Pragmatism, idealism, and morality

Steve Benen wrote a great column yesterday reacting to this video of Gov. Perry that many of you may have seen by now.



In the video Gov. Perry is asked to reconcile his state's spending on abstinence education with the fact that Texas has the third highest rate of teen pregnancy compared to other states in the country. Its obvious that Perry struggles with the dissonance created by that reality.

Here's what Benen says about that.

In general, conservatism isn’t pragmatic because policy outcomes aren’t the goal. Indeed, they’re largely irrelevant. As we’ve seen in too many instances, Republicans aren’t principally concerned with solving problems; their goals are ideological.

That is certainly true for too many conservatives these days. My first reaction to watching the video was that Perry wanted to answer a moral question rather than a pragmatic one. In other words, his position was that "abstinence works" and the fact that abstinence education doesn't work is irrelevant. That kind of ideological position is dangerous in politics because legislation and budgets have real effects on real people's lives (ie, teen pregnancies).

All of that reminds me of something one of my co-workers asks all the time: "What does it mean to help?" It sounds like a simple question. But the truth is that people's lives are complex and ideology is often useless at best and destructive at worst in actually helping them address their real life challenges.

But this is often the problem with liberals too. Its why Alinsky suggested that we have to get rid of do-gooders.

The other fundamental lesson Obama was taught is Alinsky's maxim that self-interest is the only principle around which to organize people. (Galluzzo's manual goes so far as to advise trainees in block letters: "get rid of do-gooders in your church and your organization.") Obama was a fan of Alinsky's realistic streak. "The key to creating successful organizations was making sure people's self-interest was met," he told me, "and not just basing it on pie-in-the-sky idealism. So there were some basic principles that remained powerful then, and in fact I still believe in."

Pragmatism first asks what is in people's self-interest (what does it mean to help?) - and then works with them to achieve that. Idealism and morality have too often already determined what is in people's self interest and then try to impose that. In the end, the difference brings up questions about respect and empowerment as well as effectiveness.