Recent speeches by political leaders, particularly President Bush and Gov. Baldacci brought to mind a little-known book on American pragmatism that I read about 25 years ago. It was not an easy read, but, if I understood it properly, it made some interesting points about pragmatism and the way in which it has operated philosophically and historically in America.

At the risk of distortion exacerbated by failing memory, let me very briefly summarize the central points of the book. Americans are often labeled as being eminently practical, and to be sure that is part of what it means to be pragmatic in the American story.

But the tradition of pragmatism is more complicated than simple practicality. At its core, pragmatism is inextricably connected to ideals in America. The pragmatic approach to American idealism has been characterized by the need to advance the ideals in a measured and evolutionary way. We have been good at making compromises around our ideals so that they remain alive in the language and issues of American politics. Our political process is driven by ideals and our pragmatic capacity to keep those ideals dynamic by advancing them through a series of compromises and adjustments that keep them relevant for the next encounter. The genius of American pragmatism is that it makes our ideals a significant and living part of the American political process over time. Pragmatic decisions are rooted in ideals and the possible.

A recent article by Don Nicoll, longtime Muskie aide, and Karl Braithwaite, dean of the Muskie School for Public Service at The University of Southern Maine, put Ed Muskie in the center of this tradition as an exemplar of the process. Muskie had an ideal, born of his experiences growing up on the banks of the Androscoggin River in Rumford, that America could have clean water.

In the Senate, he became the champion of the first Clean Water Act. But how did he go about advancing that ideal? He did a lot of homework, he held two years of hearings around the country where he listened to the various perspectives, he reached across the aisle and engaged the opposition in respectful dialog.

In the process, his thinking was influenced, the bill changed in its details and it gained passage. He did not achieve utopian clean water in America, but he advanced the cause and kept the ideal in political play. The ideal was not achieved in its purest form, but a significant step forward had occurred, and, most important, the ideal was now inevitably embedded in the American political process.

It has continued to be a part of the dynamic American pragmatic tradition. It has lived to fight more battles in the political arena as an ideal that cannot be dismissed. What Nicoll and Braithwaite call the “Muskie Model” – he used the same kind of approach to legislation as governor with a Republican House and Senate – is a good example of the tradition of American pragmatism.

Now fast forward to President Bush and Gov. Baldacci in the last month. Focus on the Tax Reform Bill (LD 1) and the president’s proposal to reform or transform Social Security. As I have listened to their respective efforts on Social Security and tax reform, I have heard a distinctly different approach. It is captured in the nuanced difference in meaning between ideals and ideologies. The former are part of the American pragmatic tradition; the latter are not.

Ideals are about concepts, standards, ultimate ends. Ideology is much more complicated. While the ends are part of the equation, there is also in the notion of ideology – maters of structure, procedure and method. Ideology is a more inclusive, “total plan,” blueprint kind of approach. It identifies where people want to go and shows them how they will get there. Ideals, on the other hand, are much more about the ends (where people want to go) and much less about the manner in which they will be achieved.

Baldacci had an ideal – lower property taxes – and he did a good deal of listening during the Palesky debate and during the difficult discussions that took place in the last session of the Legislature. He introduced a bill that had a plan – a blueprint, if you will. There were elements of the bill that were borrowed from others who were advancing solutions – legislators, the Chamber, etc. However, he made it very clear that he was open to other approaches to achieving the ideal. Indeed the select committee made significant changes in the original bill and the governor accepted those changes. He worked in the grand tradition of American pragmatism. He was not entirely wedded to a particular way of achieving the ideal. He did not have a heavy ideological commitment to the manner in which the ends would be achieved. It was the end of tax reform to which he was committed. He also recognized that this effort was not the last word. More work needed to be done. It is an ongoing story, but the key is that some progress was made, and the Legislature has demonstrated that it is capable of advancing toward a very complex and difficult ideal. The ideal has survived and there will be more opportunities to engage it in the political arena in the future. Baldacci made the “Muskie Model” work again in Maine.

President Bush seems to use a different approach. His discussions about Social Security are more ideological than idealistic. He wants to take a big step toward privatization. That is a belief system of how society ought to be organized. It is rooted in the free market and the idea that government should have as little as possible to do with the individual lives of its citizens. In a phrase, private accounts are the means toward an “ownership society.” The plan seems to be born more out of an ideological commitment rather than a careful and open effort to listen to different approaches to reform that might advance the ends that we all seek.

As such, this approach is not as solidly in the middle of the American pragmatic tradition. The Bush administration seems to be saying there is a crisis (there is not), we have a plan to fix it and it is not really open in its basic approach to compromise. He says he’s going to fix this for all time and is not interested in a compromised significant step forward.

Indeed, the basic ideology that drives this effort rejects that notion out of hand. It removes the process from the American pragmatic tradition of incremental, but inclusive, advancement.

The fundamental problem with ideologically inspired political activity is that it is impositional. It often “interprets” reality in such a way as to make the ideological solution the only one which is viable. The Bush approach to Social Security underscores this. It has rewritten reality to conform to the needs of the ideological approach. The Bush people really do believe that the system is in crisis – the ideology demands that they believe it.

In fact, Social Security is not broken and there are innumerable ways in the American pragmatic tradition to advance the ideal of Social Security insurance for America’s needy elderly population. But ideologues eschew that approach.

For me, I am distrustful of ideology. I am more comfortable with “Muskie Model” and the Baldacci approach. It is more traditionally American and democratic.

Jim Carignan is a retired educator who lives in Harpswell. His e-mail address is carignans@suscom-maine.net.

Copy the Story Link