Final Class Comments

One of the criticisms of philosophy classes is that we just talk and talk and never come to any conclusions.  For that reason I’ve gotten into the habit of handing out some comments in the last class:  a few thoughts about what conclusions we can take away from the previous weeks’ work.  Here’s the handout I distributed last week:

Obama’s Pragmatism

As we’ve seen, Obama is often described as “pragmatic”:  for example, the May 2, 2009 New York Times ran a front page story entitled “As a Professor, Obama Held Pragmatic Views on Court.”  The question, of course, is what it means to be pragmatic. “Pragmatism” means many different things both in its ordinary sense (which is how most commentators use it) as well in its more technical, philosophical sense.

In its ordinary sense, to call Obama “pragmatic” means that he places an emphasis on results as opposed to ideological purity.  Less positively, it may mean that he lacks overarching principles but instead does whatever is expedient, not necessarily what is right in a deeper, moral, sense.  This ordinary sense of pragmatism is also open to a fairly serious charge:  if Obama is committed simply to doing “what works” what, then, are his criteria for “working”?  In other words, if he is only pragmatic in this ordinary sense, then this just defers the deeper question of how he decides what works:  and if there’s no answer to that question then his decisions will seem ad hoc and erratic.

And that, in a nutshell, is why we also want to look at more philosophical accounts of pragmatism.  After all, pragmatic philosophers are in the business of working out the foundations of pragmatism and, we would hope, would have some answer to what, ultimately, decides whether a course of action works or not.  So, even if Obama has never read a pragmatist (which is unlikely, given his personal acquaintance with several contemporary pragmatists), there’s still value in looking at what sorts of theories are at his disposal.

In this context it is also useful to see how pragmatism has developed over the last century or so.  As we saw, James’ version of pragmatism was highly individualistic and focused on large, metaphysical issues such as the existence of a god, etc.  Dewey’s pragmatism, in turn, was more a social philosophy deeply committed to the importance of democratic ways of life.  For Dewey, James’ insight that meaning is not inherent in an object but instead dependent on us and our purposes meant that we had to be democratic in our behavior toward others.  Again, because there is no fundamental meaning outside human experience, no ultimate reality that we need to get in sync with, we need instead to make sure that we are attentive to others experiences, both for our own good and for theirs.

According to Dewey, this has several concrete consequences:  we should, he argued, educate children so they can be full participating members of a democratic society; we should encourage social arrangements that promote interaction and participation among people; and, finally, we should favor policies that allow people to “grow” and expand their experiences.  For Dewey, then, “growth” is a fundamental good whose value is practically beyond question.

Contemporary pragmatists have expanded on Dewey’s themes in various ways.  As we saw, Richard Posner proposes a conservative, libertarian pragmatism that is skeptical about government intervention and people’s ability to participate deeply in democratic ways of life.  Roberto Unger, in turn, proposes a more left-wing pragmatism that suggests several concrete policies governments could adopt to radically transform modern democracies.  Richard Rorty suggests a “liberal bourgeois” pragmatism that seems to take a live-and-let-live attitude toward other cultures and political ideologies, while Cornel West proposes a “prophetic” pragmatism that more fully embraces the tragic (and comedic) aspects of life and, he says, resonates with the blues, jazz, and the African-American Christian tradition.

Where does this leave Obama?  Well, first of all, it means that it is possible to be a pragmatist and have criteria for what works.  According to Dewey, what works is what encourages democratic ways of life and growth.  According to Posner, what works is generally what has the best economic outcomes.  And for West, what works is what does the most to relieve oppression and provide comfort to tortured souls.  (On the other hand, Rorty would argue that our standards of what works are simply our standards and cannot really be argued for.)

What kind of pragmatist is Obama?  It’s risky to make any definite pronouncement so early in his presidency, but I’d say it’s clear that he doesn’t agree with Posner either on the priority of economics or on the limits of democratic involvement:  his writings and experience as a community organizer show this pretty clearly.  Beyond that, there are clear resonances with the work of Dewey, West, Unger and, to a lesser extent, Rorty.  Like the first three, Obama seems to recognize that a pragmatic approach to decision-making commits one to an expansive, participatory understanding of democracy:  democracy because more than just an exercise in voting but, as Dewey put it, a way of life.  Like West, Obama finds important resources in the Christian tradition.  And, like Unger and Dewey, he sees government as a means for transforming lives.

