In defence of pragmatism

There has been some debate among the bloggers about the notion of pragmatism in politics. This has centred around the civil unions debate, with some people holding that there is no point in supporting civil unions, as the implementation of such a scheme makes the opening of marriage to same-sex couples less likely in future, or delays it.

Aside from this specific example, it is a wider debate. I have come across it in student politics, with people arguing constantly for free education and being very dismissive about small steps in the right direction.

There seems to be two broad approaches to achieving political change in a principled manner. One goes something like this: you have issues of principle which you hold to be important. You go out and advocate for your principled position, and you won't support changes that come short of your ideal. You see any compromise as being a betrayal of your principled position and morally reprehensible because of this. For this post I'm going to call these Group 1 people.

The other broad approach is as follows: you hold a position on an issue. You acknowledge that working in a political system means building broad support to achieve your principles. You are prepared to support piecewise changes and improvements that will bring policy closer to your position, while reserving the right to criticise slow progress or diversions from the goal. In other words, you are making tactical concessions to assist you bring about your overall goal. Group 2 people here.

Now there is a third category which doesn't fit into "achieving political change in a principled manner" - the people who are unprincipled pragmatists. Let's call these Group 3 people. They are the sort who might pick up an issue for political advantage but don't actually care what the outcome is: they're more interested in playing the game of politics than seeing social change as a result of their actions.

There are quite a few Group 3 people in national and local politics, but I don't think they are the majority. Group 2 are the majority. Most politicians and activists are committed to their principles but acknowledge the need to work in a democratic political system to achieve lasting change. That rules them out of Group 1, who refuse to acknowledge the reality of democratic political life; it also rules them out of Group 3, because they actually do want to see change.

The biggest mistake people in Group 1 make is to assume that Group 2 = Group 3. This leads to endless confusion: about motives, about objectives, and so on. More seriously, it disrupts the potential for useful coalitions for change. If Group 1 and Group 2 spend their time at each other's throats, Group 3 can end up running the show, and that does nobody any good.

Bringing this all back to the campaign for civil unions, most people I know of in the campaign are Group 2. They aren't opposed to marriage being opened to all couples, but they know it won't get through in the current climate.

In student politics, most of the people I came across were Group 1 people. Lovely people and well-meaning, but quite self-evidently unsuccessful in achieveing their goals. Nobody is going to implement free education overnight, and carping on about it just leads to complaints about spoilt middle class whiners in many circles.

So, I am generally a Group 2 person who sometimes sounds more like Group 1. I accept that I live in a society with a democratic political system. I accept that compromise and persuasion are necessary tools in a functional political repertoire. I am not ashamed of that fact. I get irritated by sancimonious Group 1 people who assume I'm a Group 3 machine politician. They couldn't be more wrong, and they simply rule themselves out of being part of effective coalitions for change.

Which group are you? :)

Comments

[Greyshade]

I have always considered myself a pragmatist in the "Group 2" sense (despite scoring a lousy 0.95 on the "Political Survey" pragmatism axis). I prefer to define a pragmatist as "a person with more than one principle" and classify Group 3 people as "doctrinaire egotists".

[Idiot/Savant]

What's the bet that everyone is group 2?

I think its useful to remember that there are compromises and compromises. Those which advance your principles should be accepted; those that act counter to them shouldn't be. David Young et al's argument against Civil Unions is partly that they act counter to our shared objectives of equality.

There's also a question of how many toys you're willing to throw out of the cot and how many people you are willing to burn to get things your way. Threatened defection from a coalition is a powerful weapon, and one that shouldn't necessarily be ruled out (especially if things aren't going to get any worse - rather than simply failing to get better - as a result).

And, to flip the accusations around, there are far too many pragmatists who label opposition to their compromise "idealism", "wrecking", or group-1 behaviour rather than seeing the reasons behind it. Not that I'm thinking of anyone here...

[Sean]

Group 2 - on the grounds that any changes should be incremental to prevent unintended consequences (there ALWAYS are) from becoming unindended disasters.

[Aaron Bhatnagar]

An excellent posting. I have often smiled looking at those who are politically active who confuse policy with principles.

Principles are enduring - such as a commitment to lower taxation or funding a comprehensive social welfare system (depending on what side of the spectrum you sit on). Principles guide us in our philosphies - and we use policies to move towards fulfilling those objectives of our principles.

Policies are dynamic, constrained by time and the factors of the day, including political will, popular feeling, fiscal constraints and fashionable thinking. In some cases, we see the need for radical policies, a few years later we look to moderatating those policies, or changing them as the political situation changes as well.

And I readily identify with how people migrate from "Group 1" to "Group 2" in politics - true political success comes from identifying what is "the art of the possible". Depending on historical circumstances that could encompass everything from the major changes made during the era of Rogernomics, to the nowhere near as radical years of the mid 1990s.

