The Blog Formerly Known As Vote '08

Yesterday I agreed with Shadi Hamid, who celebrated the end of the old “left-right/war-peace” dichotomies.

How pragmatism is forcing ideology to take a back seat.

Now Glenn Greenwald has me scratching my head again:

“If one discards the need for ideology in favor of “pragmatism” and “competence” — as so many people seem so eager to do — then it’s difficult to see how one could form any opinions about questions of this sort beyond a crude risk-benefit analysis (i.e., “pragmatism”). Are there military and economic benefits to be derived for the U.S. from invading Pakistan? Bombing Iran? Lending unquestioning support to Israel? Escalating our occupation of Afghanistan? Remaining indefinitely in Iraq and exploiting their resources? Propping up dictators of all types? Deposing Hugo Chavez? Torturing suspected terrorists for information, or detaining them without process? If so, then those who are heralding “pragmatism” as the supreme value — or at least something that should trump “ideology” — would have no real basis to oppose those actions. It is only ideological beliefs that permit opposition to those polices even if they are “beneficial” to our “national self-interest.”"

&

“”Ideology” is not a bad word. It refers to nothing more than one’s set of political principles and core doctrinal beliefs that exist independent of considerations of utility. It’s nonsensical to try to assess political leaders or policies based solely on “competence” and without regard to “ideology.”

“Competence” is about how technocratically effective of a war plan can be designed, or how accurate one’s predictions are about the effects of economic and tax policies, or how efficiently one can marshall intelligence resources. But “ideology” is what determines whether a war is just and warranted, or what economic outcomes are fair and desirable, or whether the Government is justified in spying on its own citizens without warrants or detaining them without due process.

It’s possible to become too rigid and unyielding in one’s ideological beliefs — to adhere excessively to principles without regard to consequences — but it’s at least just as possible to become so pragmatic that one operates without any core principles. There’s a perception (a dubious one) that the problem of the last eight years has been that our political leaders have been too rigidly ideological (I’d say the Bush administration was quite concerned with outcomes and not particularly concerned with principles). But this perception — accurate or not — has engendered an overcompensating desire to rid ourselves of ideology in the name of pragmatism.”

What do you think?

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.