t really care about ending the war. In the next congressional election, democratic candidates are going to be more moderate on that issue because they know they can win without being an ideologue. Eventually, ending the war gradually fades from the platform.

However, if Giuliani gets elected, then the democrats in the congressional elections react strongly against the war – and win – because that’s what the democratic electorate really wants. In other words, even though it’s only in baby steps, the parties are gradually shaped back into what people actually want them to be, and not what they are willing to settle for to prevent that other crazy party from getting power.

Is all of this even realistic? Probably not. People will go on, voting for their own destruction, until the whole thing breaks (if it isn’t there already). But the vision should be held, because even when this country finally breaks beyond repair, a new one is going to have to be built from scratch.