Finally, it is worth remembering that pragmatism is a self-consciously modest philosophy.  (West, after all, calls it an “evasion” of philosophy.)  While other philosophies may fret about finding absolute foundations for our philosophical, ethical, and political beliefs, pragmatism is anti-foundational.  On the other hand, it is committed to a richer-than-normal conception of human experience that can then play a quasi-foundational role.  For example, if someone questions the value of growth or democracy the pragmatist can say a few words about why these are good things.  But beyond a certain point further argument will be impossible (a point Rorty makes well).  At that point the pragmatist can simply point to our experience:  we value growth, for example, because we experience it as a good thing.  As a result, expanding and deepening our range of experiences, and supporting policies that make this possible, is one of our fundamental responsibilities.  Philosophers can continue arguing this theoretical point, but the real goal is to make a practical difference.

Obama’s Legal Pragmatism

Following up on Jesse’s post, below, it’s worth highlighting a few passages from the New York Times article on Obama’s pramgatic legal philosophy.

Former students and colleagues describe Mr. Obama as a minimalist (skeptical of court-led efforts at social change) and a structuralist (interested in how the law metes out power in society). And more than anything else, he is a pragmatist who urged those around him to be more keenly attuned to the real-life impact of decisions. This may be his distinguishing quality as a legal thinker: an unwillingness to deal in abstraction, a constant desire to know how court decisions affect people’s lives.

There’s also a passing reference to Richard Posner:

Mr. Obama often expressed concern that “democracy could be dangerous,” Mr. Stone said, that the majority can be “unempathetic — that’s a word that Barack has used — about the concerns of outsiders and minorities.”

But when a student asked Mr. Obama to name the circuit judge he would most like to argue in front of, he named Richard Posner, a conservative. Judge Posner was smart enough to know when you were right, Mr. Obama told the class.

Despite their differences, Posner and Obama are both pragmatists.

Obama’s Pragmatism in Choosing Justices

–Posted by Jesse Knoth

Here is a recent article from the New York Times about Obama’s pragmatism in regards to dealing with the courts.

Justice Souter’s Retirement/Obama Press Meeting

–Posted by Peter Erickson

Video from MSNBC that was aired this afternoon, on Justice Souter’s retirement, and the Press Conference that President Obama interrupted.  We spoke of Obama’s Constitutional views the other day, and previously of his time spent as a constitutional law professor, and I predict we’ll have some interesting discussions on his Supreme Court Justice appointment if it happens soon.

“Student Loans: Cutting Out the Middle Man”- President Obama Makes Remarks on Higher Education

–Posted by Sarah Backus

On Friday, April 24, 2009 President Obama made a speech on college education and student loans.  I thought it was a good speech and would be valuable for other students to read.  It also answers a lot of questions other students have asked in class and relates to topics we have been discussing.

I have also copied and pasted the transcript of the speech here from the White House Blog.  Hope you guys find it interesting!

THE WHITE HOUSE

Office of the Press Secretary

_________________________________________________________________

For Immediate Release                              April 24, 2009

REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT
ON HIGHER EDUCATION

Diplomatic Reception Room

1:46 P.M. EDT

THE PRESIDENT:  Thank you.  That was excellent — we might have to run her for something some day.  (Laughter.)  That was terrific.  Thank you, Stephanie.  I want to also introduce Yvonne Thomas, who is Stephanie’s proud mother.  And we appreciate everything that you’ve done.  And Stephanie’s father, Albert, is around here as well.

There are few things as fundamental to the American Dream or as essential for America’s success as a good education.  This has never been more true than it is today.  At a time when our children are competing with kids in China and India, the best job qualification you can have is a college degree or advanced training.  If you do have that kind of education, then you’re well prepared for the future — because half of the fastest growing jobs in America require a Bachelor’s degree or more.  And if you don’t have a college degree, you’re more than twice as likely to be unemployed as somebody who does.  So the stakes could not be higher for young people like Stephanie.

