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.
Donate today to PragerU! http://l.prageru.com/2ylo1Yt
Joining PragerU is free! Sign up now to get all our videos as soon as they’re released. http://prageru.com/signup
Download Pragerpedia on your iPhone or Android! Thousands of sources and facts at your fingertips.
iPhone: http://l.prageru.com/2dlsnbG
Android: http://l.prageru.com/2dlsS5e
Join Prager United to get new swag every quarter, exclusive early access to our videos, and an annual TownHall phone call with Dennis Prager! http://l.prageru.com/2c9n6ys
Join PragerU’s text list to have these videos, free merchandise giveaways and breaking announcements sent directly to your phone! https://optin.mobiniti.com/prageru
Do you shop on Amazon? Click https://smile.amazon.com and a percentage of every Amazon purchase will be donated to PragerU. Same great products. Same low price. Shopping made meaningful.
VISIT PragerU! https://www.prageru.com
FOLLOW us!
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/prageru
Twitter: https://twitter.com/prageru
Instagram: https://instagram.com/prageru/
PragerU is on Snapchat!
JOIN PragerFORCE!
For Students: http://l.prageru.com/29SgPaX
JOIN our Educators Network! http://l.prageru.com/2c8vsff
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.”
For the complete script, visit https://www.prageru.com/videos/which-one-are-you-ideologue-or-pragmatist
source
Can we talk about terms and labels without the low level intellect politics
How the turntables
If you label people, you must be a bigot!
– a demonstration of a typical liberal's lack of self-awareness #WakeUpFromWoke
You cover your stupidity with the speech of the intellectual.
You fail to prove your lies with circular logic and misdirection.
How does one incorporate moral integrity into pragmatism? If the end goal is always based on “what actually works”? Just because something works doesn’t mean it’s not morally reprehensible.
I noticed that he uses the term i·DE·ol·o·gy and makes It almost sound like i•DI•ology….. Like as an idiot. ( I've never heard it said that way before) This comes off as very much so a " Us versus them" Which design is meant to be very manipulative. I personally do not find anything he's saying to be accurate. Have conversations with real life people.
Here's the definition
i·de·ol·o·gy
/ˌidēˈäləjē,ˌīdēˈäləjē/
noun
1.
a system of ideas and ideals, especially one which forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy.
"the ideology of democracy"
I do appreciate this video. However, I prefer Jordan Peterson's take on "ideology". That it is (1) utopian and (2) over-simplified (actually there was a 3rd ingredient, which I forget, which may have pertained to an ideology being insufficient to constitute a worldview). Furthermore, he contrasts "ideology" with…presumably a proper worldview…as that which has shown itself to work for the best historic outcomes, in the broadest historic contexts. So, for example, Peterson likely would assert that "freedom" and democracy (e.g. free markets, individual rights) is not an ideology…it is part of a worldview; it has proven that it yields the best outcome in the broadest circumstances (e.g. South Korea versus North Korea). Indeed, it seems the only time freedom and democracy does not produce the best outcomes, is if they as a worldview are rejected (likely due to an ideology). So for example, attempts to inject freedom/democracy into foreign natures generally always fails if a society initiates sufficient rejection of that worldview (e.g. the Taliban).
My ideology was founded by none other than my favorite author, Ayn Rand, and it's called objectivism.
Great info..
Pragmatism is philosophy.
I don't understand how this guy arrived at his conclusion that it isn't.
* LAUGHING IN PETERSON *
So long as your ideology is founded on your Nation having warped religious dogmas if you give abortion as an example. Such a dumb country. But imperialism (or a false notion of it) does that.
Reasonabloguematist….😂
Well If I had to choose a side it definitely would not be the Democratic Liberal trash. This guy is proof of Victim mentalities never die. This guy looks like a victim liberal trash
Pragmatism may "work" in the short term but cannot produce lasting results. Those who have principles realize that only a consistent set of applied values can produce a stable, well-ordered society. Principles are most valuable when followed even though they produce momentary disadvantage. For example, if the store clerk gives you too much change, the principle of honesty says return it, even though it costs you some money. After all, that's what you'd want someone else to do for you. Pragmatism says keep the money.
The Left has clearly demonstrated that they operate solely on pragmatism without principles. For 50 years they said, "Abortion is the law of the land. The Supreme Court says so." But when that unconstitutional decision that denied states' rights was finally struck down, suddenly they are ready to "abort the court." Democrats have used the filibuster hundreds of times, but don't believe Republicans should be allowed to. They constantly shift from one viewpoint to another, whatever suits their immediate purpose. They oppose the electoral college, not because it is unjust, but because it kept Al Gore and Hillary Clinton out of the White House. They held two sham impeachment trials and a bogus "collusion" investigation, not based on evidence, but on their hatred of Donald Trump. All while ignoring blatant violations by numerous Democrats. No principles, just what helps them get and keep power.
Our nation was founded on principles, and it cannot survive without them. Which is exactly what the Left wants.
What conservatives do not understand about socialist, and please understand that they are socialists not liberals, are that socialists have no principles.
If we follow the rules, if we do what is required we wont get banned from forums, demonetised or deplatformed, but that is not true, because the people who do exercise these authorites are not guided by any rules, or "terms of service" they are guided by emotions. Socialism is the rejection of the concept of rule of law. There is no rules, if people displeases them, or annoy them in any way they are out, regardless of what they have done, and there is no recourse.
