Principles or Pragmatism? Who's Doing What?

[MineralMan]

When Dr. Dean spoke about it being better, perhaps, for the Muslims in New York City to wait, or to move their planned Islamic Cultural Center, it got me thinking. Dr. Dean has many supporters on DU, and I hear some of those supporters talking about principles being more important than pragmatism when it comes to policies.

And yet, in this situation, President Obama appears to be the leader who is standing on principle. He made no bones about his belief that our Constitution says that people have the right to build their houses of worship where they please, in keeping with local zoning laws, and the like. Well, the Mosque being proposed meets those local requirements, so they have a Constitutional right to worship as they please and where they please.

Dr. Dean, on the other hand, appears to be putting some sort of pragmatism to work in suggesting that maybe they should build that mosque just there, but should move it to another location, or wait until something undefined happens. Huh? Really? What about the First Amendment, Dr. Dean? What about Democratic principles?

All of this goes to the point that principles are important, but at any time, pragmatic concerns may cause anyone to duck the principles to suggest some pragmatic action instead. Even Dr.Dean, who is considered in a more positive light than President Obama by some.

Principles or Pragmatism? Well, it seems like it depends on whose ox is being gored (no pun intended). Things aren't so simple, sometimes.

[NJmaverick]

1. K&R

[VMI Dem]

2. I will not comment on the wisdom of them building it at that location.

They certainly have the right.

[MineralMan]

4. Indeed. It actually could be a bad idea to build it there,

but that's not the issue. They have an absolute Constitutional right to build it there. Precisely what President Obama said. Dr. Dean, on the other hand, took the pragmatic approach.

[VMI Dem]

5. I will not comment on Dr. Deans approach. He had the right to say what he did.

[MineralMan]

10. Of course he did. And his supporters have the right to praise

him for it. I just pointed out the situation. It's a very common one. Politicians are all pragmatists when it's necessary for them to be so.

[HughMoran]

3. Interesting observation

I too have noted the sudden defense of Dean's pragmatic response to the mosque situation and the sudden about-face of many who would normally be criticizing Obama for the same.

[MineralMan]

7. That may demonstrate that everyone's pragmatic when it

suits them to be pragmatic. Principles are the foundation of what we advocate and support. Pragmatism is applying those principles in a way that can be sustained. In a nation as diverse as ours, there is never consensus on most issues. That means that absolute adherence to principles isn't always possible.

I have met only one person in my life who adhered completely to a set of principles. He was an extremely devout Catholic, and was more suited to a cloistered religious life than to service in the USAF. He was universally disliked by everyone around him for his strict adherence to his principles and regular demands that all adhere to them as well.

Nobody actually adheres 100% to a set of principles. For political leaders, such adherence would make getting elected impossible, or limit their ability to win elections to a very small area. When push comes to shove, all effective political leaders adopt pragmatism over principle if it means that things move in the desired direction.

We need to be careful in criticizing political figures for failures to act strictly on principle. Even our heroes will stray from that when it is necessary, as did Dr. Dean, in this case.

[HughMoran]

32. I agree completely

I was excoriated for posting a thread with the title "Pragmatic means practical". Seemed like an obvious statement to make, but it really got under the skin of a lot of people.

In the weeks that followed, I read numerous posts where people who had roundly criticized me suddenly were espousing the virtues of 'pragmatism' on the left. It was enough to make my head spin. It really comes down to who's ox is being gored and not much else. All the talk of principal is just another method of saying "my guy's better than yours - nah nah nah nah nah!" When I step back and realize that highly intelligent adults are behind this behavior, I start to get that sick feeling in my stomach - similar to that feeling you get when you find out a good friend was backstabbing you.

We need to get beyond this.

[DonCoquixote]

21. k an r for that comment

especially for all those who wanted Dean to primary him in 2012.

[sabrina 1]

48. I have not defended it and I have seen many others who are

very disappointed in him for his position. He had a difficult time explaining it in his interview with Keith Olbermann. He was simply wrong. This is a fabricated issue pushed by bigots on the right and moving the mosque would not please them.

