Pragmatists vs. Ideologues
Achieving A Free Society: Good News and Bad
By George H. Smith
[email protected]
Special to The Libertarian Enterprise
PART ONE
In recent
months, at least four major books have appeared by
libertarian writers. The first is a brilliant history of the Civil
War, Emancipating Slaves, Enslaving Free Men, by the economist and
historian Jeffrey Hummel. The second, Libertarianism: A Primer, is
by David Boaz, vice-president of the Cato Institute. Boaz also edited
the third book, The Libertarian Reader, a superb anthology of
readings from ancient and modern texts. The fourth book, What It
Means to be a Libertarian, is by Charles Murray, co-author of the
controversial best-seller, The Bell Curve.
To old-timers
like myself, who began our libertarian careers in
the 1960s or before, this contiguous publication of four books by
libertarian writers is at once remarkable and encouraging. As a
college student in the late 60s, I recall how difficult it was even to
find older libertarian books in print, much less new ones. Since
then, however, each decade has witnessed a dramatic increase in the
number of such books, and we may confidently expect this trend to
continue.
My optimism
is based not merely on the quantity of libertarian
books, but also on their quality. Of course, we have long been
blessed with first rate minds, such as Ludwig von Mises, F.A. Hayek,
Murray Rothbard, Milton Friedman, Thomas Szasz, and Ayn Rand, but
their numbers were few, especially when compared to our adversaries.
During the Sixties and Seventies, the publication of a libertarian
book was a major event, and it was fairly easy to read everything that
came out.
Today, I
am happy to say, it is virtually impossible to keep
abreast of libertarian publications, especially if we include -- in
addition to books -- magazines, journal articles, newspaper columns,
and the seemingly omnipresent voice of libertarians on the Internet.
If we add to these the tremendous growth and influence of libertarian
organizations and think-tanks, such as the Libertarian Party, the Cato
Institute, the Institute for Humane Studies, the International Society
for Individual Liberty, and so forth, then we have incontrovertible
proof that the libertarian movement has made remarkable progress in
the last two decades.
So much
for the good news. The bad news is that America continues
its accelerated march down the road to serfdom, with both Democrats
and Republicans leading the way. I needn't elaborate on our descent
into democratic despotism for this audience. Even a brief listing of
tyrannical trends and political horrors would require far more space
than I have here.
Instead, I
want to discuss how it is possible for the good news
and the bad news to coexist simultaneously. How is it that the
quantity and quality of our work has improved so dramatically, while
at the same time the social and political situation is continuing to
deteriorate at an alarming rate?
One explanation
is that ideas and principles really don't matter
all that much. According to this view -- which unfortunately is
accepted by a sizable percentage of libertarians today -- we should
descend from the ethereal clouds of abstract arguments and moral
principles to the solid ground of pragmatism. Most people, we are
told, aren't interested in hearing about rights, the proper role of
government, and the like, so we should stop confusing politics with
philosophy and adopt a pragmatic strategy instead, based on the wise
maxim that politics is the art of the possible. Or, to shift
metaphors, we must trim our ideological sails if we are to navigate
successfully through the treacherous waters of politics. Here we have
the perennial debate between ideologues and pragmatists. I say
"perennial," because this debate, in one form or another, has surfaced
in every radical movement -- past and present, religious and secular,
libertarian and socialist. Throughout history various radical
movements, which began with purity of principles, have run into a wall
of indifference and hostility; and, as the frustration builds, some
activists have invariably called for a strategy that is more pragmatic
and less ideological. I don't say that all such pragmatic turns have
proved unsuccessful in the short run. But I do say that any successes
based on pragmatism have tended to be highly vulnerable and
short-lived. A political change for the better, when not based on
general principles, can easily be reversed (and usually is) by its
political opponents within a relatively short period of time.
To understand
the reasons for this, we need to explore the
relationship between theory and strategy. Knowledge in this area is
essential if we are to understand the current relationship between the
good news and the bad news, and what we can do to turn our good news
into even more good news.
THEORY AND STRATEGY
Some libertarians
vigorously defend their own strategic vision
without bothering to reflect on the theoretical implications of
strategic pronouncements. This can lead to immense confusion, since
there is no way, apart from the use of theory, that conflicting
strategies can be evaluated. How do we know whether or not a
particular strategy has been effective in accomplishing its stated
goals? Given the immense complexity of social causation, what role,
if any, can empirical observation play in the validation of a given
strategy?
Let's suppose
for example, that the Libertarian Party presidential
candidate fares poorly in the next election, and let us further
suppose that some libertarian pundits, who work from different
strategic assumptions, offer various explanations for the
disappointing results. Here are some likely possibilities:
- The LP radical: "I told you so; our campaign was too
conservative."
