Idealism seeks what it dreams while pragmatism accepts what it can get. How do we get pragmatism back into the public forum?
Once upon a time, statecraft was built on the foundation of pragmatism, which is to say (as defined by Oxford Languages):"an approach that assesses the truth of meaning of theories or beliefs in terms of the success of their practical application."
This unfortunately no longer seems the case, as has been abundantly clear in recent decades with scores of public policy and diplomatic positions engineered from purely idealistic standpoints, regardless of successes past or present. The dangers of ignoring pragmatism in favor of idealism are potentially catastrophic for the United States and its allies, and our continued success as a civilization is probably tied to sorting out this philosophical dilemma.
The very nature of idealism, which is to say:"the practice of forming or pursuing ideals, especially unrealistically" (as also defined by Oxford Languages) is dangerous in itself. This is because "idealism" elevates the intention or ideal of something to the same level as an objective truth, without taking into consideration the consequences (or even the means to the ends) of those ideals in planning or process.
An excellent example of this is the current "Green" movement. It would be very hard to find anyone in the Twenty-First century who thinks the pursuit, continued use, and over dependence on fossil fuels is a "growth industry." Not only is carbon dirty and inefficient, it's also limited in power delivery and a finite resource.
This not withstanding, until we have something better (and that's not wind or solar by the way) it's what we've got, and billions upon billions of people depend upon it for their daily comfort and livelihood. From the idealist's standpoint this is immaterial. The first perceived truth that carbon is bad trumps any other consideration of its intrinsic necessity and current indispensability to modern society. A pragmatist of course sees this very differently. A pragmatist equally acknowledges the truth that carbon is bad and at the same time, that it must be used for modern society to function, likewise seeking to find a path from one truth to the other with the least amount of disruption for society.
In recent weeks as fuel prices have continued to climb worldwide, economists and pundits have opined that governmental action doesn't really have an effect on markets, especially any present or past actions of the United States president or congress; but this is not entirely true. As is always the case with commodity markets, the shift and allotment of capital follows the best return on investment. If a particular government or administration is adverse to a commodity (such as petroleum) there is little incentive to invest in drilling, refining, or distribution. Whether the government wants increased production or not, the stockholders may be less than inclined to pursue those actions in light of future regulation or even downright prohibition, as explored in this piece from National Public Radio published in the 01 MAR 2022 edition of The Socratic Review entitled, How a wrinkle in the oil futures market has clogged America's oil pump.
Pursuit of fuel and climate idealism is further problematic when it's applied to foreign affairs. Treaty arrangements seeking to limit things like emissions often fail to consider emerging industrial economies like China, India, and Russia, and their reluctance to abandon the energy sources that allowed the "developed world" to become the "developed world" in the first place. From the point of view of these countries, western concepts of limiting their use of fossil fuels is unfair, prejudicial, and even hypocritical; a point of view that when viewed pragmatically, is hard to argue against.
Idealism often has a problem with falling into hypocrisy; this is because when you view any position as an objective truth regardless of its practical application, the tendency to elevate that ideal to a virtue without substance is almost inevitable. Effete boycotts and virtue signaling are particular examples tied to the idealistic belief that "awareness" = action. This is of course absurd. Boycotting Russian products that have already been bought and paid for (like vodka at a bar as an example) in support of Ukrainian resistance may make someone feel virtuous in striking a blow for human rights; but when compared to the ownership of a cellphone that is dependent on child labor from Africa and slave labor from China it's a rather ridiculous (however well-intentioned) position in reality.
These disconnects between virtues and realities erode credibility when they become a foundation for public policy. If we are ostensibly protecting human rights, why would we develop policies and pursue actions that will have a direct result in hurting people, whether it's their lives or livelihoods? Why would we rack up debt, spur inflation, and devalue currencies, if the ultimate victims are not elites or oligarchs (in any country including our own) but day-to-day wage workers and middle class professionals? Those with wealth and power have many ways of avoiding "virtuous" action; the poor and middle class - not so much. Are these virtues really virtues or are they more likely misplaced vanities? For my money they're misplaced vanities, and we as a nation (together with our allies as a portion of civilization) need to think long and hard about how we want to proceed in a newly emerging world, and whether our path should be one paved with good intentions and illuminated by a bonfire of vanities, or paved with logical realities and illuminated with torches of enlightened reason.
