Organizing for America | Michael Dover's Blog: Progressive Pragmatism

Progressive Pragmatism

By Michael A. Dover - Dec 27th, 2008 at 1:25 pm EST

Also listed in: Progressives for Obama | Social Workers Organizing for America

Comments | Mail to a Friend | Report Objectionable Content

The issue of pragmatism may become a cottage industry, much as the concept of
globalization was. It is true that it can distract away from clarifying the underlying
political and economic issues. But in this case, I think it is healthy to discuss it. It
is an issue on which I've posted twice to this list. In the Extended Post, there is a longer message.
Michael Dover, mdover@umich.edu I refer in this posting to Christopher Haye's article about pragmatism in the December 29, 2008 The Nation. I refer also to a PDF file which may not be uploaded to this seite but is available upon request.

The issue of pragmatism may become a cottage industry, much as the concept of
globalization was. It is true that it can distract away from clarifying the underlying
political and economic issues. But in this case, I think it is healthy to discuss it. It
is an issue on which I've posted twice to this list.

I found the Hayes piece to be a good balance combination of optimism and pessimism about
pragmatism. After all, optimism and pessimism are universal social psychological traits
that may underly much of individual level political difference! Also the piece by
Mitchell Aboulafia was valuable in pointing out that there is right, center and left
pragmatism. However, before those coming as I do from the left or social democratic or
liberal sides of the political spectrum assume that the damn pragmatists are a bunch of
sellouts, let's do some more thinking.

In my earlier postings to this list and in ongoing work I've presented at the Social
Welfare Action Alliance conference in New Orleans in 2007 and at the Council on Social
Work Education in Fall 2008, I am seeking to clarify the nature of the right, center,
left continuum in general and as it applies to pragmatism. I've done that by creating a
number of different "rows" of a table (see attached, please don't use or cite without
permission). Current thinking about the right/center/left continuum is a mixture of all
of the rows and is very confusing. I've parsed these into separate rows to create an
original typology that may help clarify things a bit. I discuss some of the meaning of
the rows in the exerpts below from my two previous postings on pragmatism to this list.

Basically, it is clear to me that Obama operates according to the principle, which he
didn't conceal, run from the left, govern from the center. Some say Clinton did this
too, but I don't really think so, his left was more to the right and his center was more
to the right! Obama may have started more as a left pragmatist in the primary to show
Democrats his more progressive pragmatist leanings, campaigned in the general election as
a liberal pragmatist but said all along that he would govern as a centrist pragmatist.
In my view, this was a principle and democratic thing to do. As his spokesperson
recently pointed out in saying the left should chill about appointments, he is the
President of all of us.

According to my analysis, pragmatism ranges from neoliberalism to center/liberal
pragmatism to progressive pragmatism. It is not, however, unideological. First, there
is an underlying common thread, namely what I call the principle of "minimum necessary
social intervention". True, this is merely an original concept I invented (as a search
of Google and JSTOR will show). But if you think about it, its inherent in pragmatism.
One does do anything more than is needed to address a problem. If it ain't broke, don't
fix it. But what is minimum and what is necessary can vary depending upon the historical
circumstance. When I wrote this, it was when neoliberals generally felt the needs of
capital were served by minimal (not minimum, minimal) social intervention. Now, of
course, the "minoptimal" (to use a philosophical term borrowed from the Len Doyal/Ian
Gough theory of human need) intervention is massive! So for pragmatists, the
right/center/left difference isn't the size of state or other social intervention.
Pragmatists are united by the principle of MNSI, minimum necessary social intervention.

I'm now firmly a progressive pragmatist committed to moving beyond class analysis and to
also using organizational and institutional analysis of the best sector or mix of sectors
to fund and/or to deliver services and benefits in order to meet human needs consistent
with human rights. I view this as a viable political alternative to neoliberalism, but I
was chagrined to discover that this is merely the left pole of pragmatism, neoliberalism
being the right pole. For the right pole, neoliberalism, the value framework is the
needs of capital. For the left poll, the value framework is universal human needs and
the culturally specific ways they are meet and must be reconciled with universal human
rights. It is really only the centrist pragmatist who is doing the balancing act. (For
the distinction between the needs of capital and the needs of people, see Ian Gough
(2000). The needs of capital and the needsof people: Can the welfare state reconcile the
two? In I. Gough (Ed.), Global capital, human needs, and social policies selected essays,
1994-99. New York: Palgrave. Gough was the author of the neo-Marxist 1970s classic,
Political Economy of the Welfare State.

I had earlier in a 1992 set of 2 pieces in Crossroads contended that much of what passed
for left thinking was really utopianism, despite the doctrinal rejection of that and the
yearnings of the heart. I secretly love the recent flirting with utopianism emanating
from many including David Harvey, Robin Kelley and others, as it reflects rooting
ourselves in the original dreams that underlay ideologies which became dogmatic. But
where idealism (not the anti-materialist kind) leads me now is to progressive pragmatism.
If we can reject utopianism, authoritarianism, libertarianism (the most positive element
of which is embedded in pragmatism's principle of minimum necessary social intervention),
and individualism, and embrace pragmatism without throwing out the class analysis baby
with the bathwater, I think we will be able to have real influence in the political
debates of the coming period.

