Thank you for the link. I thought this part was the most accurate:
"As noted above, pragmatism – the fuller philosophical tradition – need not conflict with ideologically-driven action: a progressive alliance could be seen as part of a highly pragmatic attempt to revise out-dated ideological categories. At the same time, a pragmatist would be cautious about undermining a foundational identity of social democratic agency – that the Labour Party is a national party – and key elements of the constituency system. For this reason, what Florence Sutcliffe-Braithwaite’s contribution, on the formation of a progressive alliance in a local authority, characterises as an ‘ad hoc muddle’ is likely to remain a feature of centre-left electoral co-operation."
I think many attempts at so-called pragmatism become what they here call an ‘ad hoc muddle’. And for that reason, I'm wary of the use of the term pragmatism, for sometimes it means compromising on so much that the party in power no longer seems to have any real goals for which it is willing to fight.
And this too:
"At the heart of pragmatism’s appeal, surely, is its utility. But a shallow pragmatism that, at worst, enables entry into and influence within the labour movement for a politics not motivated by social democratic aims, and, at best, undermines the movement’s cohesion by jeopardising the political identities upon which organisation depends – and therefore its ability to win power and use it effectively – is closer to abandonment than affirmation of pragmatism’s core imperatives."
And this in particular, is the biggest risk of pragmatism in politics:
"undermines the movement’s cohesion by jeopardising the political identities upon which organisation depends"
I've seen that in the USA, when the Democrats sometimes compromise so much that it seems like there is no reason for them to exist. If a party is overly eager to compromise with other parties, then it has lost its reason to exist. A party needs to be ready to fight for some principle or ideal. Compromise, when it happens, should happen in reaction to difficult political realities. But no party should try to win power by being eager to compromise, that defeats the point of voters voting for that party. Only when the party is willing to fight for something do voters have a reason to vote for that party.
You would need to define the word "parties." Who do you mean, specifically? If you were talking about the Republican party, can you name a specific individual who you feel needs to "reach out to people on the other side who want to improve their own party."
No party can go after every demographic. But if there is a demographic that the party thinks it should have, and it doesn't have that demographic, then the question comes up, why don't they already have that demographic? Does the party have a committee that specifically represents that demographic? If yes, why isn't that committee enough? Are the people on the committee incompetent? If so, who has the power to replace them?
One reason the CDU is so strong is that they are clear about which demographics they hope to get and they have a committee for each of those demographics. While I would recommend Sarah Elise Wiliarty's whole book, I feel like this paragraph is among the most important in explaining why the CDU dominates German politics:
"One of the reasons that the CDU was able to dominate German politics so thoroughly during the 1950s was that the party successfully reached out to and integrated societal groups that might have offered opposition. The party recognized important groups by founding auxiliary organizations that were affiliated with the party. The CDU originally had seven auxiliary organizations: the Youth Union (Junge Union), the Women’s Union (Frauen Union), the Social Committees of the Christian Democratic Workers (Sozialausschüsse der Christlich-Demokratischen Arbeitnehmerschaft), the Municipal Politics Association (Kommunalpolitische Vereinigung), the Middle Class Association (Mittelstandsvereinigung), the Economic Council (Wirtschaftsrat), and the Refugees Union (Union der Vertriebenen und Flüchtlinge). In 1972 the party added an additional auxiliary organization, the School Pupils Union (Schüler Union), and in 1988 the newest auxiliary organization was created, the Seniors Union (Senioren Union). Additionally, two older CDU organizations do not have the official status of auxiliary organizations, but often act similarly: the Protestant Working Circle (Evangelischer Arbeitskreis) and the Ring of Christian Democratic Students (Ring Christlich-Demokratischen Studenten)."
I mean that both sides seem to have issues they care about others they tend to ignore. For example, democrats talk more often about the environment and the economy and republicans talk more often about street crime and public morality. Many people see leftists as fighting for the poor and underprivileged and rightists fighting for the oppressor class, but I believe that authentic conservatism has the potential to play a part in generating lasting social change. What we think of as conservatism in the United States is really just a combination of conservative social policies and liberal economics. Listening to democratic and republican politicians make bland speeches can make you lose faith in politics, but there are interesting articles in publications outside of the major news networks.
I advise tech startups. I tell them to go after a small niche, and then if they become successful in that niche, they can go after other niches, and if they are successful in those other niches, then they might become a big, successful company. But at any given time, the leadership of the startup has to have discipline: they need to know who they are going after. It is impossible to go after everyone: the effort would waste critical time and money, and for most possible target markets, the effort is hopeless.
I would say the same thing to political parties: chose your target demographics carefully. Don't waste energy going after everyone, that is hopeless. Just go after the folks you have a reasonable chance of getting.
I agree that there needs to be more compromise, but I think this needs to happen in the way suggested by that essay you posted here last month. Jonathan Rauch and Benjamin Wittes wrote:
"Changes reducing the scope of political intermediation have made both campaigning and governing increasingly chaotic. Candidate selection through direct primaries has turned out to advantage parochial, narrow, and extreme interests and politicians, at the expense of relatively centrist or compromise-minded candidates and citizens. Frequently, the parties are bit players in their own choice of nominees."
This is the correct way to get back to a politics of centrist compromise. Undo the reforms of the last 60 years, which made compromise more difficult.
