Musing on pragmatism versus idealogy, Ta-Nehisi writes:
Lincoln may well have been a great president, but on arguably the most vexing question facing this country, his record is mixed. He opposed slavery as an institution, but also opposed equality and voting rights for blacks. To my mind, his thoughts on race were pedestrian, ordinary, and unimpressive. He was, in a word, pragmatic.
The true ideologue was Frederick Douglass–mostly because he really had no other choice, if he wanted to live free. Pragmatism doesn’t allow you to physically resist slavery as Douglass did. Pragmatism doesn’t tell you to flee North. It’s principle–and what is ideology, but a core of unmoving principles–that made Douglass an abolitionist. It’s principle that told Douglass he had the right to love whoever he wanted. Meanwhile pragmatism gave us one the most cowardly and shameful acts in this country’s history–the retreat out of the South, which left blacks at the mercy of a thugocracy.
As Hayes reminds us, we should be skeptical of those who make a fetish of pragmatism.
My reflex is to agree with Ta-Nehisi, but on second thought I wonder if his discussion isn’t missing the point a little. Ta-Nehisi argues persuasively that Lincoln’s opinions were wrong and deplorable. But the defense of pragmatism would be that Frederick Douglass (or a white abolitionist who shared Douglass’ views) could not have been elected and would not have brought slavery to an end as quickly.
In other words, the argument for pragmatism isn’t that pragmatists are better people, but that they bring about better outcomes.
But that’s too simplistic. With hindsight, it’s easy to point to whoever won out and say “see? Pragmatists succeed.” Pragmatic Lincoln, once he had no choice, ended slavery — but he never would have brought himself to the state of having no choice. It was the much-hated abolitionists, by refusing to give in to what seemed politically viable at the time, who had brought the country to that impasse.
Edited to add: Nor was Lincoln a pure pragmatist; he did have ideals which were important, even though he compromised them. (There were pragmatists who were firmly committed to maintaining slavery, after all; it was good for the country that Lincoln wasn’t one of those.) Douglass, for that matter, played the hand he was dealt as well as any pragmatist could have. In the end, being “pragmatic,” beyond the basic level required to not run the economy to the ground in the pursuit of an empty ideological agenda, is only meaningful based on what goals are being pragmatically sought.
A movement needs both idealists and pragmatists. Loudmouth puritain ideologs move the center in their direction, and the pragmatists accomplish actual tangible progress.
An ideal politician should have idealistic goals but be a pragmatist about means. The job of a politician is to get things done, and one must be a pragmatist to get things done. But a pragmatist without idealistic goals to pursue and idealistic commitments to constrain her actions is something close to a sociopath.
As for Lincoln, his beliefs about race were wrong from our vantage point, and, I believe, wrong objectively. Still, he was a progressive for his time and should be given credit for such. I can sympathize. I am proud to be very progressive on most issues, but I still eat meat. The ethical case for vegetarianism is logically very compelling. But while vegetarianism is obviously a way of life for many people, it requires a commitment of time and effort and willpower that I am either unable or unwilling to give it. At some point in the future, I expect vegetarians to win the battle over the minds of the public, and society will be restructured to make vegetarianism an easy way to live, and people who grow up in such a society will have a very difficult time understanding my ethical compromise. Knowing all this, I can cut Lincoln slack for only being partly progressive.
It is hard to blame Lincoln for the events of Recontruction and its aftermath–after all, he was dead.
I agree with Decnavda that Lincoln was progressive for his time. This doesn’t mean I agree with his views on race, or make them right. Comparing Douglass to Lincoln is a bit of an apples to oranges kind of comparison–Douglass had the wrong skin tone to even consider a pragmatic approach once he decided to dedicate his life to the public good, especially living in the North as he did. I give Douglass full marks for what he accomplished, and for how hard he worked towards racial equality (he didn’t HAVE to be an advocate–that was his choice).