Michael A. Dover, Ph.D.
Email: mdover@umich.edu
Home: (734)663-6972
Cell: (734)645-6261

(Sent from my UM alumni email)

July 13 Post to Progressives for Obama (exerpts):

When I signed up for Progressives for Obama, I did so with a statement indicating that I
fully expected that Barack Obama would be perceived as more of a pragmatist than as a
progressive as we have known it. (I attached an earlier version of my alternative
continuum).

In this message, I'm going to try to clarify a bit more what I mean by my previous
postings about the notion of progressive pragmatism, specifically by seeing if I can't
carve out how in some ways it defies a "left-center-right" way of thinking. The
mainstream media is picking up on the notion that progressives or what Obama called his
"friends of the left" are abandoning him on the grounds that he is moving to the center.
Others who don't abandon him say our role is to push him to the left. I feel both stances
are in error, and that we need to support Obama from the standpoint of rethinking what we
mean by progressive itself, moving beyond previous left/center/right ways of thinking.

And without turning to hero worship of Obama, from what I've read and seen of him, I
think that doing so is exactly what Obama is trying to do, not "move to the center." He
says he's thinking the same way and that may well be the case.

****

*****

That's what's at stake here, electing a President capable of taking truly fundamental
steps to defend the interests of humanity against sectarianism, dogmatism, war, etc.. But
many of those steps will be "out of the box" thinking, not thinking that is on a simple
left-right continuum.

But what political ideology and approach could guide such a current example of what might
be considered revolutionary democratic thinking that defies the left-right continuum? I
argue that whether we are analyzing a social cleavage or ascertaining which kind of
legislation and regulation we need in a particular policy domain, we need to use class,
organizational and institutional analysis as well as equity analysis linked to
understanding the role of gender, race and class in order to ascertain within each policy
realm (health care, employment, housing, international cooperation for peace and
security, etc.) what is the best mix of sectors (public, private, nonprofit) to create
culturally-specific ways of ensuring universal human needs are met, consistent with human
rights.

This means thinking "within the box", in a progressive pragmatic manner, as to what the
best sector or mix of sectors of public, nonprofit and private sector funding there is,
as well as the best sector or mix of public, nonprofit and private delivery there is,
nine boxes in total. The idea is to counterpoise human rationality and caring to
neoliberalism's insistence that the market run and determine everything and that the
state do nothing but stay out of the way or defend capital markets, the source of all
wisdom. However, ultimately, this is progressive pragmatism, and the "box" chosen may
often defy the prototypical "box" chosen by the three previous alternatives, which was
invariably public funding (based on progressive taxation if possible, even to the
exclusion of social insurance principles) and public delivery.

*****

Let's go to the chart,

*****

Let's skip the second row, which is what I really want to focus on, and move down to the
third and fourth rows. Here I seek to typologize state forms really, and I identify
authoritarianism as a common thread, one in which power originates with and is exercized
by a formal state structure. In many respects, at this time, the US in recent decades has
been closer to this box, #8, that another other box. I am indebted to the Blau/Abramovitz
book Dynamics of Social Policy for pointing out that in many ways Roosevelt was a liberal
pragmatist, and also for the distinction between social conservatism and laissez-fair
conservatism.

In the fourth row are some outmoded and anachronistic and anomalistic elements. Apologies
for sticking Fidel there when Cuba is perhaps more clearly in box 9, but it just seems to
fit, and no typology is perfect.

But the key to understanding what I'm trying to convey is in row 2. I contend that with
pragmatism, power is contingent upon the historical period we are talking about and the
essence of the use of power is in service of a very different type of ideal altogether,
namely, thinking counter-intuitively, a negative ideal, the opposite of utopianism,
namely the "minimization of necessary social intervention." MNSI, the minimization of
necessary social intervention. Sounds very anarchist, or libertarian, but don't
underestimate the N word, necessary. In order to ensure that human needs are met
consistent with human rights, much social intervention may be necessary, but how much
depends on the historical period. And that is the key to understanding progressive
pragmatism and why it is very different in box 6 to the principles of box 3 or 9. In
fact, boxes 3, 9 and 12 tend towards maximum necessary social intervention! Neoliberalism
in box 4 towards minimum necessary social intervention but neoliberals tend to feel very
little is necessary! But still, I think it is fair to say that neoliberalism is akin to
pragmatism more than to utopianism or to fascism or monarchism. Neoliberals think that
practical thing to do is nothing, most of the time, and when we should do something it
should be to enhances the markets, not government or the nonprofit/religious sector.