Article about pragmatism in center-left politics:
https://renewal.org.uk/editorial-the-promise-and-the-perils-of-pragmatic-politics/
Thank you for the link. I thought this part was the most accurate:
"As noted above, pragmatism – the fuller philosophical tradition – need not conflict with ideologically-driven action: a progressive alliance could be seen as part of a highly pragmatic attempt to revise out-dated ideological categories. At the same time, a pragmatist would be cautious about undermining a foundational identity of social democratic agency – that the Labour Party is a national party – and key elements of the constituency system. For this reason, what Florence Sutcliffe-Braithwaite’s contribution, on the formation of a progressive alliance in a local authority, characterises as an ‘ad hoc muddle’ is likely to remain a feature of centre-left electoral co-operation."
I think many attempts at so-called pragmatism become what they here call an ‘ad hoc muddle’. And for that reason, I'm wary of the use of the term pragmatism, for sometimes it means compromising on so much that the party in power no longer seems to have any real goals for which it is willing to fight.
And this too:
"At the heart of pragmatism’s appeal, surely, is its utility. But a shallow pragmatism that, at worst, enables entry into and influence within the labour movement for a politics not motivated by social democratic aims, and, at best, undermines the movement’s cohesion by jeopardising the political identities upon which organisation depends – and therefore its ability to win power and use it effectively – is closer to abandonment than affirmation of pragmatism’s core imperatives."
And this in particular, is the biggest risk of pragmatism in politics:
"undermines the movement’s cohesion by jeopardising the political identities upon which organisation depends"
I've seen that in the USA, when the Democrats sometimes compromise so much that it seems like there is no reason for them to exist. If a party is overly eager to compromise with other parties, then it has lost its reason to exist. A party needs to be ready to fight for some principle or ideal. Compromise, when it happens, should happen in reaction to difficult political realities. But no party should try to win power by being eager to compromise, that defeats the point of voters voting for that party. Only when the party is willing to fight for something do voters have a reason to vote for that party.
Every political party should reach out to as many demographics as possible who want to debate and compromise.
You would need to define the word "parties." Who do you mean, specifically? If you were talking about the Republican party, can you name a specific individual who you feel needs to "reach out to people on the other side who want to improve their own party."
No party can go after every demographic. But if there is a demographic that the party thinks it should have, and it doesn't have that demographic, then the question comes up, why don't they already have that demographic? Does the party have a committee that specifically represents that demographic? If yes, why isn't that committee enough? Are the people on the committee incompetent? If so, who has the power to replace them?
One reason the CDU is so strong is that they are clear about which demographics they hope to get and they have a committee for each of those demographics. While I would recommend Sarah Elise Wiliarty's whole book, I feel like this paragraph is among the most important in explaining why the CDU dominates German politics:
"One of the reasons that the CDU was able to dominate German politics so thoroughly during the 1950s was that the party successfully reached out to and integrated societal groups that might have offered opposition. The party recognized important groups by founding auxiliary organizations that were affiliated with the party. The CDU originally had seven auxiliary organizations: the Youth Union (Junge Union), the Women’s Union (Frauen Union), the Social Committees of the Christian Democratic Workers (Sozialausschüsse der Christlich-Demokratischen Arbeitnehmerschaft), the Municipal Politics Association (Kommunalpolitische Vereinigung), the Middle Class Association (Mittelstandsvereinigung), the Economic Council (Wirtschaftsrat), and the Refugees Union (Union der Vertriebenen und Flüchtlinge). In 1972 the party added an additional auxiliary organization, the School Pupils Union (Schüler Union), and in 1988 the newest auxiliary organization was created, the Seniors Union (Senioren Union). Additionally, two older CDU organizations do not have the official status of auxiliary organizations, but often act similarly: the Protestant Working Circle (Evangelischer Arbeitskreis) and the Ring of Christian Democratic Students (Ring Christlich-Demokratischen Studenten)."
I mean that both sides seem to have issues they care about others they tend to ignore. For example, democrats talk more often about the environment and the economy and republicans talk more often about street crime and public morality. Many people see leftists as fighting for the poor and underprivileged and rightists fighting for the oppressor class, but I believe that authentic conservatism has the potential to play a part in generating lasting social change. What we think of as conservatism in the United States is really just a combination of conservative social policies and liberal economics. Listening to democratic and republican politicians make bland speeches can make you lose faith in politics, but there are interesting articles in publications outside of the major news networks.
I advise tech startups. I tell them to go after a small niche, and then if they become successful in that niche, they can go after other niches, and if they are successful in those other niches, then they might become a big, successful company. But at any given time, the leadership of the startup has to have discipline: they need to know who they are going after. It is impossible to go after everyone: the effort would waste critical time and money, and for most possible target markets, the effort is hopeless.
I would say the same thing to political parties: chose your target demographics carefully. Don't waste energy going after everyone, that is hopeless. Just go after the folks you have a reasonable chance of getting.
I agree that there needs to be more compromise, but I think this needs to happen in the way suggested by that essay you posted here last month. Jonathan Rauch and Benjamin Wittes wrote:
"Changes reducing the scope of political intermediation have made both campaigning and governing increasingly chaotic. Candidate selection through direct primaries has turned out to advantage parochial, narrow, and extreme interests and politicians, at the expense of relatively centrist or compromise-minded candidates and citizens. Frequently, the parties are bit players in their own choice of nominees."
This is the correct way to get back to a politics of centrist compromise. Undo the reforms of the last 60 years, which made compromise more difficult.