And yet, in a paradox of American life, at the very moment it’s never been more important to have a quality higher education, the cost of that kind of that kind of education has never been higher.  Over the past few decades, the cost of tuition at private colleges has more than doubled, while costs at public institutions have nearly tripled.  Compounding the problem, tuition has grown ten times faster than a typical family’s income, putting new pressure on families that are already strained and pricing far too many students out of college altogether.  Yet, we have a student loan system where we’re giving lenders billions of dollars in wasteful subsidies that could be used to make college more affordable for all Americans.

This trend — a trend where a quality higher education slips out of reach for ordinary Americans — threatens the dream of opportunity that is America’s promise to all its citizens.  It threatens to widen the gap between the haves and the have-nots.  And it threatens to undercut America’s competitiveness — because America cannot lead in the 21st century unless we have the best educated, most competitive workforce in the world.  And that’s the kind of workforce — and the kind of citizenry — to which we should be committed.

And that’s why we have taken and proposed a number of sweeping steps over our first few months in office — steps that amount to the most significant efforts to open the doors of college to middle-class Americans since the GI Bill.  Millions of working families are now eligible for a $2,500 annual tax credit that will help them pay the cost of tuition; a tax credit that will cover the full cost of tuition at most of the two-year community colleges that are some of the great and undervalued assets of our education system.

We’re also bringing much needed reform to the Pell Grants that roughly 30 percent of students rely on to put themselves through college.  Today’s Pell Grants cover less than half as much tuition at a four-year public institution as they did a few decades ago.  And that’s why we are adding $500 to the grants for this academic year, and raising the maximum Pell Grant to $5,550 next year, easing the financial burden on students and families.

And we are also changing the way the value of a Pell Grant is determined.  Today, that value is set by Congress on an annual basis, making it vulnerable to Washington politics.  What we are doing is pegging Pell Grants to a fixed rate above inflation so that these grants don’t cover less and less as families’ costs go up and up.  And this will help prevent a projected shortfall in Pell Grant funding in a few years that could rob many of our poorest students of their dream of attending college.  It will help ensure that Pell Grants are a source of funding that students can count on each and every year.

Now, while our nation has a responsibility to make college more affordable, colleges and universities have a responsibility to control spiraling costs.  And that will require hard choices about where to save and where to spend.  So I challenge state, college and university leaders to put affordability front and center as they chart a path forward.  I challenge them to follow the example of the University of Maryland, where they’re streamlining administrative costs, cutting energy costs, using faculty more effectively, making it possible for them to freeze tuition for students and for families.

At the same time, we’re also working to modernize and expand the Perkins Loan Program by changing a system where colleges are rewarded for raising tuition, and instead, rewarding them for making college more affordable.

Now just as we’ve opened the doors of college to every American, we also have to ensure that more students can walk through them.  And that’s why I’ve challenged every American to commit to at least one year of higher education or advanced training — because by the end of the next decade, I want to see America have the highest proportion of college graduates in the world.  We used to have that; we no longer do.  We are going to get that lead back.

And to help us achieve that goal, we are investing $2.5 billion to identify and support innovative initiatives that have a record of success in boosting enrollment and graduation rates — initiatives like the IBEST program in Washington state that combines basic and career skills classes to ensure that students not only complete college, but are competitive in the workforce from the moment they graduate.

And to help cover the cost of all this, we’re going to eliminate waste, reduce inefficiency, and cut what we don’t need to pay for what we do.  And that includes reforming our student loan system so that it better serves the people it’s supposed to serve — our students.

Right now, there are two main kinds of federal loans.  First, there are Direct Loans.  These are loans where tax dollars go directly to help students pay for tuition, not to pad the profits of private lenders.  The other kinds of loans are Federal Family Education Loans.  These loans, known as FFEL loans, make up the majority of all college loans.  Under the FFEL program, lenders get a big government subsidy with every loan they make.  And these loans are then guaranteed with taxpayer money, which means that if a student defaults, a lender can get back almost all of its money from our government.

And there’s only one real difference between Direct Loans and private FFEL loans.  It’s that under the FFEL program, taxpayers are paying banks a premium to act as middlemen — a premium that costs the American people billions of dollars each year.  Well, that’s a premium we cannot afford — not when we could be reinvesting that same money in our students, in our economy, and in our country.