Equally, Labour's first term represented a sense of triumphalism reflected in some of their trophy legislation. They were fulfilling their principles (in varying steps) via policies.Equally, circumstances has dictated that they back track on some of their policies in order to cope with emerging political circumstances (witness the backlash against political correctness within the Labour caucus).

[Asher]

Despite scoring in the "idealism" side of the Political Survey, I'd flick myself somewhere between a 1 and a 2 depending on circumstance.

Some issues I will refuse to concede even the slightest to pragmatism (like whether Israel should retain major settlement blocs), while others I will happily be a pragmatist on (like the CUB)

[Peter FitzPatrick]

I think you give group 1 people far too much credit. In general I find the type of people you are refering to are actually far more interested in making themselves feel good about themselves than anything else.

Their refusal to engage with real but non-perfect reform is born out of a desire to make themselves feel pure, unsullied and morally superior not out of sticking to 'principle'.

ps Great post

At least 'group 3' people can be made to do things if there is something in it for them. 'Group 1' types believe in obstruction for its own sake.

[Make tea not war]

I’m sympathetic to Group one. Too much Group two-ism and you end up with Blair and New Labour. Extremists and purists perform a valuable service in moving the centre and providing vision. Many Group twos are lovely people, of course, and useful for working out compromises and boring practical incremental change. (Note :))

It quite interests me that there is a view that New Zealand would never have accepted a simple amendment to the Marriage Act so the Civil Unions Bill was an acceptable compromise. Maybe you are right. But how do you know that? I think Labour might have underestimated the secularism and open mindedness of the New Zealand public. Maybe the Civil Unions Bill was overly “pragmatic”.

[Jordan]

MTNW, I'd actually argue that Blairism is symptomatic of Group 3 people. They are obsessed with power and destroying the Tories, but they aren't actually doing anything with it. Blair is classic Group 3.

Society need the Group 1 people, no question of that, but Group1 and Group2 together will achieve the best and most enduring changes.

As for CU, no, I don't believe a change to the Marriage Act would have gone through Parliament or received public support. In the absence of the numbers in the House it's impossible to defy public opinion.

[stef]

I was a group 1 type for a while when I first got to university. But I've always been a tad to cynical to stay that way. Also constantly butting your head against a brick wall usually ends up wtih you getting a headache.

[Conor Roberts]

I think people have misread David Young's post as being strongly idealistic.

I have no idea about Young's politics, however his argument is not that civil unions are not a pragmatic step, he states that civil unions are a step in the wrong direction and that they detract from the goal of social equality by delaying that eventuality. Thus he is saying that civil unions detract from equality, creating a second class of relationship status. I don’t think that is in a class of idealism. Indeed if one felt that a move further inhibited something like equality, then it would be prudent to oppose the legislation- pragmatically speaking.

[span(ner in the works)]

when the Alliance went into Coalition with Labour in 1999 the agreement was supposed to be (and this is before my time in the party) that the Alliance would support Labour initiatives that it saw as heading in its direction. the analogy used was one of a bus - if the bus was heading towards our preferred destination we would stay on it - if it turned around and was going away from it we would get off (ie not support that legislation, not leave the coalition).

in practice this right to a point of difference was hardly ever used, leading to a very grumpy membership.

a Group 1 position can also be tactical - it's the whole "don't ask, don't get" philosophy - it's all very well to stop asking for free education if you don't actually want it anymore, but if you do but you modify your position to suit the current political environment (i'm talking about organisations here more than individuals) then you undermine yourself. i would say there are plenty of Group 2 individuals who work on Group 1 campaigns.

the test that i try to apply is this:
if we got X (free education, gay marriage, whatever) tomorrow, would we have to dismantle Y (allowances, civil unions) first for X to work?

in both these examples i would say no we wouldn't, allowances are part of a free ed system, and civil unions would be a civil alternative to marriage, gay or straight. hence my support for civil unions despite my reservations that it is a bit of an apartheid option.

[Brian (shadowfoot)]

I see a bit difference between initiatives lowering the individual cost of education and legislating second class status into existence.

The first objective of the current government is to stay in power, just as the first objective of the current opposition is to get into power. Governance of the people, and careful debate of proposed legislation, is being treated as secondary. I think this makes them type 2 people in your classification.

[spanner(in the works)]

isn't any recognition better than none and in fact discrimination?? i'd much rather have an amendment to the Marriage Act AND the creation of civil unions, but i do see that the second will build towards achieving the first. i can respect that others see it differently, and as a straight person i am not the one being treated as second class and i am aware of that, but i really do think that the CUB is a step forward.

[stephen]

The reason Group 1 types are angry and suspicious about Group 2 people is that correct strategy for a Group 3 is to look like a Group 2. Group 1 people cannot be certain whether you're a 2 or a 3 - therefore they will be inclined to treat you as potentially traitorous. This is insulting and annoying for Group 2s, but there's nothing they can do about it.

Also, this grouping is somewhat simplistic. Being stiff-necked and unyielding is itself a strategy that sometimes pays off. I think for example of the free software world, where Richard Stallman's unwavering commitment has been influential and successful. I think that's an example of where refusal to compromise has been pragmatic.

