Urbanagora

« Home | Speech on the Role of the Fed in the Great Depress... »

On Pragmatic Idealism

19 Comments Published by Billy Joe Mills on Friday, March 21 at 1:40 AM.

David Brooks recently wrote an article on pragmatic idealism but without specifically calling it that. “Thoroughly Modern Do-Gooders” says:

Furthermore, we might as well take advantage of this explosion of social entrepreneurship. These are some of the smartest and most creative people in the country. Even if we don’t know how to reduce poverty, it’s probably worth investing in these people and letting them figure it out. The people who fit into this category tend to have plenty of résumé bling. Bill Drayton, the godfather of this movement, went to Harvard, Yale, Oxford and McKinsey before founding Ashoka, a global change network. Those who follow him typically went to some fancy school and then did a stint with Teach for America or AmeriCorps before graduate school. Then, they worked for a software firm before deciding to use what they’d learned in business to help the less fortunate. Now they work 80 hours a week, fighting bureaucracies and funding restrictions in order to build, say, mentoring programs for single moms.

The most succinct way that I can describe my politics, which I hope is a unique fusion of conservative means and liberal ends, is to call it pragmatic idealism. Brian once told me that I should just become a Democrat because a good deal of my political conclusions would be considered progressive. But this friendly hope of Brian’s misunderstands my view of what inspires and drives the world. To me it’s all about money. The world is run by the financial markets and it is most accurately portrayed through the lens of the Wall Street Journal, not our beloved New York Times. I view economics as the single most humanitarian pursuit. But how could this be so? This statement might seem bizarre given that we often equate money with base, anti-humanitarian pursuits. But to me, it is economic growth that saves people. The pragmatism and dirtiness of economic growth allows us to create enough leisure time and security for great, uncompromising, principled authors like Kant or Rawls to write about how we should not be pragmatic and capitalistic. Without the capitalism that Rawls scorned, he would have been a peasant in a field, working too many hours to push on the boundaries of philosophy and art. Capitalism is mankind’s crudest, bloodiest, and dirtiest invention, yet it has also created more humanity and beauty than anything else. The pragmatism of capitalism lies in its ability to conform to human nature, rather than in trying to change human nature to conform to an ideal.

How do we help people trapped in miserable and violent poverty in America, sub-Saharan Africa, Asia, and elsewhere? Humanitarian change won’t be wrought by the protestor of sweat shops, the fair trade purchaser and volunteer, the campus crusader, the good-intentioned pastor, or the pristinely principled academic (Stephen Hartnett), rather it will come from the economics nerd reading Friedman and Hayek at the University of Chicago and a politician bold enough to enact that nerd’s theories. The world is about power. Power, informed and guided by the right ideas, propels the world toward good.

Here are three examples of pragmatic idealism. If you are trying to convince people to become vegetarian, instead of appealing to their altruistic instinct that animals suffer pain and understand pain at a level that parallels humans, an advocate should instead appeal to a person's self-interest in having a healthy diet.

If you would like to see people lifted from poverty in poor countries, you should support sweatshops, as many liberal economists do, as a necessary means. If sweatshop protestors or fair trade activists succeeded in ending all sweatshop activities in Country X, the owners would simply move the sweatshops to Country Y resulting in many people losing their jobs in Country X without any means of creating new jobs. Furthermore, let’s say a sweatshop activist convinced every single American to never buy a sweatshop product again, which is the most successful apex they could reach, it would still say nothing of the purchasing habits of the other 6 billion people on the planet. Perhaps instead the activist could get an MBA or a JD and try to climb the corporate ranks of a multinational corporation so as to influence their policies from the inside. Change most often occurs inside institutions, rather than outside them.

Many of the leaders we consider to have held unwavering idealism actually practiced pragmatic idealism, my favorite example is Gandhi. He studied to be a lawyer - the most dreadfully practical degree available. Here is from the Philosopher’s Magazine, “Although Gandhi’s emphasis on intentions and duties often allows us to relate him to Kant, he is not really a Kantian. First, Gandhi describes himself as a ‘pragmatic idealist.’ He focuses on results. When he acted with good intentions and according to moral duty, but did not succeed in resisting hegemonic British imperialism, alleviating poverty and suffering, or overcoming caste prejudice and oppression, he evaluated his position as a ‘failed experiment in truth.’” In a book review of Gandhi’s Economic Thought, “Dasgupta repeatedly illustrates Gandhi's pragmatism towards social and economic issues combined with his lucid, timeless and ideal ethical code.” Here you can read a book called Gandhi and Pragmatism. In a university speech, Gandhi’s grandson once “reiterated to the audience the necessary elements to achieve non-violence and the pragmatism that his grandfather's philosophies hold in dealing with terrorism effectively.”