- The LP conservative: "I told you so; our campaign was too
radical."
- The LP ideologue: "I told you so; we don't talk enough about
ideas."
- The LP pragmatist: "I told you so; we talk about ideas too
much."
- The LP sore loser: "We would have done better if my candidate
had been nominated."
- The LP sore winner: "We would have done better if everyone had
united behind our candidate."
- The LP opponent: "We will never do much better, because freedom
cannot be won by political means."
- The LP Jesuit: "We did far better than we should have, if you
consider the demographics."
Two implications
of these conflicting accounts are worth
mentioning. First, the empirical fact (the vote total) has no
intrinsic meaning or significance apart from a strategic theory
through which it is interpreted. Second, the strategic theory can
neither be proved nor disproved by referring solely to the empirical
facts, because a different vote total, whether higher or lower, can
always be attributed to other social variables, whether known or
unknown.
The vote
total, like all historical data, must be viewed through
theoretical lenses before we can understand its relevance. As Mises
and Hayek have argued, no historical fact can refute or confirm a
social theory, because that fact itself must be interpreted with the
aid of theory before its significance can be determined. Quoting
Mises:
"The
epistemological and logical considerations which determine
the correctness or incorrectness of a theory are logically and
temporally antecedent to the elucidation of the historical problem
involved. The historical facts as such neither prove nor disprove any
theory. They need to be interpreted in the light of theoretical
insight." (Human Action, 3rd ed., p.622.)
All knowledge
of particular social facts is necessarily
historical; such knowledge refers to concrete events that have already
occurred at a determinate time and location. If we follow Mises and
Hayek, therefore, social data can neither verify nor falsify the
theories on which we base our view of long-term strategy. This
relationship between social theory and empirical data marks a
fundamental difference between the social sciences and the physical
sciences (where empirical data can be used to test theories).
Methodological
issues should be kept in mind when we formulate
strategic theories and try to evaluate their successes and failures.
By this I do not mean that strategy is, or can be, a science. (At
best, it is an art.) But every strategic theory proceeds, implicitly
or explicitly, from a view of social theory and methodology; and it is
difficult to assess a particular view of strategy without examining
its assumptions and presuppositions. In other words, it always helps
to know what the hell we're talking about.
PRAGMATISTS VERSUS IDEOLOGUES
Perhaps the
most dramatic difference in libertarian thinking about
strategy is that between pragmatists and ideologues. I offer these
categories as "ideal types" or "pure forms" (to use the sociological
terms of Max Weber and Georg Simmel). In other words, I have
constructed these ideal types for the purpose of analysis, without
suggesting that real libertarians fall exclusively into one category
or the other. Most of us probably embody some features of both types,
with a disposition to favor one over the other. Moreover,
"pragmatist" and "ideologue" are relative terms; even the most
practical of libertarian pragmatists is regarded as an impractical
ideologue by the general public.
Pragmatists
typically pride themselves on their "common sense" and
on their "realistic" view of the political world. Although they do
not altogether deny the importance of theory and ideology, pragmatists
believe that these have little application outside the immediate
circle of hard-core libertarians. Libertarians may enjoy debating the
fine points of theory among themselves, but this intellectual
recreation cannot help us in the rough and tumble world of politics.
The pragmatist sees himself as a problem-solver; he is going to roll
up his sleeves and get something done.
The pragmatist
is especially fond of talking about "the real
world" -- a place, he thinks, that ideologues rarely visit and know
little about. The real world is the world of flesh-and-blood human
beings, the domicile of the proverbial "average person," in contrast
to the abstract world of the libertarian theorist. The pragmatist,
however much he may disparage theory, often has a rather elaborate
theory about how to change the world. If he has a background in
business (which he often does), the pragmatist will wax eloquent on
how libertarian ideas can be "packaged" and "sold." The average
person, he tells us, doesn't want to hear about rights and the proper
role of government; he is interested only in his family, his job, and
his bank account. It is the pragmatist who likes to write and read
books with titles like, How You Can Profit from the Coming Extinction
of the Human Race.
[To Be Continued]
For six years, George H. Smith was general editor for Knowledge
Products, a company that produces audio tapes on various aspects of
libertarian theory and history. Among his 28 scripts were four on the
US Constitution, narrated by Walter Cronkite, and four on the American
Revolution, narrated by George C. Scott.
This article was first delivered as the keynote address at the
Libertarian Party of California's state convention in Sacramento
February 15, 1997 and is reprinted from the International Society for
Individual Liberty's Freedom Network News No. 48 (March 1997).