Pragmatism in politics.

I have heard people say that in order to get things done you have to ' wheel and deal ' and ‘be pragmatic’ in the political arena. This is an interesting concept and is a clue to what makes negotiation such an interesting subject and negotiation is found in all walks of life. To start, lets look at what pragmatism is and is not:

It is character or conduct that emphasizes practicality. Its a philosophical movement or system having various forms, but generally stressing practical consequences as constituting the essential criterion in determining meaning, truth, or value. From: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/pragmatism

Philosophically: Its a school of philosophy, dominant in the United States during the first quarter of the 20th century, based on the principle that the usefulness, workability, and practicality of ideas, policies, and proposals are the criteria of their merit. It stresses the priority of action over doctrine, of experience over fixed principles, and it holds that ideas borrow their meanings from their consequences and their truths from their verification. Thus, ideas are essentially instruments and plans of action. From http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/473717/pragmatism

The parts I’ve bolded and enlarged indicate that pragmatism is not grounded in principle or high moral values.

The constitutional convention was an exercise in negotiation, but it had a distinguishing characteristic that is absent in today's politics. The convention was composed of, and led by men of high moral character and values, who recognized the failings of man and wanted to prevent those failings from becoming the ruling values of the government. As representatives of the people and future states, they knew and respected the historical forms of government and the consequences of each.

This is far different from pragmatism as shown above, the founders actively sought and put in place limits on the appetites of man so the constitution would be preserved. The desire and goal of the founders was to encourage and build in barriers to the spread and influence of government. They based this effort on the idea that a moral, righteous people need only a limited government. That was recognition of what was the ‘right’ way that would be most beneficial to the people.

Pragmatism on the other hand, starts off on the wrong foot. It says initially, “I am not right, but let's find an acceptable solution."

The “ best" solution follows the founders and their direction. Limited government, limited taxation, limited powers to the federal government, freedoms kept to the people.

So our effort is: 1. Identify the best result for the nation and people/ 2. Prepare arguments to teach and fortify the people. 3. Identify those elected, un-elected and potential lawmakers whose concepts are not friendly to the Constitution, 4. Teach why they are not acceptable as representatives.

Pragmatism is not an acceptable approach to government or as a policy for our representatives. Government requires clear moral values and the courage to promote them. Pragmatism is an “a priori” admission that you don't believe in the Constitution or it values and you are willing to accept something less. Maintaining high standards and expectations means the lower ones don’t overcome us and there is much to be said for continuing a way of life that has less government in it.

Do you as an individual contribute to high standards in your daily life? The change begins with us as individuals.