[span(ner in the works)]

good point about 3s in 2's clothing - the number of times i have seen someone who is definitely rightwing describe themselves as "moderate"...

[Idiot/Savant]

_Everyone_ purports to be moderate, reasonable, and wedded to "common-sense". Even ACT describe themselves as "center right".

[Matt]

Great post, J.

I'd have to concede that on certain issues I'm group 1, but generally on others I'd be 2.

In the union movement, one is constantly confronted by decisions between choices of exactly these distinctions: dow we push a campaign that is unlikely to gain much support outside the core supporters, or do we push for a pragmatic, middle-of-the-road goal that is likely to win wider support, but that is likely to achieve less than the original goal?

Trade unionists, I feel, are group 1 at heart but are resigned to the fact that group 2 will be the only way to achieve any progress.

[Jordan]

I think it's often a debate about tactics. I think most of us involved in politics are at heart Group 1 people in our ambitions; the Groups I outlined are more about the tactics people use.

If you could build a broad based campaign that succeeded in mobilising broad community support around fairly radical goals, then you could get your goals up. If you needed to do it piece-wise that would be alright too. The thing that gets my back up is the one-eyed "now or never, everything or nothing" point of view.

[Mike Collins]

Good post Jordan. I found it a very interesting read. I can definitely relate to uni students being over represented in the group 1 stakes. Not just on the left but also on the Right. Students tend to have a feeling that they can change the world (or at least effect more change than they actually can). This I believe leads them to think that there is absolutely no need to be pragmatic, and that people that don't fully agree with them are completely unprincipled.

Incidentally, the Libertarian movement has suffered from this sort of infighting for years. Because Libertarians are highly principled they tend to be extremely intolerant of those whose views differ from their own. It actually seems to be that the closer to your principles another Lib comes then the less likely you are to tolerate any deviances from those principles. Maybe it is anguish over someone coming so close but being still so far away?

I guess this is where broad church parties such as National and Labour have advantages. The membership is less likely to infight because it is aware that pragmatism needs to be at the forefront to acheive anything that the party as a whole can agree to.

Unfortunately, this can lead to a party losing sight of its principles (if indeed they actually had any). The fact that so many people in such a broad church have to agree, means that the principles are going to be weak and the policies will reflect that. (Nice point about policies and principles Aaron B.) Witness National. Part of their founding principles is the respect for private property rights. Well the policy (if you can call it that) announced by Don Brash at Orewa could very well lead to this principle being contradicted.

So while the ability to gain consensus in Labour and National may be easier, what are they actually gaining consensus on? Is it actually worth having consensus if it achieves very little or nothing regarding implementing principles via policies? Is it actually possible to still be principled in a broad manner? I'm not so sure.

Sir Roger Douglas (I believe but am not totally certain) wrote in "Unfinished Business" something to the effect that the Fourth Labour Government were convinced that they were going to be a one term government, therefore set about enacting as much change as possible before they were inevitably kicked out of office. Lange was the most surprised on election night in 1987 when Labour were re-elected in a landslide. He said he knew they were on the right track when Labour could come within a few hundred votes of winning Epsom - one of the most blue ribbon seats in the country. (Shame he called fulltime on the good work).
The point is - this Government's top brass knew (or thought they did) that their principled stances in restructuring the country were going to be unpopular. The point that perhaps they missed is that you can be principled and pragmatic at the same time if the situation warrants it. Muldoon NZ certainly did. Being pragmatic doesn't have to mean sitting around in a committee and coming up with resolutions, poilicies and statements that offend no-one and achieve nothing. Being pragmatic can be doing something that is radical but demonstrating that what you are doing is not only right but necessary.

Sorry if my spiel got a little off track. Maybe that is an idea that needs to be looked into? Pragmatism leads to Waffle.

[Jordan]

heh. I think that the current govt is pursuing quite a principled agenda, if you look at the legislation that is progressing and the policies being advanced. If you listen to spin or to our god-awful media, you might get a different impression though.

Lange said he knew they were on the *wrong* track, not the right track.

And yes, in the major parties with an unhealthy dose of Group 3 people, it's very hard to ensure that you don't end up having a consensus about nothing.

[blaise]

Speaking for the Group-Threes:

G-2 people find it convenient to look like G-1s, as this makes people take them more seriously. The classic example here is the Greens on GE. Look hardline (G-1) for the voters, then cuddle up (G-2) to Labour.

Thus, we Machiavels not only find it convenient to look like G-2s, but sometimes we can put on the clothing of a G-2-pretending-to-be-a-G-1. Best example: Winston, on almost anything.

End result: G-1s can't trust anyone at all, and the G-2s are hopelessly outmanoevred. Internecine bloodbath follows, then we G-3s step in, seize control, and do long-lasting damage to the country (why? Because that's what we do).

Lesson: G-1s and G-2s of all sorts should work together even if they don't like each other, lest the G-3s win.

Great post, btw.