[MD] Spin word of the day: pragmatist

[Case]

My first thought on this thread when Marsha started it was to quip that
perhaps this suggests a Pirsig run at the presidency.

Then Ham chimed in with this:

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".

[Case]
Typically Ham attempts to make up his own definition for words. Pragmatism I
would suggest is more about evaluating results than formulating principles.
Thus a test for any rational set of ideas is judged by its effects. I can
understand Ham's reluctance in this respect since the house of cards laid
out in his term paper has no results by which it can be judged. Which seems
to suit him just fine.

[Ham]
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.

[Case]
Onslo is pragmatic in that he can evaluate the results of his banging by
pointing to a clear picture. If Onslo's banging failed to clear the picture
I suspect that, as someone concerned with the results of his effort, he
would try other means. Ham's banging away at his "philosophy" just makes one
wish to change the channel.

[Ham]
If the new direction is for the U.S. military to simply leave, it could
certainly lead to disaster.  

[Case]
As though our foolhardy invasion has not. But I support what Marsha pointed
out that rather than cut and run we should stop and think. Now that would be
a nice twist for this administration.

[Ham]
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? 

[Case]
This article suggests quite the opposite.
http://www.rand.org/publications/randreview/issues/spring2005/nation.html

It looks are several nation building exercises since the founding of the UN
compared to US lead interventions outside of the UN.

Table 1 - Peace and Democracy Are the Most Important Measures of Success  

UN led
Country/Territory    At Peace     Democratic 
Congo                 No          No 
Namibia               Yes         Yes 
El Salvador           Yes         Yes 
Cambodia              Yes         No 
Mozambique            Yes         Yes 
Eastern Slavonia      Yes         Yes 
Sierra Leone*         Yes         Yes 
East Timor*           Yes         Yes 

US led
Germany               Yes         Yes 
Japan                 Yes         Yes 
Somalia               No          No 
Haiti                 No          No 
Bosnia*               Yes         Yes 
Kosovo*               No          No 
Afghanistan           *           No ? 
Iraq                  *           No ?

One wonders how Onslo would regard this?

[Ham]
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.

[Case]
The UN is indeed a forum for countries to meet and discuss their values,
goals and differences. Participation is voluntary and the process is messy.
The result of ignoring the thoughts and wishes of our neighbors, in pursuit
of our own view of "enlightenment", is resentment and increased hostility.
If we were all that enlightened, our light would shine as a beacon in the
darkness and we would lead by our example. When we use the flashlight we are
holding as a club rather than a beacon it is small wonder that we are
resented; that we are regarded as uncivil and that our actions promote
anarchy.