One of the first realities we should probably embrace is the fact that many people think democracy is obsolete. I am not one of those people mind you, I think that the egalitarian republican values of liberty and federalism are still the best forms of government for those who are prepared to participate in them objectively and unselfishly - but those people are few and far between within the United States, where an air of vengeful one-ups-man ship has effectively displaced reasoned debate or cooperation. I also think the Westminster form of parliamentary government is excellent, and for some countries, superior.
However, outside the democratic world, traditionally totalitarian states are not impressed with democracy. This is unfortunate and true, and fully realized by our country and our democratic allies for decades. We have (and will continue to) support undemocratic totalitarian regimes when they suit our purposes, whether that's Saudi Arabia, China, Russia or whomever.
Take the recent sanctions against Russia over Ukraine. Severe as they are, they are very carefully drawn to avoid disrupting Russian petroleum production for fear of setting off more inflation on the Consumer Price Index. Picking and choosing which totalitarian states are bad and which are good is both disingenuous and hypocritical, and wins no friends in any camp. A pragmatic foreign policy eliminates all that by avoiding posturing and virtue signaling in the first place, clearly stating why we do or do not support a particular regime. A good example of this is China. We often talk about our abhorrence over the lack of human rights in China, but rarely over how (by our own choice) we have become utterly dependent upon China for its cheap labor, components, assembly lines, and finished consumer goods.
There are many who have posited that after Russia began its invasion of Ukraine, that it would only be a matter of time before China did the same with Taiwan. This is probably a valid observation and one that brings us to our next reality. If that happens, there is precious little that the United States will be able to do about it. An idealist will say that we have a moral obligation to the Taiwanese (and they would be right) but the pragmatist will point out that any action taken against China would not only risk a general war, but could potentially ruin the United States financially. Globalization has so entwined our financial markets and trade connections that interruptions from a market as large as China's could be devastating to the United States consumer.
Which leads us to a third disturbing reality. In free societies this acute suffering of the general population is a palpable factor; in totalitarian states; not so much. Governments dependent on the goodwill of voters are much more attuned to the financial suffering of the populace that elects them, than a state where the public franchise is wanting or entirely absent. And this is even before we entertain the irresponsible actions we have taken with regard to debt. Alarmists (and idealists) warn against climate change, income inequality, and widespread poverty as reasons to continue borrowing; all of these are ostensibly valid concerns. But the fact that we have incurred 30 trillion dollars in debt with decreasing taxation year-over-year is in some ways more frightening than all of these factors put together in real politics.
A concerted effort on the part of a foreign enemy to dump dollars (a reserve currency) or treasury bills, would have a near instantaneous and devastating effect on our credit and our ability to meet even the most mundane functions of government. Electronic warfare on virtual assets and transfers could do the same thing, especially as unfriendly countries become wealthier and buy more dollars as reserve currency; and thus the same applies to the EURO and the Pound Sterling. Cryptocurrency mining is yet another factor, especially in countries like Russia who have more energy than reserve currency, and who are primed for mining operations that could further destabilize world markets. Actions such as these would plunge the average citizen of the United States; citizens who themselves are unrepentant debtors with nearly no cash reserves, into a poor, helpless lot far worse off than those who survived the Great Depression of the 1930's where the nation at least had the ability to borrow money if it needed it.
We as citizens of the world, need to look beyond our good intentions and focus on seeing the world clearly and without prejudice. We need to understand the delicacy and vulnerability of our financial institutions, our space infrastructure; our water supply, and our electrical distribution grid - all of which are extremely susceptible to foreign attack. We have to understand that the balance of power in the world is shifting to a world order not far afield from Orwell's Oceania, Eurasia and Eastasia where we, Canada, the United Kingdom, Western Europe, Australia, New Zealand and our client states are squared-off against Russia, China and their client states.
We should always strive for a better world and give way to our better instincts. But to do so through the rose-colored glasses of idealism is a disservice to ourselves, the world and humanity in general.
Comments