Framing liberal ideology as a conspiracy theory has exactly the same function this video alleges for liberal ideology
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.
I don't know about regular people, but almost all politicians in America are ideologues. In fact, I think that Dan Crenshaw is one of the only pragmatists in congress right now. It's sad.
Ummmm I’m center right but this dudes logic is off. I agree with the idea that some liberals will say these things to avoid the debate altogether that’s true for sure. But I BECAME a conservative and stopped being a liberal precisely because as a personality I measure everything front the stand point of whether a polices actually works and the principles that you follow are based off whether somethings works to create a positive outcome. Like analyzing if high taxes and minimum wage is good for the working class. That’s pragmatism. So this person actually comes off as just a “fake smart” just like a lot of liberal pundits. Sorry but can’t respect weak arguments and fake substance that are really just arguments about semantics that pretend to make sense.
To clarify, having an ideology is different than being an ideologue. An ideologue is someone who is close-minded. They are so trapped in their own echo chambers that they no longer hear any ideas outside their own ideology.
Pragmatism is why i have conservative values. William James defended free will. This is an example of the unintellectual right. Pragmatism defends conservative values, i.e. the nuclear family because there is ample evidence of its utility.
Obama never liked that western culture was the best culture on earth. His heart was always with other countries and never cared for America neither did he took pride in being American President.
I love how he makes it seem like all pragmatic ppl are liberal socialism doesn't work therefore I don't like it
Hard disagree with a decent amount of this. First off, a critique of bad actors denying their ideology is not a defense of ideology. More over, if you have an ideology, you are indirectly giving up on being correct on certain issues by definition, as there has never been an ideology created that has even all the answers in its own time, let alone the ideology that can answer all questions for all time. Why would I not strive to be correct on those issues just because my ideology says I should believe the illogical, incorrect thing?
To go further, the idea that just because I end up in agreement with an ideology on a stance doesn’t mean I am acting as an ideologue. I can agree with a stance on abortion but it not be rooted in an ideology. Maybe principles, but even the assertion that principles strung together inevitably turn into an ideology is a little nonsensical. At best, you can make the case that someone based on the majority of their stances aligns with a certain ideology for the most part, but that doesn’t go well to prove your overall point (which I believe is saying if you are principled and open-minded, you have to be an ideologue).
Ideology may be inevitable in some cases (like the water fish swim in) but none of this means I need to filter my opinions thru some arbitrary lense to get the best answer.
One of my principles is that worrying about things out of my control is not good for me. I don't vote, I might vote if I was in a swing state. Someone once said I should be ashamed of that. They said that people have died for my ability to. I didn't have anything to say to that at the time. But after significant research into WW2, both for hobby and my job, the men who fought and died in wars past, they mostly died for each other. And besides if they did die for freedom, then they died for my choice to vote or not. This someone was liberal and they have now blocked me on social media and I'm not even full blown conservative! I'm not offended or shamed by them blocking me, because I want people different and not the same -another but remarkably similar principle-. Why are they similar? Because you cannot control other people, so worrying about what they believe or think is pointless. I'm not saying don't discuss or argue, but to worry about it… there is enough worry in life already. When you accept the absurdity of people and of life, that is when you are living. You might be thinking, but action is what you have to worry about. Wrong! Action is something you prepare for, not worry about. Yes it is possible to prepare yourself without worry and when you are there, you are living.
Here's a little song I wrote about pragmatism – it's called the 'path of least resistance': https://youtu.be/QfXimy_57v4?list=PLtp8pIZ0W_eUgPeOw5uWIYa0YQrPJbohB
I thought this would be somewhat educational but it turns out I was deeply wrong…. The viewpoints in this video Are extremely misleading…..
Thomas Sowell’s A CONFLICT OF VISIONS is a great primer on why our political divisions exist. A must read for understanding the modern world.
I feel like I’m stuck between the two, and always doing the wrong one at the wrong time. I can’t win.
To be honest you need ideology to change the world or start a business. But pragmatism is what keep the idea or business alive and moving forward. So I hate to be cliche, however you ought to have a balance between the two.
This is insight in to a cats butthole. I just realized I can never get the time I wasted here back and what did I learn ahhhhhh white is white. PragerU has such pedestrian insight life and politics.
We are all ideological.
Anyone who thumbs down this video is a flaming liberal and useless
Didn't the prophet Ezekiel compare us to trees tho'? 🤔
You’re criticism of pragmatism is misguided. Like science pragmatism depends on evidence. The left touts science without presenting evidence. Same with pragmatism and every other tool in their kit bag. The new republicans put aside old conservative ideology for things that work. But then, I've observed you are not a fan of the new republicans. If you are going to preach to the choir, it might work better if you came up with a new sermon. This one was lame.
Jordan peterson reeeeeaally loves the word
Liberalism is idealogy among others.
I consider myself a pragmatist. I care about what works, knowing why it works, and knowing why the alternatives don't work. For example, I'm not a big fan of socialism because I know it doesn't work and I know why. Also, be careful when someone describes themselves as liberal, conservative, or whatever ideology you choose. You don't necessarily know what to make of them, but if they describe themselves as a giraffe, you can make a reasonably accurate conclusion about their mental state.
It’s like atheist claiming that they are not religious