My problem with conservatives is that they often ignore the potential humanitarian power of their ideas, or rather, they are too self-serving to devote themselves to being an agent of God or of Good – they lack idealism. My problem with liberals is that they are often so concerned with actualizing their idealistic conception of the world that they forget to enact the pragmatic means necessary. Perhaps the strongest, or at least the most frequent, objection to pragmatism is some form of Kantian idealism which states that anything but the purest of means will corrupt the purity of the ends, and so the preference seems to be on not accomplishing to be death in a blaze of principled glory rather than sacrificing even an inch of principle in order to achieve some progress – think Ralph Nader, the Green Party, and many academics. Libertarians are sometimes guilty of this as well – Tom and Ron Paul come to mind. My biggest problem with Obama (and Clinton as well) is that he is preaching a brand of economics that died many years ago among economists. But to me, the highest ideal, the highest moral has always been realization of the end intended, or least a compromised version resembling it.

Conservatives are generally right about how the world works but they are generally wrong about where the world should go. Liberals are generally wrong about how the world works but they are generally right about where the world should go. My goal with this post is to convince both sides to learn from the other – I know that is a task I must personally accomplish more often. This is a muddy world dripping with pragmatic evil that can be stabbed only by pragmatic good.

Labels: Billy Joe Mills, philosophy

19 Responses to “On Pragmatic Idealism”

# Lance 3/21/2008 10:14 AM

You seem to be conflating your worship of the market with idealism. Please support your claim that you are a pragmatic idealist, by naming five things you have personally done to further the public good, rather than to advance yourself.
# Anonymous 3/21/2008 10:28 AM

That is one of the worst comments I've ever seen on this blog, and that's saying something.
# Brian 3/21/2008 10:28 AM

Lance

I don't think that's quite right. I think he's conflating ECONOMICS with the worship of the market. I don't have any problem with the argument that economics can be a humanitarian pursuit, I just don't think what economics nerds should be reading is Hayek and Friedman, but rather Keynes and Galbraith and Krugman and the like. It seems to me the fatal flaw with this piece is that it just assumes that if you are an economist you must inevitably adopt a conservative point of view. I don't believe that - universal health care, for example, is both a compassionate AND an economically sensible policy to pursue.
# kofi the classical liberalism, conservatism, libertarianism, pragmatic idealism - whatever you want to call it, it's the answer 3/21/2008 10:34 AM

What Billy describes as "pragmatic idealism" is really what we call "conservatism."

Conservatives are generally right about how the world works but they are generally wrong about where the world should go. Liberals are generally wrong about how the world works but they are generally right about where the world should go.

This is complete crap. If helping the unemployed poor find jobs is the goal, conservatives would say lower taxes to spur economic growth and liberals would say raise taxes to provide more assistance and to create more government jobs. How is the conservative's idea of where the world should go 'wrong'? The conservative isn't saying lower taxes so the rich can get richer and fuck the poor. The conservative is saying lower taxes because it will expand the economy and create more jobs, helping raise the wages of those already employed and creating new jobs for those unemployed - because it will help the poor. It's the right means to the right ends.

If improving education is the goal, conservatives would say create a voucher program so that parents can send their kids to privately run schools and liberals would say increase spending on education. Again, how is the conservative wrong? He's not saying let's create voucher programs so we can get all our christian children out of these evil public schools and into private schools where they'll teach creationism. He's saying the biggest deficiency with public schools is the way they are run. The biggest enemy of improving education is the NEA. Creating a market for new, agile schools will teach our kids more and cost us less, whereas 'more money' will just fill the pockets of the problem causers while not helping children at all. Again: good means, good ends.
# Anonymous 3/21/2008 10:35 AM

Coming from a Canadian having to wait literally 14 months for an MRI on my torn up knee, let me tell you, universal health care is NOT sensible.
# Augur 3/21/2008 11:14 AM

Billy, I've always been curious about your meaning when saying "conservative means and liberal ends."

Would you kindly give us your best shot at defining the following terms, to make it a little bit more clear?

