[MD] Spin word of the day: pragmatist

[Ham Priday]

Marsha and Mark --

Marsha said:
> I'm always interested in the new word of the day.
> The newest political alphabet soup has choked up
> the word  'pragmatist'.  The newly elected congress
> members are being described not as conservative
> or moderate democrats, but as pragmatists.  I've
> heard Robert Gates described as a pragmatist.
> I've heard  the word too many times in the last 36
> hours to be just a coincidence.

Mark responded:
> Introducing pragmatism in this context implies the
> opponent does not support pragmatism.
> This further implies the opponent is wasteful
> in terms of that which is not useful.
> The message may be that a War in Iraq is not useful.
>
> I should like to note something which has been
> concerning me during the US mid-term elections:
> The Democrats may push to extricate US forces from
> Iraq at precisely the moment Iraq is about to collapse
> into all out civil war. We could be about to witness a
> disaster. I hope those with influence involve the UN
> as soon as possible.

First of all, a definition is in order, and I'll ignore philosophy texts
that attribute Pragnatism to William James and Charles Pierce, and give you
my own.  A pragmatist is one whose solution to a problem is "what works" as
opposed to what may be rational, moral, or based on principle.  In common
parlance, pragmatism is often associated with utilitarianism (i.e., what is
most useful).  In politics it typically is no more than what you've called
it -- a "spin word".

I could cite the example of Onslo, who usually appears in an undershirt
before his TV set in the British sitcom "Keeping Up Appearances".  When the
TV picture goes out of adjustment, he's learned to bang hard twice with his
fist on the cabinet to "fix" it.  You probably know people like that.  The
principle they're ignoring may be a loose antenna connection, which could
simply be tightened once to eliminate the problem forever.  But Onslo people
are pragmatists: the banging works, so that's their solution.  Banging
someone over the head can correct a behavior problem, too; but intelligent
people generally prefer the more civil practice of demonstrating "higher
quality" values to the offender.

As for Mark's comment about Iraq, I agree that the Democrats have proposed
no specific solution other than "a change in direction."  If the new
direction is for the U.S. military to simply leave, it could certainly lead
to disaster.  However, involving the U.N. is hardly a pragmatic solution to
this problem.  Where has the U.N. been effective in resolving any
international problem in its half-century of existence?   The U.N. is a
debating team with no military force.  The only international support we've
had in Iraq has come from Britain and a handful of countries whose
governments are sufficiently enlightened to realize the consequences of
tribal anarchy in this uncivil bastion of the world.

Cheers,
Ham