I would ask Dr. Dean if appeasing bigots would have stopped the burning at the Mosque in Tennessee this weekend. Is Tennesse still too close to the site of 9/11 for their sensibilities' or is it just plain bigotry? I think we know the answer and hope by now Dean has figured it out.

What this proves is NOT what the OP claims, it proves the opposite. I proves that disagreeing with a politician when they are wrong is essential for citizens to do even when they respect and admire that politician. And it doesn't mean that there is some ulterior motive in such disagreement as is often claimed when people disagree with the president.

I am a great admirer of Dean but he was simply wrong on this and I am very disappointed in him and have said so.

The President has been very wrong on many issues and even though I supported and admire and respect him, I have done the same thing when, eg, he lifted the ban on Offshore drilling.

I see no problem at all with being able to disagree with people we support, in fact we harshly criticized the right for refusing to criticize Bush. Now we are being asked to do the same thing, That would be hugely hypocritical.

Honesty really IS the best policy. If I disagree with the president I am going to say so and I really don't care if others try to misinterpret that as 'hating him' or whatever other silly, childish accusations I have seen being leveled at anyone who expresses a genuine concern over some of the decisions he has made.

[HughMoran]

52. Yes, Dean was wrong.

It's great that you are able to say that without equivocation.

Now if you can convince me that there aren't 100 people that post here and never agree with the President AND made excuses for Dean's behavior, I'll give you $1000. You're in the minority with your arguments and I would argue that the O/P's point speaks to a majority here.

[OrwellwasRight]

6. He did "make bones" about it though--

when he retreated on his comments by saying that he was only talking about the Constitution in general and not about the Manhattan mosque in particular.

Besides the fact that I strongly believe this is simply a non-issue and that a house of worship should be built where ever the traffic can take it, regardless of whose house of worship it is, I also am very disappointed that this was the issue that the President chose to weigh in on.

The guy couldn't be bothered to take a position on the public option or anything else of import in the health bill. He just sat silently by and refused to demand votes or support throughout the summer of 2009, dragging out the health reform process until it nearly died. He wouldn't even go to Capitol Hill once he finaly did get invovled. He just had Rahn make a few calls. And not on real issues, but just to say to please vote yes to the mess that had become of the bill, regardless of what was in it.

But then then guy whose enemies call him Barack "Hussein" Obama, and whose enemies try to "smear" him with the "charge" that he's not really Christian, decides that it is politically savvy to weigh on on this issue? That seems not politically savvy. In fact, it seems to needlessly play into the hands of his political enemies, elevating the issue to give credence to the theory that it is of national importance. It's not. It's not an issue at all. Just the tea partiers want to make it an issue.

But if he is going to go ahead and weigh in and then back track, I just don't know what that was but a political blunder. Neither principled nor pragmatic to me.

Now on the general question of principles v. pragmatism, I agree it is a tough question, and that the position is often in the eye of the beholder. To me, the balance to be struck is that pragmatism is fine as long as it doesn't violate your principles. What does that mean? Well, throw the Rs a bone in a bill if it gets them to vote for it -- that's OK. But if that bone is to violate a principle (like agreeing to prohibit abortions or to diminish civil rights and liberties), no dice.

[VMI Dem]

9. Of course he did...and most people know that.

Trying to paint him as a strong advocate on this issue is disingenuous. Its the same old have it both ways bullshit.

[MineralMan]

14. He is a strong advocate of the Constitutional right for people

to worship as they choose. He wasn't advocating for or against this particular house of worship. Why would he do that? His charge is to support the Constitution, not the location of some house of worship. Why would he take a position on that, specifically. It's a NYC issue, not a federal issue. NYC has its own rules about zoning and suitability of locations for various things.

He took a strongly principled position, and limited his remarks to the actual Constitutional issue. That's his job.

[Arkana]

17. He shouldn't be advocating anything except what is Constitutionally required.

And he did. He said the Cordoba Initiative absolutely has the right to build the damn thing where they want.

I wouldn't want him advocating anything either way, because it's not his place as President.

[DonCoquixote]

22. how could ne NOT comment?

In case you have not figured it out, FOx made this to exploit the idea of Obama being a closet Muslim. Do you think they would have done half this work on this issue if Hillary was president?