Liberal means
Conservative means
Liberal ends
Conservative ends

I tend to see the tension in a more one dimensional way. In the pursuit of policy ideals, how willing should one be to employ corrupt means to reach noble ends. My views on this vary widely, depending on the issue.
# Hanno 3/21/2008 12:06 PM

As always Billy you conflate economic prosperity with happiness as though more money necessarily makes people happier. I can always agree with you in a limited way - yes, grinding poverty blows. I don't think many people would disagree. Yeah, sweatshops do, to a certain extent, alleviate grinding poverty. But so do agricultural sales cooperatives, fair trade certification, organic certification, and a number of other methods. The others, granted, might not have quite the reach but it's not all about the numbers.

What is lost in a sweatshop for instance? The problem with economic thinking is that it's all about money and numbers. Anything that can't be quantified is not valuable. Enabling people to have a good life is sort of what we all want. But raw dollars don't equal happiness. People build up a tolerance. It's like any sort of gratification, you know the law of diminishing returns and all that. At a certain point, or even from the beginning intangibles that can't be quantified really matter. Our lives are impoverished by the loss of the intangibles - dignity, company, friendship, community, family. I'm starting to sound a little like Tom.

Also ignored in the sweatshop and development lexicon is collateral damage which I guess the loss of the intangibles is one. We're also talking environmental costs, health costs, etc. The African AIDS epidemic, to take just one example wouldn't have happened to the extent it has without international trade expanded by trucking. I'm not saying the benefits probably don't outweigh the costs, but merely that we don't even think about these things when assessing the benefits.

Pragmatism is fine, but pull your head out of your ass and realize that pragmatism only works if we're talking about the same goals.
# Hanno 3/21/2008 12:18 PM

By the way, i gotta agree with Kofi - you're talking about Conservative means to Conservative ends.
# Billy Joe Mills 3/21/2008 1:16 PM

My only response to comments made thus far is that I know I'm on the right track when I've violently upset both my liberal and my conservative friends :)
# Augur 3/21/2008 1:20 PM

You haven't violently upset me, not in the least. I merely asked for clarification and definition so I can better understand what you're talking about. Please respond to my comment, rather than glibly avoiding it along with all the haters. Thanks Love.

Please define these terms to clarify your position:

Liberal means
Conservative means
Liberal ends
Conservative ends
# kofi the busy busy busy 3/21/2008 1:35 PM

Like Augur, I am not violently upset. If I get violently upset everytime you were wrong about something I'd have no time to be right about everything.
# Hanno 3/21/2008 1:37 PM

I'm going to third Augur and Kofi. I'm not violently upset. I'm mildly nauseous and want to pat you on the head for being a silly chit and oversimplifying things, but I'm not upset in the least.
# Billy Joe Mills 3/21/2008 2:39 PM

Brian,

I think that most economic conclusions have turned out to be "conservative" or "classical liberalism." Brian mentioned Keynes and Galbraith as people he'd like for econ students to study, but the truth is that in the economics world they are dead, mentioned more by the NYTimes than by professors or scholars of economics. Keynes is looked to now more for how not to run an economy than on how to run an economy. Krugman is a lot similar to me and Mankiw and Ed Prescott and Hayek and Friedman and etc. than you would think. He, along with Nick Kristof, supports sweatshops.

Augur,

Liberal means - lacking the understanding that financial markets, money, and economics and power drive the world. Lacking of pragmatism and realism.

Conservative means - understanding that financial markets, money, and economics and power drive the world. Having pragmatism and realism.

Liberal ends - an idealism that recognizes the fundamental equality of all humans, regardless of national or social boundaries. The notion that humanity can overcome the entire array of arrows aimed against it - poverty, disease, hunger, war, etc. Emphasis on the community of humanity.

Conservative ends - the notion that capitalism justifies endless greed and self-interest. It is the conception that white middle-class fathers hold most dear, that they have worked hard all their lives and that although their $40,000 of disposable income could provide for a small village in Africa for a year, that it would be better spent on a BMW in an attempt to salvage life from the depths of mediocrity. It's an ends that disregards the human community and sees sharp nationalistic and social boundaries, whether they are articulated or not.

