[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: 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).

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, I agree that the Democrats have proposed no other
solution to the Iraq policy than "a change in direction."  If the new
direction is for the U.S. military to simply leave, it could certainly lead
to a 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 51-year history?   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 part of the world.

Regards,
Ham