And that’s why I’ve called for ending the FFEL program and shifting entirely over to Direct Loans.  It’s a step that even a conservative estimate predicts will save tens of billions of tax dollars over the next ten years.  According to the Congressional Budget Office, the money we could save by cutting out the middleman would pay for 95 percent of our plan to guarantee growing Pell Grants.  This would help ensure that every American, everywhere in this country, can out-compete any worker, anywhere in the world.

In the end, this is not about growing the size of government or relying on the free market — because it’s not a free market when we have a student loan system that’s rigged to reward private lenders without any risk.  It’s about whether we want to give tens of billions of tax dollars to special interests or whether we want to make college more affordable for eight and a half million more students.  I think most of us would agree on what the right answer is.

Now, some of you have probably seen how this proposal was greeted by the special interests.  The banks and the lenders who have reaped a windfall from these subsidies have mobilized an army of lobbyists to try to keep things the way they are.  They are gearing up for battle.  So am I.  They will fight for their special interests.  I will fight for Stephanie, and other American students and their families.  And for those who care about America’s future, this is a battle we can’t afford to lose.

So I am looking forward to having this debate in the days and weeks ahead.  And I am confident that if all of us here in Washington do what’s in the best interests of the people we represent, and reinvest not only in opening the doors of college but making sure students can walk through them, then we will help deliver the change that the American people sent us here to make.  We will help Americans fulfill their promise as individuals.  And we will help America fulfill its promise as a nation.

So thank you very much.  And thank you, Stephanie.  And thank you, Stephanie’s mom.

All right.  Thanks, guys.

END
1:56 P.M. EDT

NYT on Obama’s Pragmatism

This is a bit old, but The New York Times had a recent piece on Obama’s “pragmatism.”

Here are some of the references:

In some of his earliest skirmishes, Mr. Obama eventually chose pragmatism over fisticuffs.

….And Thursday, Mr. Obama suggested that he would not fight in Congress to renew an assault weapons ban that expired in 2004. It was the latest example of the pragmatic approach he adopted after winning the presidency by promising to challenge entrenched interests and put the public good ahead of political expedience.

….Pragmatism, they add, is an Obama hallmark, and among the changes he promised — and has delivered — is a break from his predecessor’s often uncompromising style.

Posner’s New Book and Free Markets

In light of our discussion a few weeks ago on Posner and libertarianism, this review of A Failure of Capitalism is illuminating. 

As the author, Marcus Baram, points out, Posner seems to have changed his tune significantly over the last few months, recognizing a larger role for government intervention in markets.  In other words, Posner seems to be softening his libertarianism.

Obama and Latin America

From Jim Johnson’s (Notes on) Politics, Theory and Photography blog, this post entitled “The Summit Challenges Obama’s Pragmatism.”

Johnson points out that pragmatism isn’t just about predicting the future but about learning lessons from the past.

Johnson starts out by discussing this book, given to Obama by Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez.

“Colonialism was essentially a good idea for Africa, it was a shame that we got rid of it, and the continent would have been better off under foreign rule.”

–Posted by Tom Cookson

Would European colonialism be good for Africa?

Watch this short video clip and decide for yourself: http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/18424?in=16:57&out=20:04

Peter Singer (a very famous Australian philosopher at Princeton who you’ve probably heard of) and Tyler Cowen (a slightly famous American Economics Professor at George Mason University who you probably haven’t heard of) match wits on the subject.  If you’re bored, click through the entire interview, they’re at each others throats throughout and they talk about some really big, interesting ideas regarding world poverty and the implications of accepting a Utilitarian system of ethics (for the philosophy people).

I’m not sure what I think about this myself, even though I’ve done a lot stuff about Singer and frequently cite his opinions in arguments, Cowen makes some really good points.

-Tom Cookson

Money, Status, Sex and Happiness

–Posted by Tom Cookson

Anyone who needs a primer on the psychology of happiness should check out this video clip:

http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/7422?&in=01:08:08&out=01:25:07

This is a discussion between liberal Mark Kleiman (UCLA’s expert professor on Drugs and Public Policy) on the left and Libertarian Megan McArdle (journalist for The Atlantic Monthly and economics expert) on the right, about what makes people really happy in a society.

