Pragmatist versus Pragmatism

My last post asserted that Bill Clinton was no pragmatist, that he was, rather, an almost perfect caricature of the utterly unprincipled politician. But as I thought about it a bit more, it occurred to me that perhaps an important clarification was in order. To that end, allow me to tender a distinction between a pragmatist, which if not altogether good, is at least acceptable, and a practitioner of pragmatism, which is always bad. Confusion about the two types is what sometimes leads to the charge of 'unprincipled' or the praise of 'pragmatic' being leveled unfairly. I'll concede from the start that I, you, all of us will invariably conflate these labels, which will only add to the confusion. No doubt there are more concise and elegant titles I could use. (Maybe you can help?) Nevertheless, I think an appreciation of the distinctive types will hold, even if the labels do not.

What both a pragmatist and a practitioner of pragmatism share is a willingness to compromise. They approach any debate with a prior understanding that splitting the difference not only may, but in some cases will be necessary. But that's where the similarities end.

The key difference between the two types is fidelity to principle. The pragmatist is ultimately defined by this quality, the practitioner by its absence. This can be somewhat confusing because, on the surface, the scrapping of principle, rather than fidelity to it, sounds like a fair definition of compromise. And, as I said, a willingness to compromise is the quality the two types share. But that definition is in fact insufficient because it leaves unanswered the important question of what would motivate one to compromise and thereby at least appear to abandon principle. I'll get to that in a moment.

Because he is faithful to principle, a pragmatist, unlike a practitioner of pragmatism, comes to a debate with a clear desire for victory. His opinion is already well-formed and he is convinced of either the rectitude of his own position, the deficiency of his opponent's, or both. As a result, his overriding goal is always unqualified victory. He never loses sight of this. But because of either tacitly understood, or previously agreed upon rules of the contest (the forswearing of the use of violent force, the adherence to broad democratic norms, or particular constitutional provisions, etc.), his pursuit of victory does not include the use of every conceivable option. Hence, he understands that he may not only have to compromise, he is even willing to do so. But, and this is crucial, he is willing to compromise only with a view toward ultimate victory. Informed by principle, he can actually measure whether the compromise he is offering, or being offered, is in fact a good one. His challenge is twofold: On the positive end, he must keep the target of total, unqualified victory always in view. On the negative, he must draw and honor a line behind which he will never retreat.

The practitioner of pragmatism desires, by contrast, not victory, but the agreement itself, the signing ceremony, the photo opportunity it affords. Identifying the winner, the party that got the best of the deal, is of no importance and, untethered to principle, is impossible to declare in any case. At the end of the day, the deal is the thing.

Could there be two more different kinds of people? The next time you're tempted to either dismiss or praise someone for compromising over some issue important to you, for being pragmatic, ask yourself which of the two types better describes him. A pragmatist you can at least stomach, if not unreservedly praise. But a practitioner of pragmatism is at best useless. At worst, he's actually harmful to the side he's supposed to represent.