[OrwellwasRight]

24. He could easily have kept silent as he has done on many other issues.

Did he weigh in on the stupid Congressional ban on spending money to bring suspected terrorists from Guantanamo to US soil? Nope. He stayed quiet.

Did he speak publicly about his request to Congress to renew the expiring portions of the USA PATRIOT Act? Nope, he did not.

Has he weighed in on the need for the Employee Free Choice Act and why Congress isn't moving it, or about the stupidity of linking gun rights to the right to vote for DC, or in fact ever about voting rights for DC? No, no, and no.

He certainly knows how to be quiet when he wants to be.

[MineralMan]

26. Every politician must know when to keep silent,

And when to speak. It's something they all do. Why would that be a surprise? Politics has been a give and take proposition in this country since its founding. It will always be so in any nation as large and diverse as ours. There is no magical politician who can do otherwise than work with the situation that exists.

Only in a despotic country can a single person dictate how things will be, and despots usually end up being summarily executed by a rival.

We don't do that here so much. We try very hard to come up with a system that works for most people, most of the time. That's the best that can be accomplished in a system like ours. We have some basic principles, but that's it. Everything else is subject to change. President Obama spoke in defense of a principle, but was silent on his opinion of the application of that principle in this specific case. That's his job. He did it well.

[OrwellwasRight]

31. As President, his job is to use his position to improve the country.

He kept silent many times when he could have and should have spoken. And he spoke up--in a wishy washy way--when he did not have to, on an issue that just validated the bogus concerns of the tea partiers and dignified their nonsense by making it appear to be a legitimate debate. If he wanted to speak on the issue -- which was not politically smart -- he should have done so forcefully and with conviction.

He did his job poorly.

P.S. I don't believe that I said anything he did was a "surprise" nor did I advocate for "a single person to dictate how things will be." What I said what that it was not politically savvy for him to speak on this issue, then retreat, and that he has failed to speak up on a bunch of other issues where he might have made a difference and where his voice would have been important rather than a tool to advance the right wing's false debate. Thank you for the straw man arguments though. They are always appreciated.

[Luminous Animal]

8. What principles? In regards to Obama's position, you are presenting facts not in evidence.

Aside from the constitutional issue, we have no idea what Obama thinks. From the man himself:

"I was not commenting and I will not comment on the wisdom of making the decision to put a mosque there," he said in response to a reporter's question after he spoke about efforts to aid the Gulf Coast region. "I was commenting very specifically on the right people have that dates back to our founding. That's what our country is about."

[VMI Dem]

11. "I will not comment on the wisdom". Anyone knows what that means.

It is exactly that. A comment on the wisdom.

[Arkana]

18. And there you go putting words in Obama's mouth.

You want so desperately to believe that Obama and Dean are of like mind that you are making the President say something he never said.

[MineralMan]

12. It is not for the President to comment on the wisdom of

a Constitutional right. He reaffirmed that right in this matter. Lots of people commented, later, that the mosque shouldn't be built on that location. President Obama restated his stance on the Constitutional issue, and refused to comment on whether that mosque's location was wise or not. That's not up to him. It's up to the people who want to build a mosque. They have the legal right, and city approval, to build it where they wish. What other people consider to be wise or not wise doesn't enter into the issue. It is their decision whether to proceed or not.

[Luminous Animal]

13. Dean affirmed the right, also. So, on that count, they both stand on principle...

then Dean went further and Obama ran away... taking the pragmatic political approach.

[MineralMan]

15. And the dreidel spins and spins.

Teetotum is a very old game, indeed. You never know which character will end up on top.

[Arkana]

20. Obama stopped where he should have stopped--at standing firm

on the First Amendment. It's not "running away" to state what should be Constitutionally obvious.

And Dean is still wrong. There are no opportunities to debate with racists.

[MineralMan]

27. Exactly.

[EFerrari]

34. If you state the obvious, are you actually doing anything? nt

[MineralMan]

35. Well, given the criticism from the right of what he said, I'd say that he was

indeed doing something. He was reaffirming the First Amendment, something that is under heavy attack by the right. Seems like a positive position to take, and one that brought out the worst from the right. I consider it a good job. He said exactly what he meant. He did not advocate for that mosque in that location. Nor should he. That's a local issue.