If you listen carefully, you’ll notice that this is actually a clear, beautifully articulated version a pathetic incoherent rant I went out on a few weeks ago in class — even with the same exact examples I gave (the burned MIT professor; Fox’s “The Swan”), but this time they are sourced. I saw this when it was first published in 2007, and it really got me thinking, and I thought I had the exchange mostly memorized until discovered I was unable reproduce it in class.

Anyway, what does happiness have to do with Obama? Politics and economics is all about maximizing the happiness of a population–not just giving them what they want. Pragmatism has a lot to do with maximizing your own well being–or finding happiness–so knowing about it is important.

-Tom Cookson

Obama’s Pragmatism in Practise

Posted by Anna Raugalis

Here’s an interesting article I found on the NYT website about Obama’s calm attitude in the White House. At the beginning of the quarter we talked a little about the Pragmatic Mood and this article talks a little bit about how Obama fits into this.

Despite Major Plans, Obama Taking Softer Stands

-Anna Raugalis

Barack Obama @ Google

Posted by Peter Erickson

Illinois Senator and 2008 Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama visits Google’s Mountain View, CA, headquarters to deliver his innovation agenda, speak with Google CEO Eric Schmidt, and take questions from Google employees. This event took place on November 14, 2007, as part of the Candidates@Google series.

Bob on Barack

Posted by Anna Raugalis

Here’s a pretty interesting interview with Bob Dylan where he talks about Obama’s Dreams From My Father. Dylan brings up previous Presidents autobiographies, something we haven’t really talked about in class but something I think we could consider.

Bob Dylan on Barack Obama

-Anna Raugalis

Obama’s Inaugural Address

Posted by Peter Erickson

I just wanted to link everyone to the video and transcript of Obama’s Inaugural Address:  http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/inaugural-address/

Specifically relating to what Dewey suggested about living our day-to-day lives democratically, Obama claims, “we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals.”  He sees that the values involved in both the means and the ends are important, and elaborates that, “Those ideals still light the world, and we will not give them up for expedience sake.”

Also, I wanted to comment quickly on his opponents’ counter-argument to this claim; specifically, that Bill O’Reilly said shortly thereafter, “I didn’t like the line about ‘we don’t need to compromise our values to protect ourselves.’ I think sometimes we do.”  It shows the divide between liberal pragmatism that Obama represents and the absolutist, ends-justify-means conservative agenda of the Bush Administration.  Not to make humor of the point, but I think Jon Stewart summed it up nicely: “If you don’t stick to your values when tested, they’re not values! They’re hobbies.”  I think John Dewey would agree fervently with this point.

A question…

Posted by Brandon Pace

I’m not sure if I can post questions and opinions here on the blog.. but I’m going to shoot one anyway.

I was reading the WhiteHouse.gov to see some answers from Obama to questions asked by Americans. I was looking for this question and answer for a long time:

SPEAKER: This next question — an area close to your heart — health care reform.  From Richard in California:  “Why can we not have a universal health care system, like many European countries, where people are treated based on needs rather than financial resources?”

THE PRESIDENT:  Well, first of all, I was in this room last month in what we called a health care forum.  And we brought all the members of Congress, Republicans and Democrats who were interested in this issue; we brought together various constituency groups, insurance companies, drug companies, you name it.  And my message to them was:  Now is the time to reform the health care system — not four years from now, not eight years from now, not 20 years from now.  Now.

And the reason — (laughter) — the reason that I think it is so important is that the high costs of health care are a huge drag on our economy.  It’s a drag on our families.  I can’t tell you how many personal stories that I hear about people who are working, maybe have two parents working and yet still don’t have health care.  And the decisions that they have to make — excruciating decisions about whether or not somebody goes to a doctor — it makes them less productive, it makes them less mobile in terms of being able to take new jobs or start a new business because they’re worried about hanging on to their health care.  So it’s a drag on families.

But it’s a drag on businesses, as well.  There’s not a small business or large business out here who hasn’t seen their health care costs skyrocket, and it cuts into their profits.

And it’s a drag on the federal budget and the state budgets.  That’s the thing that is going to potentially break the bank here in the United States.  Medicare and Medicaid, if we don’t get control of that, that is the biggest driver of our long-term deficits.

