A different debate, part one: Four politics or just one?

My main complaint about politics as usual is that something important is missing from mainstream political debate and policy. If you believe that the U.S is off track in some way, it is reasonable and defensible to argue that if something is missing it could be a major part of the problem. At the moment, most mainstream Americans think we are on the wrong track, although most politicians apparently feel otherwise. For the mainstream, what the "wrong track" means comes primarily from three basic political viewpoints.

Japanese destroyers

San Diego bay - July 2011

Big three politics

The three main viewpoints are liberal, conservative and compromise or centrist. One of those three seems to be the political space where most Americans mostly live most of the time (but not always, e.g., fiscally conservative social liberals/moderates). Its their ideology and what they are comfortable with. That's how they see the world as it is and how it ought to be. When over 80% of mainstream Americans say we are on the wrong track, that arguably means to many or most that our politics isn't sufficiently liberal, conservative or compromise. Not many people even question whether there is political space outside that political universe of three points. The competition among ideas is largely between liberal and conservative ideas - pragmatism plays a minor role at best.

Big four politics

There is space outside those three points. Lots of it. In fact, the best political universe has four points, (1) liberal, (2) conservative, (3) pragmatic and (4) compromise between 1-3. Of course, calling that the best political universe just means that is how I see the world as it is and how it ought to be. Arguably, pragmatism is missing and that is a major part of why our politics and political institutions have failed, i.e., its why we are on the wrong track. Lacking cold, unemotional pragmatism, liberals and conservatives cannot see the real world without distortion. They generally cannot conceive of political solutions or options outside the world they are comfortable with. Money in the process tends to reinforce political disconnects from reality. Pragmatic options that don't fit with the 3-point liberal, conservative or compromise universe don't get serious consideration even in the rare cases when they are acknowledged.

Japanese destroyers

San Diego bay - July 2011

What's so great about pragmatism? Why should it get equal standing with the three standard viewpoints? The big three are well established, so what's wrong with that? What's wrong is that the status quo is what got us here. That political model is why we are on the wrong track. No one can blame our problems on pragmatism any more than they can blame the messes on control of politics by Socialists or Libertarians. There is no logical place for the blame and failures other than in the dominant 3-point universe itself.

Who is at fault?

Many (most?) liberals blame conservatives and/or moderates for all/most the problems. Many conservatives blame liberals and/or moderates. Maybe moderates mostly blame ideologue zealots on both sides. Maybe they blame themselves some. But as far as I can tell, very few or none of them blame pragmatists. Why is that? Maybe its because pragmatists and pragmatism hasn't had much effect on politics. It isn't relevant.

Japanese destroyer

San Diego bay - July 2011

The big one politics - doomed from the start

I mostly live in the pragmatic political world and believe that it should dominate politics and political thinking. According to that world view, politics should be conducted with minimal regard to ideology or emotion. Unspun facts should define the context of the debates and cold, unemotional logic should dominate the thinking. That's not to say that compassion has no place. It has a place. Its part of what makes us human and not of machines. Compassion just needs to be reasonably and intelligently integrated after clear-headed assessment of the problem. Otherwise, the emotion skews reality and makes policy less effective and efficient.

In any event, humans are what they are and emotion in politics or anything else dominated by ideology/emotion isn't going away. A one-point political universe of pure pragmatism can encompass the entire 4-point political universe, i.e., its capable of seeing all the options. In addition to arguing for political policies that liberals, conservatives and centrists might all oppose, pragmatism would align with what any of those three would want if it made sense to do so. That's the true freedom of being pragmatic. Unfortunately, pure pragmatism won't work. Emotion makes a 1-point pragmatic universe unfeasible. At present and maybe forever, the three points won't be completely pushed aside.

Japanese destroyer

San Diego bay - July 2011

Because of that, the best one can hope for is compromise that includes a bigger contribution from pragmatism than what we have now. That would seem to argue for a new political party in view of resistance to change from the current two. As argued before, a 4-point universe is about the best we can do. Or, is there some reason other than the status quo for the discontent?