Lincoln was not considered a pragmatist in the South when he was elected–it was the fact of his election that the Confederates used as a pretext to secede, even before Lincoln did anything (or took office!). It is hard to imagine anyone with an even more ideological bent even winning the election. I agree that change tends to be done by “pragmatists” who are enabled by the work of “ideologues” who pull public opinion in their direction. In a democracy, this is a good thing–their are lots of modern ideologues who I am glad can’t get elected (Buchanan anyone?)
This is probably just a personal kick of mine, since I identify with the philosophical Pragmatists (i.e., Williams James, John Dewey, W.E.B. Du Bois, Richard Rorty, etc.), so I recoil when “pragmatism” is kicked around on. But I get that you are using in it’s general form, rather than the specific philosophical school.
That said, I still recommend Daniel Solove and Michael Sullivan’s article Can Pragmatism Be Radical?
I guess. It’s my understanding that Lincoln personally believed in ending slavery (that’s the political faction from which he came), but knew that if he trumpeted that fact he couldn’t get elected, and he wouldn’t be able to govern if he did. So he tried to down-play his past associations with the abolitionists. And it worked; he got elected. And it didn’t work; by the time of his inauguration news of his abolitionist leanings had spread, and the South had already seceded.
So was Lincoln a pragmatist who eventually acceded to ending slavery in the interest of preserving the Union? Or was Lincoln a closeted idealist who swallowed his idealism to get elected and govern? Or does this idealist/pragmatist dichotomy really make sense?
In other words, Douglass had little, so he had little to lose by espousing emancipation. Lincoln had a lot to lose.
It doesn’t?
Yet when it came time to decide whether to draft the 15th Amendments to say that all MEN are eligible to vote, or all PEOPLE are eligible to vote, what did pure, unadulterated, principled Mr. Douglass conclude? That if we try to bite off too much, well never get anything passed.
So Douglass was a man of principle – until he had something at stake. Then he was as pragmatic as any other politician.
Indeed. Just as the pragmatists advocated pulling US troops out of Viet Nam and Iraq, while the ideologues argue that there’s a principle at stake and we dare not retreat. Which side are you on, oh, which side are you on?
When it comes to discussions of pragmatism vs. ideology, I must cite the example of miscegenation. According to Wikipedia:
The presidential campaign of 1964 was very hotly contested, with many people advocating electing a president that would negotiate an end to this ruinous civil war. Into the midst of this electoral fight is introduced the issue of miscegenation. “President Lincoln, where do you stand on the issue of sexual relations between the races?”
If you’re an idealist, and your ideal is to promote the welfare of enslaved black people, what answer do you want Lincoln to give? Do you really want him to SAY the right thing and lose the election? Or do you want him to DO the right thing and win the election?
To my mind, this just reaffirms what has always been true in American politics–pragmatists (where “pragmatists” means cautious centrists who are willing to put their principles after majority opinions and the political/logistical realities they face) are the ones who get elected, and they absolutely need to be pushed, from all sides, by radicals and ideologues if anything is going to happen. This, in my mind, is how it should be. When you put extremists in charge, sometimes really good things happen, but often as not things that might be good in principle come about with some really terrible costs associated, because the ideologues in charge don’t care about the costs–they care about making the things they want to happen happen. The closest we’ve come to this, recently, is George W. Bush’s presidency.
It means that change doesn’t happen as fast or as much as one might want, but it also means that extremism is tempered. It’s part of why our political system has been quite stable over its centuries of existence, and why it’s so frustrating for those of us who see things differently from the political “middle” (whatever that is). Politically, pragmatism almost always means compromise. (Exceptions mostly seem to happen during crises–see the Civil War and the Great Depression. That’s because the realities dictating what is “pragmatic” become less about opinion and more about a real need for a big change, fast.)
People often confuse the problem of freedom and equality. It was quite possible to believe that blacks were inferior and still oppose slavery. What Lincoln was fighting against was slavery not equality of races. If you told someone in 1860’s that races were equal the would have looked at you like you were hit on the head.
I have a different take on the Lincolnd – Douglass issue. Douglass praised Lincoln but was highly critical of him as well. This has some relevance to how progressives should approach Obama. Until recently, progressives lived in what I have called an “Obama-Vegetative State” and were unwilling to criticize Obama. But progressive “change” does not occur without dissent.