The Nation ran a story on Sunday, written by Christopher Hayes, which labeled President-elect Obama as a "pragmatist" rather than an "ideologue."
The article led me to wonder: Is pragmatism a positive characteristic in a President, or should we look for a leader who is more influenced by ideological rather than material standards? I see potential detriments and benefits of either type of leader, and will try to outline them here while working under the assumption that 'pragmatism' is not necessarily an ideology.
Pragmatist advantage:
Gerrymandering, congressional pork, and ridiculous legislation like California's recent Prop 2 are, I believe, driving the American public mad. No matter your loyalty--democrat, republican, independent, etc. etc.--thinking of crippling impracticality in the government does not take long. The left says Iraq is a drain of taxpayer's money and lives; the right says a $700 billion bailout is a drain of resources in an already indebted economy. Either controversial policy may be the 'right' thing to do, but it is possible that neither is practical.
A pragmatist would, in theory, help America escape ideologically driven policies that are harmful in material ways. The economy should improve; everyone should be employed with health-care; gasoline should stay under two dollars.
Pragmatist detriment:
I see two main problems with a pragmatist leader. First of all, even practical plans (i.e. Universal Health Care) run the risk of failure. While the ideologue has principles by which to assess and respond to such an event, the pragmatist has more of a risk for being a deer in the headlights of unexpected realities.
For example: The practical wisdom of Sony told them Beta would be a hit, and withholding the technology was the best way to improve their material standing.
Oops. When the VCR came, Sony couldn't recover--they hadn't accounted for things to develop so unlike their predictions. Those are big risks to take when you're handling people's livelihoods. Mistakes are acceptable--complete failure...not as much.
The second issue I have with a purely pragmatist leader is that what 'makes sense' is not always right. Marx's vision that we should all pool our wealth, distribute it evenly, and sufficiently provide for all citizens makes practical 'sense.' Also, the plan that I should pay higher taxes so that my neighbor has health care makes 'sense.'
However, are these systems moral? If we take away people's self-determination to be generous, we take away from them opportunities for goodness--that seems wrong. Practical? Yes. After all, we can't assure people will be generous like we can assure they pay taxes. Moral? Hmm...
Ideologue advantage:
An ideologue, on the other hand, offers people predictability greater, I think, than the pragmatist. If a tough decision arises, what the pragmatist will decide is more uncertain than the ideologue, whose principles beyond material benefit are known. After all, practical sides of a decision may be fairly even while, simultaneously, a moral responsibility is obvious. We don't want a robot as a leader--we need a personality that Americans can feel confident getting behind. Maybe Obama is not a pure pragmatist, and he is that personality. I'm open to that possibility, but only time will tell.
Additionally, an ideologue will be firm concerning their convictions--less prone to flip-flops than the pragmatist, who might change their mind on a decision due to sudden changes in evidence. The ideologue has principles they will adhere to even when their ideas are unpopular, (i.e. Robert E. Lee becoming the C.S. general despite lucrative offers from the North).
Ideologue Detriment:
Ideology can go berserk. Crusades or jihad are examples of this: when fervor is all action is based off of, without any consideration of real consequences, the result is usually bad. Also, one must consider that pragmatism can become an ideology in and of itself, (i.e. Leninism), and is extremely dangerous as such. Theorists, for the same reason they are firm in conviction, are also unlikely to compromise or relent, even if the face of well-reasoned objections. Emotional devotion to a cause, while potentially good, is a powerful weapon that can be used horrifically, (i.e. the Holocaust).
Both pragmatism and ideology would appear important in a leader, but at the end of the day, I find ideas to be more real than indexes. I will be interested to see what sort of role pragmatism will play out in Obama's administration over the next four years. Admittedly, I am concerned about the unpredictability of a pragmatist leader. For now, however, I open the floor to you: which of the two qualities do you think is more important in a leader?