Kofi,

From my perspective, which could admittedly be flawed, most conservatives don't place an emphasis on social responsibility, even though as you somewhat pointed out, many of their economic theories ought to be compatible with social responsibility. What I describe as a political philosophy is what I wish conservatism to be, but unfortunately I don't see its primary political representatives practicing it. Instead I see most conservatives practicing pragmatic means to pragmatic ends. Kofi, I just don't often see conservatives speaking or acting in terms that seek to help the poorest members of humanity, whether they be in Africa or America or elsewhere. I see liberals who at least have the good intentions of doing those things, but who are ill-equipped to accomplish their idealistic ends because they practice idealistic means.

My hope would be for a fusion whereby liberals adopt the pragmatic means of conservatives and conservatives adopt the idealistic ends of liberals.
# Brian 3/21/2008 2:53 PM

I am violently upset.
# Billy Joe Mills 3/21/2008 3:12 PM

Brian,

I forgot to say that I encourage you to show me that Galbraith and Keynes still have a significant influence on economists...I am open to being wrong about that...but of course the only reason I'm encourage you is because I know that I am right :)
# Hanno 3/21/2008 3:39 PM

I'm not an economist so I could be making shit up, but it seems to me that while Keynsian economics might not have much sway HERE anymore, they still do in numerous developing countries. I have a friend who is a Keynsian economist that regularly advises the Indian, South Korean, and Taiwanese governments. It's a bit premature to say the ideas are dead.
# Brian 3/21/2008 4:34 PM

Billy,

I'm not an economist, so all I can go off is my basic impression from reading about economics, etc, but my sense is that Keynesian economics is not fully embraced by mainstream economists and that it has proven itself to have significant flaws. At the same time, I think it would be laughable to suggest that mainstream economists fully embrace Friedman or Hayek.

Whether you tilt more toward Friedman-esque economics or Keynes-esque economics is what determines whether you tilt more to the left or to the right. But there's plenty of room in between, and what I'm saying is that your post seems to suggest that the economic world has wrapped its arms around Friedman and said "fuck you" to Keynes, and I don't think that's quite the case.

Also, you say things like "support sweatshops" in a way that is frustratingly oversimplified. I would hope that nobody, conservative or liberal, "supports" sweatshops, in the sense that they just want them to keep on chugging along doing their thing. Rather, economists of all stripes (and, yes, as you point out, Krugman is included there) recognize that if we somehow figured out a way to just up and ban sweatshop labor tomorrow, there would be drastic negative consequences, and that we need to focus more on gradually improving labor standards rather than just screaming at the top of our lungs about sweatshops as some leftist radicals might do.
# Karen Pierce 3/21/2008 5:10 PM

Billy,

Generally, I agree with you. But, I have a question. You say the guy with $40,000 should donate it to a small village instead of spending it on BMWs. But, how are you going to keep those sweatshops in business if people don't spend their money on stuff? You'll put the BMW factory out of business if guys don't buy BMWs. I don't like the idea of unbridled greed either, but it seems we Americans are told we have to consume so the rest of the world can produce.
# Carissa v Ceske Republika 3/30/2008 4:07 PM

Billy,

I am of course late on posting something. Please forgive me as I do read this blog from time to time just to make sure you are still thinking, reading and writing. :)

Anyway, I have sifted through the comments and such but my thoughts are really on the original post. I agree with you when you say that, "Capitalism is mankind’s crudest, bloodiest, and dirtiest invention, yet it has also created more humanity and beauty than anything else." I can tell you that I am living in one of these Post-Communist countries and it has made me realize more than ever the power and value of working for yourself. When people tell me stories that start with, "Before the fall of communism I was suppose to be an auto mechanic. Then when Communism fell I got to go to university and become an economist." These stories have a powerful effect on me because it seems to reiterate the point that even though these former communist countries are suffering from poverty, homelessness and working wage problems, there is still something truly human in capitalism. It can be the epitome of everything wrong in a society, or it can be the height of everything grand. I think if you asked most people here they would respond with stories of how terrible it was and how much better it is now. This has to be a testament to how grand it must feel to finally be able to have your own, personal goals in life actualized.

Anyway, I just thought I would write a little something. I do not have much to say on the economic front. I have read Friedman, Keynes, Krugman and the like...but honestly I think the biggest problem with economists is that they always think like economists. Most of the time when I read something written by either Krugman or Friedman I think both have missed the target. Oh well, if I ever decide to return to America, maybe we can finally get a cup of coffee!

Best,
Carissa

On Pragmatic Idealism

19 Responses to “On Pragmatic Idealism”

Recent Posts

Archives

State & Local

News

General Commentary

Pure Politics

The Law

Economics

Foreign Policy

Culture & Art