So when people — when you hear this budget debate that’s taking place right now, and folks say, oh, you know, President Obama’s budget, he’s increasing money for veterans and he’s increasing money for education, and he’s doing all these things that — that’s going to bust the budget, what they don’t understand is, is that if you add up the recovery package that we’ve already passed and you add up the various proposals I have to grow the economy through clean energy and all that stuff that we’re doing, that amounts to a fraction of the long-term deficit and debt that we’re facing.  The lion’s share of it has to do with Medicare and Medicaid and the huge, rising cost of health care.  So our attitude is, better to pay now and make an investment in improving the health care system rather than waiting and finding ourselves in a situation where we can’t fix it.

Now, the question is, if you’re going to fix it, why not do a universal health care system like the European countries?  I actually want a universal health care system; that is our goal.  I think we should be able to provide health insurance to every American that they can afford and that provides them high quality.

So I think we can accomplish it.  Now, whether we do it exactly the way European countries do or Canada does is a different question, because there are a variety of ways to get to universal health care coverage.

A lot of people think that in order to get universal health care, it means that you have to have what’s called a single-payer system of some sort.  And so Canada is the classic example:  Basically, everybody pays a lot of taxes into the health care system, but if you’re a Canadian, you’re automatically covered.  And so you go in — England has a similar — a variation on this same type of system.  You go in and you just say, “I’m sick,” and somebody treats you, and that’s it.

The problem is, is that we have what’s called a legacy, a set of institutions that aren’t that easily transformed.  Let me just see a show of hands:  How many people here have health insurance through your employer?  Okay, so the majority of Americans, sort of — partly for historical accident.  I won’t go into — FDR had imposed wage controls during war time in World War II.  People were — companies were trying to figure out how to attract workers.  And they said, well, maybe we’ll provide health care as a benefit.

And so what evolved in America was an employer-based system.  It may not be the best system if we were designing it from scratch.  But that’s what everybody is accustomed to.  That’s what everybody is used to.  It works for a lot of Americans.  And so I don’t think the best way to fix our health care system is to suddenly completely scrap what everybody is accustomed to and the vast majority of people already have.  Rather, what I think we should do is to build on the system that we have and fill some of these gaps.

And I’m looking to Congress to work with me to find that optimal system.  I made some proposals during the campaign about how we can lower costs through information technologies; how we can lower costs through reforms in how we reimburse doctors so that they’re not getting paid just for the number of operations they’re doing, but for whether they’re quality outcomes; investing in prevention so that kids with asthma aren’t going to the emergency room, but they’re getting regular checkups.

So there are a whole host of things that we can do to cut costs, use that money that we’re saving then to provide more coverage to more people.  And my expectation is, is that I will have a health care bill to sign this year.  That’s what we’re going to be fighting for.  That’s what we’re going to be striving for.

I understand that Obama do want universal health care, but he said that he really don’t want to “transform” because Americans “are used to employer-based insurance.” I appreciate it that Obama is working hard on this issue, but… I feel that it’s not right. We need universal health care NOW.

I’m sorry if I am criticizing him, but I, as an American and a full-time college student, really do want universal health care. I am willing to pay high taxes similar to Canada and European countries because I’m so sick of seeing people suffering in many conditions and many ways–especially when the hospitals or insurance companies deny care to millions of Americans. This is very sick. VERY SICK. I personally do have insurance (Medicaid & Medicare) but it’s operated by the Commonwealth of Kentucky — and do you know what that means? I cannot receive any health care here in New York State. If I get very sick or need a surgery or whatever, I have to fly for 5 hours to get to Kentucky to seek immediate medical help. This is not right.

Remember, I’m willing to pay high taxes–so I don’t have to worry about my health care and be happy to see that everybody gets the care they need and deserve. I visited Canada twice (Niagara Falls and Toronto) and their taxes aren’t too bad as I thought–it’s really the same thing as if you are paying for your health insurance in America.

My question is–why did Obama decide to leave the system alone to be the “employer-based” system instead of transforming it to a brand-new system that guarantees all Americans the highest health care provided we deserve? Is it because the greedy insurance companies want to stay in America and make a lot of money by dening millions of people the health care they NEED? Or what?

I want to hear all of your opinions.

