Pragmatism as a Principle

Disclosure: I'm operating here within the current political framework, not within the "anti-ideology" stance. Thus, any normative suggestions some may pick up in this article are not being subjected to "objective" (or at least "meta") scrutiny.
Also, I just spent some time perusing through the current proposed immigration bill - "interesting" stuff. And this is probably my shortest post in a while. Not as much time to write.

I just want to very briefly mention something regarding some events going on in politics. With the frequent partisan debate in Washington D.C., I'm finding it troubling that there are some that are being accused of not upholding their values for compromising and being pragmatic. Why can't pragmatism (lower case "p") be a value just like any other value? This particular value - like other values - must itself be reconciled with any scenario of perceived conflict  But the fact that pragmatism within one's value system may need to be reconciled is not a reason to ditch it. Freedom and Security have been be pinned as "values" within the same system that can at times come into perceived conflict. Yet we learn to reconcile the two.

Indeed, if people look at other value systems as "wrong", then compromise while upholding one's values would seem impossible. But if part of one's value system is recognizing the distinction between "different" and "wrong", then perhaps there is room to maneuver.

A how-to guide on reconciling different values within a system is a whole discussion; and one that needs more exploration. I'd wager that Isaiah Berlin and the notion of value pluralism would have much to contribute to the discussion.

Questions as to universal values in relation to political values (whether one would like to call them synonymous or not) is another question that needs to be explored.

In short, this is a very complicated topic. But I think for the good of the country it would be appropriate if we didn't imply or accuse people who just try to be "reasonable" (in a more Rawlsian sense) as violators of their own value systems. In the meantime, pundits and politicians should just argue on the actual actions; ad hominem suggestions are getting old.

Edit/Update from a day later. Just watched this youtube video that came across realclearpolitics: http://www.youtube.com/watch?&v=lnW9Ah4ha4U
- It's Rubio discussing the immigration bill he's supporting. Look at the top comment so far, which is a response to a comment about compromise that you have to click on to "show" because "this comment has received too many negative votes"...See what I mean, folks? This is what really frustrates me. Oh, and a general lack of empathy is also a problem in my book.

Top Comments

• 
  Paula Marouk 5 hours ago

  This comment has received too many negative votes 

  There has to be some compromise people or nothing is accomplished.

   · 
•  
  stevemccollum2011 4 hours ago

  NO Compromise is needed, arrest all illegals, arrest anyone who hires illegals, seal the border and fire EVERY RINO/CINO who votes for this

   · 6  in reply to Paula Marouk