Opinion: Letter
Pragmatism a true morality
Looking for a print version?
Simply use your browser’s ‘Print’ command and a printer-friendly document will be generated automatically.
Also by Letters to the Editor:
- Clegg absurd, biased on CFACT (May 5, 2009)
- Fund peer tutors (April 28, 2009)
- UW policy consistent with nation (April 23, 2009)
- Biddy's initiative not worth it (April 20, 2009)
- A plan for better advising (April 20, 2009)
Sharing tools:
E-mail this article:
There are few times in life when one reads an opinion piece as chilling and myopic as Jim Allard’s latest rant (“Pragmatism not worthy of my vote,” Oct. 15). If Allard had bothered to read John Dewey, William James, Richard Rorty, Cornel West or any other major pragmatist thinker, he would likely have been astonished — or dismayed — by their commitment to a principled defense of democracy. Allard, on the other hand, seems less inclined to support so pluralistic and messy an idea of political association. He scorns efforts of bipartisan compromise on domestic and foreign policy issues, and claims that attempts to tolerate and accommodate opposing views leads, ironically enough, to the very sort of unfavorable “consequences” with which he accuses pragmatists of being so crassly concerned. Allard’s world is one of ideological rigidity and hyper de-politicization.
What, precisely, is Allard’s stance? Intellectually, he proudly revels in “black and white” thinking. We need the intellectual strength to separate “which social systems lead to prosperity and which lead to mass slaughter,” he proclaims. We need the toughness to stand up and become “intolerant of ideas and actions one abhors” in other cultures. Politically, we need the concepts of the invisible hand, not the dull machinations of the political hand, to maximize well-being.
What a courageous stand, Mr. Allard! Like the “egocentrics” he admires in Ayn Rand novels, Allard appears as the lone voice crying out in the academic wilderness, oppressed by the weak-kneed pragmatists who surround him.
And yet, I’m not persuaded. The burden, it seems, is on Allard to show how the previous eight years of American history have not reflected the kind of thinking he champions, and the kind of outcomes he presumably finds undesirable. A “principled” stance on deregulation and tax cuts has resulted in economic catastrophe, the principled spread of freedom and democracy in mass slaughter, and the principled assertion of partisan will and ideology in the vivisection of checks and balances. Another principled assertion of free markets and war in the name of democracy — as Allard says, “dropping food packages” and “sending billions in aid” smacks of weakness in one’s convictions when stacked up against a merciless bombing campaign — is the last thing this country needs to hear.
As Allard’s other columns suggest, the problem with democracy is that we have replaced the natural, principled and apolitical workings of the free market with the mundane business of politics. In a time when our mutual prosperity is under threat in ways not seen since the Great Depression, it will be politics — the injection of political compromises on ideas of fairness, distribution and regulation into markets — that will either save or doom us. That, Mr. Allard, is what democracy is all about.
Robert Gross
ngross@wisc.edu
Graduate student, history
6 Comments | Leave a comment
Leave a comment
Herald Blogs
The Beat Goes On
Brother Ali makes an ‘Exclusive’ stop
Muckrakers
Report: Barrett to make decision by the end of the week
Extra Points
Top Classified Ads (view all)
HOUSES FOR Fall 2010. All houses are on W Dayton or N Bassett. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, or 8 bedrooms. All have parking. madisoncampusrentals.com
Served. Allard you got straight up served. And God knows you’ve had it coming. I do hope that the Ayn Rand Institute is at least offering hand-jobs to you as compensation for two years of publicly munching at the crotch of libertarianism as a false pretext for your rampant selfishness. This is the public speaking Mr. Allard, and we want you to know that your views are morally reprehensible, and that they are subject to moral judgment because you have made them public. Your narrow understanding of the human condition, as one gathers from your articles, is shameful. You are at least in your 40s though and are a lost cause, but please do not direct anyone else to the plank so that you feel comforted by having company at the bottom of the ocean. (And Clegg, you mine as well be Allard’s radical ideological offspring, so for Christ’s sake, post this at the least.)
I also thought Allard’s article was strange. Claiming that ideology trumps rational thought should get you punted out of college.
4:06 writes, “A “principled” stance on deregulation and tax cuts has resulted in economic catastrophe, the principled spread of freedom and democracy in mass slaughter…”
Where? Bush’s massive prescription drug plan, the huge farm subsidies, the FED’s manipulation of the money supply and lending, the special favors granted to various energy producers like ethanol regulation, the Community Reinvestment Act, outlawing analog TV’s and using taxpayer money to fund converter boxes, controlling who can own and run taxi services and under what condition, outlawing trans-fats, bailing-out auto manufacturers, preventing gas stations from changing the price of their gas more than twice a day, forcing insurance companies to cover things like autism…?
This is PRINCIPLED DEREGULATION? I don’t see how.
Or… condemning North Korea for their barbarism and then giving them money, giving the “peace prize” to terrorist Yasser Arafat, sacrificing our solders for the sake of Iraqi’s while Iran builds nuclear weapons, telling Iran they must stop their quest for nuclear and then doing nothing when they refuse, sacrificing our soldiers going after a two-bit dictator in Iraq while ignoring the actual threats from terrorist sponsoring regimes Iran and Saudi Arabia…
This is a PRINCIPLED quest for freedom? I don’t see how.
Jim, are you just admitting that Bush says one thing and does another? Does he keep his base happy by saying the magic conservative words, but spending like the liberal boogieman?
So, then, if the Right and Left have been screwed by this Republican “conservative” administration, why the hell would anyone REWARD his party with another shot at failure? Let’s have the other party take a whack at it; at least we’re not rewarding poor administrative leadership.
“injection of political compromises on ideas of fairness, distribution and regulation into markets — that will either save or doom us. That, Mr. Allard, is what democracy is all about.”
No sir, that is what the USSR was all about.Your deficient and naïve philosophy makes me laugh. Your being awfully critical for someone who does not believe in an absolute right or wrong. Remember this is a gray area so your probably wrong also. You should compromise with his ideals and meet him in the middle.
Hi. In the future I’m going to keep here links to their sites. But I do not worry about the sites where my link is removed. So if you do not want to see a mountain of links, simply delete this message. After 2 weeks, I will come back and check.