New York Times Reference to Dewey and Rorty

This is from a recent review by Charles Morris of Richard John Neuhaus’ American Babylon.  The link to the review is here.  It’s interesting for a few passing references to Dewey and Rorty.

The book apparently raises issues we discussed yesterday:  what is the connection between morality and politics?  Does morality have a place in public life?

Neuhaus starts with Dewey and even refers to American exceptionalism:

Violently compressed, Neuhaus’s argument proceeds as follows: Political entities come with a narrative and, usually, a sense of purpose. The original, religion-drenched narrative of America — the “New Israel” —was later secularized by people like Walt Whitman and John Dewey. But as Neuhaus notes, Dewey was “only one step away from the Protestant pulpit” and was very much in the tradition of “American exceptionalism.” America wasn’t just a geographic location but an entity with goals it was marching toward, and goals come infused with an ought.

In contrast, Richard Rorty takes a much more cynical (or realistic) approach toward morality:

The fulcrum of “American Babylon” is, in effect, a simulated debate between Neuhaus and the American philosopher Richard Rorty (who died in 2007). Rorty argues precisely that we do just make up morality, and that there is no way to privilege one citizen’s first principles over any others….

Richard Rorty

Rorty holds that, as with Oakland, Calif., there is no there “out there.” The smartest people are therefore “ironists.” The ironist believes that we know nothing except our own vocabularies, that “nothing has an intrinsic nature, a real essence,” that concepts like “just” and “rational” are simply “the language games of one’s time.” An ironist may worry “that she has been . . . taught the wrong language game,” but “she cannot give a criterion of wrongness”….

Rorty concedes practical problems with his position. No society would want to bring up its children so as “to make them continually dubious” about their upbringing. So he suggests that ironists consciously separate their public and private vocabularies. Neuhaus is hugely skeptical, for elite values have a way of colonizing the rest of society. “Contemporaries beyond numbering,” he writes, “most of whom have never heard of Richard Rorty, are living their lives in the mode of the . . . ironism he depicted with such rare and chilling candor.”

That’s a good example of why people have a problem with Rorty, and why Dewey and Rorty continue to be important figures for understanding American thought.

Richard Posner

We’ll be reading Richard Posner on Tuesday, so a few words are in order.

Posner is known as a legal pragmatist; he’s also known for combining law and economics.  As  I mentioned in class, he has a reputation for cutting across standard political distinctions.  His wikipedia entry is here.

It’s important that he isn’t just a legal scholar but a real, honest-to-goodness judge, serving on the U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals.  Like the early pragmatists, he combines his theorizing with first hand knowledge of what he’s talking about.

He’s also a senior lecturer at the University of Chicago Law School (his home page is here) where Obama also taught.

And, finally, he somehow finds time to contribute to a blog that he shares with Gary Becker, the Nobel prize winning economist.

Posner is important for a couple of reasons:  first, he anchors what is probably the more conservative end of pragmatic philosophy; second, he has probably had the most real effect of any living pragmatist.

George Packer on Obama

As I mentioned in class today, George Packer has a comment on “Obamaism” in the most recent New Yorker.

Referring to critical readings of Obama coming from, among others, Paul Krugman, Packer writes:

In this reading, Obama lacks the courage of his activist impulses, and his hesitations will play right into the hands of his enemies. The usual reply to such criticism is that Obama is basically a pragmatist, who will do what he thinks can work. But pragmatism is a description of a temperament, not an explanation of a world view.

Packer’s right, of course, to mention “temperament”:  that term bulks large in James’ Pragmatism. But he’s wrong, I think, to say that pragmatism is only a temperament.  After all, the history of pragmatism from James on shows that it is also a world view and, even more than that, a rather coherent philosophy.  One need look no farther than the writings of Richard Posner to see that pragmatism is a lot more than a “temperament” (whatever one thinks of Posner’s views on legal reasoning.

Still, the entire essay is worth reading, especially when Packer also reminds us of what conservatism once stood for.

Obama’s Race Speech

Here is a captioned video of Obama’s “Race Speech” in four parts.

Denver Acceptance Speech

Tomorrow we’ll be discussing Obama’s acceptance speech.  Here is a link to the c-span video; the transcript is available through course reserves.