Which One Are You: Ideologue or Pragmatist? | 5 Minute Video

When it comes to politics, do you have an ideology? Or are you a pragmatist? What's the difference? Is one better than the other? Jonah Goldberg, Senior Editor for National Review, explains why ideology matters, and why "pragmatism" may not mean exactly what you think it does.

Download Pragerpedia on your iPhone or Android! Thousands of sources and facts at your fingertips.

FOLLOW us!
PragerU is on Snapchat!

JOIN PragerFORCE!

Script:

One of the staple arguments of American liberals, from Presidents Woodrow Wilson to Bill Clinton, from education reformer John Dewey to New York Times columnist Tom Friedman is that they "don’t believe in labels." Liberals are "pragmatists," and "realists," and "empiricists." They only care about "what works." Conservatives, meanwhile, are "ideologues" – or extremists, or dogmatists, or just plain lunatics – who are blinded by ideology.

Here’s what President Barack Obama said on the subject: "What is required is a new declaration of independence, not just in our nation, but in our own lives from ideology and small thinking, prejudice and bigotry."

Did you catch that? If you have an ideology, you belong amongst the bigots and the mentally confused.

Once you start paying attention, you’ll hear variations on this claim all over the place. In truth, it is a very old technique, pioneered by none other than Napoleon Bonaparte, who sought to demonize his critics as mesmerized theorists enthralled to an ideology while he put the needs of the nation above all considerations.

Marx picked up the technique, arguing that only the people who agreed with him were free of mind-warping ideology. The desirability and inevitability of socialism was to them a scientific fact, and therefore anyone who disagrees with scientific fact must be, in effect, brainwashed.

In the 20th Century, the American Progressives offered their own version of the same idea. They created a whole philosophical school -- Pragmatism -- which as a matter of principle rejected philosophical principles. William James, the most important founder of Pragmatism argued that we should measure ideas not by whether they are right or wrong, but by whether they "work." Ideas are right if they have "cash value," according to James.

Herbert Croly, the founder of the New Republic, responding to the criticism that his liberal magazine was too pro-Mussolini -- whose ideas seemed to be working in Italy at the time -- said it well: "If there are any abstract liberal principles, we do not know how to formulate them. Nor if they are formulated by others do we recognize their authority. Liberalism, as we understand it, is an activity."

Contemporary American liberalism has inherited this pose. It is certain it knows "what works" – liberalism! And what is liberalism? What liberals do! It’s an activity! -- and they denigrate opposing viewpoints not as competing ideas or positions, but as the products of a warped, "ideological" worldview.

How often do you hear people say, "I don’t believe in labels?” Whether its liberal politicians, TV news anchors, columnists, cable news hosts or your brother-in-law, Harry, the line always goes something like this: "Why can’t we move beyond these partisan labels? Why can’t we get beyond this philosophical divide and get to the hard work of dealing with the problems facing the American people?"

Warning: People only they say these things when they want you to shut up and get with their program.

What you never hear them say is: "We need to move beyond these partisan labels, we need to get beyond the philosophical divide and for that reason I’m going to abandon all of my principles and agree with you."

[edwardhoffenheim]

Liberals don't believe in labels -
Makes a new gender for every 25th human being.

[kylelaad]

regardless of your ideological position if you are truly concerned with creating a better future you need to be able to look at the mistakes of your ideology and find ways to ensure that the same mistakes are not repeated. Personally I find difficult to see how a person can consider themselves politically minded without having an ideology of some form.

[TheTariqibnziyad]

being an anti-ideologue is an ideology in itself, its like being anti-philosophical, its a philosophy.

[Siaynoq]

My views are more conservative. I guess you can say that's my ideology if I want. But I'm always willing to hear out liberal views. What I find among liberals is the tendency to be tribal with a "you're with us or against us" attitude. Conservatives can be this way too, but their tactics for making you with them is different. I think liberals make you with them by shaming or censoring you, but conservatives won me over ultimately over just having conversations with them and them being more civil during discourse.

[JosephGubbels]

It's possible (and wise) to ignore labels for reasons totally ignored by this video. The most practical reason is that the same labels mean different things to different people. For example a Liberal in America is very different from a Liberal in Canada which is very different from a Liberal in Europe. The same could be said of Conservatives, and even of more precise, fine-grain political labels.

The more important reason to ignore these labels, even when describing yourself to yourself is that it inevitably leads to dogmatism. It leads to people saying, "I'm X, and you're Y, so I won't even listen to your ideas, because I know I won't agree with them." It shuts down debate, and it shuts down critical thinking.

For example maybe you tend to be economically conservative. You opppose tax increases for the rich, you think private healthcare is superior, you want to limit government regulation of industry, but when it comes to other issues, you don't fall in line with most other conservatives. Maybe you think that prisons should be focused on rehabilitation over punishment, maybe you want stricter gun control, maybe you don't like big trade deals, or diverge on any number of other issues.