[EFerrari]

36. "It's a local issue" is exactly the position politicians took to stay out of

the segregation debate.

[MineralMan]

38. And that is why it became a federal issue. Because the issue

involved Constitutional rights of individuals, it was not a local issue. In the case of the mosque in NYC, there is no attempt to deny the building of a mosque. In fact, the local jurisdiction has granted the proposal. The issue became a larger one when the right began to say that NYC shouldn't be able to control where mosques should be built, based on some squeamish feelings some had about it.

The right to worship is a federal issue. Local jurisdictions can determine where a house of worship can be built, just as they can determine where a strip club can be built. They cannot, however, restrict such a project, except when their zoning laws dictate. Since NYC's zoning requirements allow that use in that place, they cannot say that an Islamic house of worship can't be built there. There is a Christian church directly across the street from the location of the disaster. So, houses of worship are allowed in that area. Therefore, a restriction of a particular religion violates the US Constitution.

Thus, the President's statement. It's all so simple, really.

[EFerrari]

53. That doesn't even make sense.

Discrimination against Muslims in this country is by no stretch of the imagination a "local issue" as you yourself concede in pointing out that the zoning is not the problem.

Therefore, what we are looking at is not a "local problem".

[Arkana]

49. Yes, you're stating the obvious and showing that you have an actual regard for the First Amendment

rights of all Americans, no matter how many craven and bigoted Congressmen and Senators run away from you.

[EFerrari]

33. Exactly. And Dean was acting on ethics, not pragmatism anyway.

He was talking about problem solving in groups and in communities, not political expediency.

[grantcart]

16. I believe that Dr. Dean will in the future look back and regret his words on this subject

[MineralMan]

19. I believe you are right.

[Peacetrain]

23. very astute observation...

[MineralMan]

25. Thanks very much.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

28. Well, there are actual principled people like me...

I have a soft spot for Dr. Dean and considerable disdain for president Obama but posted in support of the president's stance and later posted in strong opposition to Dean's comments.

Were a lot of people defending Dean here? I must have missed it.

[MineralMan]

29. A lot? I'm not sure what that means, in terms of DU.

Some people were defending Dean. Since most people who visit DU don't post much, I guess it was a lot. Really, it doesn't matter, though. This post is about pragmatism vs. principle. It's about the point that every politician is pragmatic about some things. They have to be. There are no pure politicians. A person who stands absolutely for some principle, without any compromise, will lose the election every time. We don't live in a society that accepts strict adherence to principle. We're too damned diverse for that. The USA operates on compromise, not consensus. It always has. It always will, as long as we use the Constitution as a guideline to how the government is made up.

If you expect otherwise, you're missing a very, very important part of how this nation operates politically. It is all compromise. No single group can dictate how things will be. Every group, even the majority, must accept points of view that differ from their own. We have some basic rules that are not to be broken. Freedom of religion is one of those. We disregard it at our peril.

Still, on the federal level, it is that principle alone that is the issue. Local jurisdictions may have requirements for where houses of worship may be located, as long as they are not prohibited. In the case of NYC, this mosque is permitted in that location. So, that's not an issue for the federal government at any level. The President took the correct approach in affirming the First Amendment without commenting or addressing the specific instance. He did his job.

[MineralMan]

30. BTW, I'm not criticizing Dr. Dean in this post. He's a fine man

and a good Democrat. I'm just pointing out that all politicians are pragmatists when they feel they need to be. We can't criticize pragmatism in President Obama' statements and issues while ignoring the same thing in other politicians who we may favor.

If anyone finds a politician in a strong position who never compromises, I hope that politician will be pointed out to me. I know of none. The heroes also compromise, and do it regularly, whenever compromise works. All of the most liberal Senators voted for HCR, you may remember, and all voiced support for it. Kucinich, Dean...everyone.

[VioletLake]

37. Principles and pragmatism are not mutually exclusive. nt

[MineralMan]

39. True. They never have been...at least not in our political

system. It's all pragmatism, all the time. That comes with the necessity of compromise.

[VioletLake]

40. Then what's the point of your topic?

Pragmatism vs. pretend principles?

