« Showdown At Las Vegas Debate For Hillary Clinton
Sabato’s Crystal Ball: ANOTHER PART OF THE BUSH LEGACY IN QUESTION? »
Canaries or Wolf-Criers?
There are days when I think we political bloggers are canaries in coal mines, providing early warning to our readers that the oxygen is running low and poisonous gases are on the rise.
Then there are days when I suspect we’re more like the boys and girls who cried wolf, afraid of the shadows of threats that aren’t there, or unconsciously making a topic sound worse than it is so we have something compelling to write about.
And then … there are days when I know we’re probably a little bit of both; half-canary, half-wolf-crier; a very odd beast, indeed.
What I don’t know is this: Regardless of our own canary-and-wolf-crying tendencies, how good or bad of a shape is this country really in? Is it severely, systemically broken or just slightly hobbled? Are the problems we observe just small blemishes on the otherwise radiant skin of a nation’s character?
I doubt any one of us can answer those type of categorical questions with any degree of reliability, although most assuredly, our respective “guts” push us in one direction or the other. And, depending on that direction, we’ll probably be inclined, in turn — as Andrew Sullivan suggests — to cast our primary and (if we’re given the choice) our general-election votes for either a pragmatic (minor-fixes) or transformative (major-overhaul) candidate.
Personally — despite all those times I’ve been a canary, or wolf-crier, or both — I probably lean more in the pragmatic (minor-fixes) direction.
And what about you?
5 Responses to “Canaries or Wolf-Criers?”
Pete,
You’re the second poster in so many days to use my favorite word: pragmatic.
My other favotite word, balnace, awaits attention.
I occurs to me that the time has come to accept balance as a primary goal in policies. This involves giving competing voices a share in the outcome by seeking the outcome with that in view from the outset.
It’s different that compromise, which may or may not achieve balance, depending on who holds the power cards at any given moment.
I don’t know if the idea of balance will fly, so I’m happy to celegrate the resurrection of pragmatism, wheteever I see it.
I plan to vote that way, although deciding which candidates are the most pragmatic will not be easy.
Well, canary or wolf crier depends on your point of view and topic. There are probably hundreds of ways and topics to view the country on (economically, which can be divided into equity vs equality, racial fairness, etc…), and then we have our prexisting biases (by which, I mean having rose colored, or mud drenched sunglasses and such), all of which mean that if we switch perspective, the whole scene changes.
Prgmatism is a great thing (I’m a prgmatist), but some people are just idealists; it’s how they’re built (Goethe once said that our character is our fate), and that’s how they see things; that things are either right or wrong. Besides, they’re needed because prgmatists often have problems making normative judgements.
“prgmatists often have problems making normative judgements.”
Maybe, but idealists have a tendency to make extreme and ill considered judgments, at the cost of not consideritng consequences.
Pragmatists are informed by a variety of idealistic views, but they are grounded in simply asking the question of what will work best.
I like the idea of keeping both feet on the ground while contemplating the clouds with great enjoyment..
“idealists have a tendency to make extreme and ill considered judgments”
Agreed. They tend to bug me a bit because of their tone (especially those who might otherwise be on “my side”), and at times I have problems grasping them and their thoughts, but they have lots of thoughts, and some of them end up being right.
Pragmatism versus idealism also depends upon the issue. I am very pragmatically oriented towards issues of economic and social policy, for instance. Probably national security as well. Issues of rights however I don’t like to compromise on.
I think domajot’s point about pragmatically shooting for the stars is spot on. If one’s policy is only finding the current pragmatic solution with whaterver circumstances you find, then you are leaving leadership and vision behind. Naturally, if all you have is vision and no way to get there, then you are just as bad off, maybe worse.