Now if we just call you a Conservative, that vastly oversimplifies your ideas, and maybe keeps you from ever even discovering them. If you are tired of listening to Progressives talk about how they want more government regulation or they want to increase taxes on the rich, and just say, "You're a Progressive, so I don't agree with you or your ideology", maybe you miss out on their ideas that you would agree with, like limiting foreign interventionary wars, or rolling back drug laws.

This is the big problem with labels, and is why so many make a point of avoiding them when possible. Of course political labels are impossible to totally rid ourselves of, as they serve as great shortcuts to describe your ideas in quick and dirty, broad sense, but taking these labels too seriously, for yourself or others, or worse, making your political labels a part of your identity, can only serve to close your mind.

[richardtaylor]

The difference between me and an ideologue is that I am willing to change my mind if I am proven wrong, as has happened many times over the last six years when I began to care about politics.

An ideologue stubbornly and dogmatically holds to their positions despite new facts being presented and their position being invalidated.

[zweiosterei]

This constant calling in the US of left wing politics "liberalism" makes my head hurt. That is not liberalism!

[sallythera]

That final statement. Priceless.
I also really love how how neutral you've been what the election is concerned. Unlike other, idiotic, YouTube channels you just 'ignore' the election and create good content. I admire that.

[TimTeatro]

Ideology is only a problem if it represents ideas that aren't subject to modification by evidence or reason based thinking. However that divide doesn't separate left from right wing. Both sides have their authoritarian nutbags. Rather, it divides the reasonable from the unreasonable.

[imcintyre]

You know: they need to have a simple debate.

Question: how do you want to help your fellow man?
Tell it to a kindergartner.

Con: I want to help people go to work so they can make money and buy food and have a place to sleep.

Lib: I want to give people money so they can buy food and have a place to sleep.


My thoughts: liberals should be working at homeless shelters and conservatives at accounting firms. 🤷‍♂️

[chutdiggadigga]

A rational observer would be able to identify islam as a bad ideology, but this is a very rare liberal conclusion

[ariefferdaus]

"...it doesn't make you closed minded; it makes you more serious-thinking"
So true...

[matthieurheaume]

I love it when PragerU treats a subject well! this was fantastic!

[reniaesaddler]

I was an Obama supporter just before his first election, until I went to his rally in Grand Rapids, MI, and I heard there the words he spoke. They sounded exactly like words I'd heard Hitler and Stalin. I left that rally terrified, because no one else heard what I'd heard. Thank God I find myself not alone completely. Yet, I still am alone. But I have With me the Lord, and he is always my company. He loves me even when others call me not worthy.

[dreadwhite]

This video, is so true :) it's nice to see a university that's not trying indoctrinate liberalism in students.

[hashaborgonja]

One of the first video's I actually agree with. I would add that the US HAS to get beyond it's labels. The political elite in the US has done a very good job at dividing people along a hyper partisan line where people disagree with each other because they disagree with each other. This in turn has lead to the two party system where parlamentarism suffers and few voters actually get what they want...

[IndependentFckr]

PragerU or PU:

*Ideologue: 'an adherent of an ideology, especially one who is uncompromising and dogmatic.'*


Although people and politicians can use the term inappropriately, PU is semantically twisting the word and misleading its viewers that the word is something it's not. As well, PU attaches Marx to make the term seam as if an infamous person uses it, then any one using it is wrong.

PU inculcates its viewers to believe that if you hold any ideals then you are an ideologue and that everyone is in general an ideologue therefore the term is irrelevant to use in any pejorative fashion, which is *not at all the definition.*

However, by definition if you hold onto your ideals as *incontrovertible truths* and are *not swayed by evidence* to change your ideals then you are an ideologue. In other words, not budging on ideals even when confronted with contradictory evidence of your ideal, then you are an ideologue. Everyone is not an ideologue and PU is simply watering down the word.

Having ideals is ok. Not moving on them against evidence is not.

[BrainBlatster]

The problem is not having an Ideologie, the problem is that they aren´t questioned.
Political, economic and sociological situations change all the time and often ideologies are simply to stiff to change with them, so they hinder progress and often achieve the opposite of what they are supposed to do (e.g. a classical family constellation used to provide stability and security, now it often results in the feeling of imprisonment).

Dont discard you Ideologies. But question them constantly.

[ladymacbethofmtensk]

On the abortion issue, I am ideologically pro-choice but pragmatically pro-life. I believe in the value of taking reasonable precautions to render most abortions a moot issue. You cannot abort what was never begun.

[bowmanruto]

am i the only one that sees American politics as black and white choices? its this good yes or no... why not yes when or no but... why must it be one OR the other