[MineralMan]

41. My point is that some people criticize President Obama, but praise

others, like Kucinich and Dean. They believe, erroneously, that President Obama doesn't act on principle, but that their heroes do. The point of this post is to point out that discrepancy. It's not about Obama or Dean. It's about people failing to recognize that all successful politicians must be pragmatic. It comes with the job.

I thought I was pretty clear about the subject of the OP in the OP.

[VioletLake]

44. Pragmatic and principled (or at least appear to be).

This is my compromise:

I am a principled person, and I will continue to vote for Democrats, not because they represent my principles, but to prevent the Republicans from ever holding the Imperial Gun again. I do it out of concern for the people they will victimize abroad and here in the U.S.

And I will continue to engage sincerely.

[Arkana]

50. Right, and they never should be.

The greatest leaders this country has had knew how to effectively mix the two. They knew when they had to eat something they didn't like and they knew when to stand up for something they wanted.

[txlibdem]

42. I'm so glad that he finally gives a crap about our rights

After all, we had the right to toss out single payer before the HCR debate even began.

We had the right to bail out big banks, auto corps, state governments, now small business, while at the same time doing nothing to help millions of families who are out of work and millions who are losing their homes.

We had the right to credit card legislation that has no limits on interest rates but forces the bank to notify you a few weeks before they put the screws to you.

Yeah, I'm so glad that the administration is so concerned with our rights all of the sudden.

[Kahuna]

47. You call 99 weeks of unemployment benefits nothing? Really?..

Because I've never seen benefits paid out for that long before. Once again, I will try to explain that the banks had to be saved because they are the holders of the wealth of our nation. Lots of things have been done to help main street. I don't think the issue with the whiners about Wall St. Vs. Main St. (of either party), is that Main Street didn't benefit, because it clearly did. They just didn't want to see the government propping up Wall St., even if their failure to do so would have caused another great depression. So be it, huh? :eyes:

[txlibdem]

51. Propping up the banks helped nobody but the banks

They are not lending to anyone. What is a bank that doesn't lend? All they are doing with the billions of dollars they received, as well as the trillions of dollars given to them at near zero interest, is investing it overseas and in government securities. They receive a small percentage on the investment at a guaranteed rate from the federal government.

Unemployment benefits were extended several times in the past, during both Republican and Democratic administrations so that is no feather in anyone's cap.

What the administration should have done is to resurrect the WPA and put people to work directly. They could have employed 10 million people for the $700 billion that they gave away to the banks. Those 10 million people would have bought cars and tvs and groceries and gas and a whole lot of other things and would have revived the economy by stimulating demand.

[Cha]

43. Oh yeah, Dean is pragmatic..

nothing wrong with that but in this instance I'm going with the stand that President Obama took. They have the Constitutional right and should build there and if there weren't such chickenshit demagogues ranting hate from the airwaves more people would see what a healing this could be for our country. Islam is not about hate..it's the extremists who use Islam for their vicious violence who are the enemy..just like the extremist hypocrites who gathered at the Lincoln Memorial yesterday glorifying the asshole glen beck.

I hope the haters don't prevail.

[bvar22]

45. Dr Dean is a good Democratic Party soldier.

The Democratic Party is his livelihood, and when the orders come down, he marches.
Who can ever forget,
"Without a Public Option, there is no reform!", and the subsequent backtracking to pick up the Party Line.

I have always like Dr Dean, but like I said above, Dean IS a good Party Soldier, and he will march to The Party tune.

"Let me be blunt. Strong and successful presidents (meaning those who get what they want - whether that happens to be good for the country or not) do not accept "the best deal on the table". They take out their carpentry tools and the build the goddam piece of furniture themselves. Strong and successful presidents do not get dictated to by the political environment. They reshape the environment into one that is conducive to their political aspirations."

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/07/17

"If we don't fight hard enough for the things we stand for,
at some point we have to recognize that we don't really stand for them."
--- Paul Wellstone



There really IS only one way to deal with Civil Rights and Equal Protections.
The President is SWORN to protect them, not equivocate.

[Kahuna]

46. Indeed. Seems it's okay to ignore THOSE people THEIR

civil rights as long as you leave MINE alone. (shakes head)