But the alternative to neoliberalism I have spelled out above says that we have to decide
in each and every case which of the 9 boxes we want in terms of the combination of
public, nonprofit and market sectors to fund something (columns) or delivery something
(rows). Box 1 is public delivery/public funding based on general fund dollars; Box 2 is
public delivery, nonprofit funding (rare but it happens), and Box 3 is public delivery,
market sector funding (also rare, since this doesn't get into the source of tax dollars).
And so forth, nine boxes. You'd be surprised how when you start applying this to issues
like national health insurance, you start coming to interesting conclusions would you
think outside Box 1! And I think that's exactly what Obama is doing. I've attached a
slightly more complex version of this, thinkingwithinthebox.pdf from my paper on
alternatives to neoliberalism (available upon request).

True, "Third Way" thinking is what Clinton and Blair promoted as well, and that way of
thinking was recently condemned as "genocidal" by one Marxist academic when I discussed
my approach (meaning, presumably, I was advocating genocide). But what Clinton and Blair,
informed by British third way thinking, did was throw out the class analysis piece and
the human needs piece along the way! A revolutionary democratic form of progressive
pragmatism is a form of third way thinking which insists on using class analysis,
institutional analysis as well as organizational analysis, and that makes a world of
difference when it comes down to conclusions about actual political options.

Seen in this way, progressives should embrace progressive pragmatism and recognize its
revolutionary democratic nature, as well as embrace the concept of MNSI, minimum
necessary social intervention as a basic principle. For it is from that basic standpoint
that one can use class, organizational and institutional analysis (stemming from Marx,
Weber and Durkheim, respectively) to engage in debate about what this particular
historical conjuncture demands as the called-for "necessary social intervention" without
"creeping" into boxes 3 and 9. Yes, using Marxist class analysis but not elevating it to
the be all and end all of all social analysis (given that Marx himself said to use the
best of science and social science).

Perhaps this was long and everything, but the problem is that right now it seems to me
that in the heat of this campaign every effort has to be made, pending other venues for
expressing such views such as the various progressive magazines and various academic
venues. And this is a list in which some very interesting debates have arisen, and to
which I contribute this. Comments to mdover@umich.edu welcome.

Michael A. Dover 2425 Foxway Ann Arbor MI 48105 Home: (734)663-6972 Cell: (734)645-6261
Email: mdover@umich.edu Fax: 734-661-5270

Thu, 24 Jul 2008 23:36:14 -0400: A genuine alternative political economy?

Re: the concept of a "genuine alternative political economy", raised by Richard Klimmer.
What do we mean by that? That's an interesting concept. What would it look like?

In my view, as expressed differently in a few different posts here on this list, let's
not assume that centrism, a radical centrism known as progressive pragmatism, isn't one
way of thinking about an alternative political economy. I don't mean the Blair/Clinton
Third Way that threw out class analysis and ended up as neoliberalism (sort of a
regressive pragmatism, whatever works for capital works for the society, so let's listen
only to the bond markets). ***** Unfortunately, there is some indication that Obama, who
keeps talking about how we live in a capitalist economy, may not truly get this, and may
drift from his progressive pragmatism in the same direction Clinton did. But I still hold
out hope, as ultimately it is human rationality and caring which are the basis for an
alternative to neoliberalism's reliance upon market forces. And I think there is more of
that in Obama and although more flawed in Hillary Clinton as well, than in any recent
previous candidates.

But Obama moving to the right, if that is a valid distinction in terms of continuums,
will be more likely to happen if the left doesn't embrace his direction and encourage new
thinking. If all we can offer is what is in paragraph two above, that's a no starter.
What we ourselves have to realize is that in reality, from the start at least in the US,
a unique case, there has been a mixed economy all along. All along, from the Puritans on,
there has been a fundamental conflict, or so from what I'm reading and researching I see,
between those who advocated price controls, controls over land use, defense of the
property tax exemption for public/nonprofit/religious property use, and other social
measures ensured at the common good, and those who insisted that social policy be
oriented strictly to enhancing profits. **** Only when you do both class analysis, an
institutional analysis, and a radical Weberian organizaitional analysis of the ways that
large organizations externalize their costs onto the rest of society (see Charles
Perrow's 2002 book Organizing America: Wealth, Power and the Origins of Corporate
Capitalism), and recognize that these three forms of analysis can produce differing
policy prescriptions which have to be reconciled with how to best meet human needs
consistent with human rights, can we say we have arrived a "genuine alternative political
economy."

But this is not a simplistic analysis; it requires commitment to a progressive
pragmatism. It will undoubtedly result in arriving at decisions which piss people off
from many directions, as it is reported is happening in France now. It also will produce
some very strange bedfellows, as I'm sure we would see in Obama's cabinet. If
progressives assume that this is a simple matter of Obama selling out, we will have
missed the boat once again, in mhy opinion. A better idea is to contribute to the
debates in every possible way and try to develope a true progressive pragmatist praxis.

Michael

Show 1 Reader Comment	Comments RSS
Comments are closed for this post.

Content on blogs in My.BarackObama represents the opinions of community members and in no way should be interpreted as endorsed or approved by the campaign.