Over break, you probably engaged with family and friends over current events, politics, personal relationships and various other issues. Maybe you discussed the financial crisis and its effects on the economy, Barack Obama’s upcoming first term, environmental issues, Detroit car manufacturers or health care.

Whatever the topic or points of view, reflect for a moment on the nature of these conversations. Were they principled and idealistic or pragmatic and cynical? Were premises stated clearly and wider implications discussed, or were topics limited to narrow goals and immediate actions?

Did proponents of national health care, for instance, argue for the benefits of socialism? Did they offer a defense of curtailing individual rights and describe what that policy would mean in principle? Or did they instead offer statistics about “the uninsured,” rising health care costs and anecdotes about Sweden?

Did proponents of bailouts and subsidies for business, for example, present a case for central planning and explain why such a social system would lead to prosperity? Or did they instead adduce things like income disparity, the needy and lost jobs without reference to the root causes and principles underlying such phenomena?

Sadly, the latter approach dominates our culture. Today the standard approach is to focus on some desired end with blithe disregard for means and principles.

Is government manipulation of banks and individuals to control their spending and saving habits socialism? Of course not, they say; it’s simply a pragmatic plan to “stimulate the economy.” Is giving billions of dollars in special favors to business in exchange for them producing vehicles the government deems good a form of fascism? That’s silly, they say; it’s just a plan to save jobs and the auto industry. Is a ban on smoking and trans-fats in restaurants a violation of individual rights? No, they say; it’s just a public health issue.

Those who reject such principled characterizations are not claiming a misapplication of principle or that an alternative principle is at work — their view is that principles don’t apply. This is no accident.

Our culture and its intellectuals actively discourage ideological principles. From editorials to college textbooks, we hear about the evils of “rigid ideology” and the need for “pragmatic solutions.” Abstract principles, we’re told, such as “rights” and “capitalism” are fine in an “ideal world” but don’t apply to complex, real-life situations. As a result, most people cannot identify their own philosophic premises — much less defend them. Most believe philosophy is irrelevant to their lives.

The financial crisis is a prime example.

Obama’s “stimulus” plan, as he puts it, “is not an intellectual exercise” — he’s just looking for what works. The New York Times describes his plan as one “with no instruction manual” and consisting of “putting competing ideological approaches into the mix.” The result is a combination of massive spending and make-work programs along with tax cuts, welfare increases, unemployment insurance and whatever else he can find under the kitchen sink.

What principles guide this hodgepodge of contradictory actions? “We’re guided by what works, not by any ideology or special interests,” says one Obama spokesman.

Like a bank robber who cannot be bothered with lofty ideas such as private property, production, freedom, earned and unearned, these policymakers wallow in an endless sea of policies and programs trying to determine what they can get away with — what might work — for the moment.

Imagine the result of such an approach applied to medicine. Imagine a doctor who claims he is guided by no medical ideology and no rigid principles or theories; he just tries to find something that works. Imagine lying on the operating table as his team of faith healers, cardiologists and witch doctors debate on whether to do open heart surgery or cover you with incense.

Just as a patient cannot survive by simply “doing what works,” a society cannot survive without moral, economic and political principles. When ideology is rejected and rational principles are tossed aside in favor of pragmatic “solutions” the opposite, often disastrous, principles are adopted by default.

A surgeon who fails to consistently uphold the principle of hygiene is, in fact, unsanitary; a person who fails to consistently uphold the principle of honesty is, in fact, a liar; a government that fails to consistently uphold individual rights is, in fact, a statist government.

While it is possible for a liar or an entire society to evade the ideological nature of their actions, claiming to be guided only by practical concerns, it is an evasion nonetheless. Failure to uphold correct principles places one squarely in the service of destructive ones. The sciences know this well. The humanities need to discover it.

Jim Allard ([email protected]) is a graduate student studying biological science.