The Perils of Pragmatism

California congressman Kevin McCarthy appears to be the odds-on favorite to succeed Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives when that august body reconvenes in early January.  If House members do sign off on his ascension, McCarthy will stand third in line to succeed Joe Biden, should both the president and vice president prove unable to serve.  But even as titular head of the House, McCarthy will be in a position to play an outsized role in the Capitol’s political theater.   

So, what might we expect from so notable a figure?  It’s hard to tell, because Kevin McCarthy has proven to be something of a chameleon.  Shortly after the January 6, 2021 insurrection he dressed down the instigators, including then-president Donald Trump.  However, shortly after the Capitol corridors were cleared, McCarthy joined a hundred forty-seven other Republican lawmakers in refusing to certify Joe Biden’s election.  Three weeks later he was a guest at Mar-a-Lago.  Originally elected as a “moderate” from his deep-red central California district, McCarthy has now joined forces with the flame-throwing Marjory Taylor Green.  All of which prompts one to ask, “Kevin McCarthy, what are you?”

One compelling answer to that question is, “a pragmatist.”   

Two recent articles helped me reach this conclusion.  One, by the University of Virginia scholar Mark Edmundson, appeared in the most recent issue of Harper’s; The New Yorker published the second under Mark Blitzer’s byline.  Edmundson does a fine job of tracing the contours of pragmatism as both an American philosophical tradition and a common-sense approach to decision making.  Leading American spokesmen for pragmatism have included William James, John Dewey, Richard Rorty, and the legendary jurist, Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.  

To put it simply, pragmatists reject the idea that inviolate capitol-T Truths providing clear and unambiguous standards for behavior actually exist.  Edmundson observes that, “As a philosophical tradition, pragmatism makes no normative claims about what is worth doing and what is not, what is desirable, and what is to be abjured.”  But if there is no self-transcending principle on which our conduct can be measured, how do we determine the best way to comport ourselves?  Look to “the cash value of ideas,” William James suggests.   We ask, “What might any given idea be worth in purely instrumental terms?  How effectively can it help us realize our personal ambitions and goals?”  

Edmundson’s University of Virginia colleague, Richard Rorty, argued that “Capital-T Truth” should be “sent on vacation” and the void filled by “provisional truths” to guide us in doing the work of the world.  If the “small-t truths” we’ve adopted don’t pan out, we shouldn’t hesitate to furlough them and recruit new ones.  And yes, this is the strategy that makes Kevin McCarthy, as well as Donald Trump and many other Americans, working pragmatists.

Jonathan Blitzer’s New Yorker profile of Kevin McCarthy included several quotes from former congressman Bill Thomas, McCarthy’s immediate predecessor and an early political mentor.  “You never know what’s inside, really,” the disappointed Thomas told Blitzer.  “Kevin basically is whatever you want him to be.  He lies.  He’ll change the lie if necessary.” 

A former House staffer’s estimation of McCarthy was similar: “Everyone knows the joke. All Kevin McCarthy cares about is Kevin McCarthy.  He is the man for this moment.”  Our Speaker-in-Waiting is, in Blitzer’s opinion, a man for whom there are “no red lines, no core policy beliefs, no inviolable principles,” just a grim determination to do whatever’s necessary to maximize his advantage. 

In this respect, Kevin McCarthy is pretty much a carbon-copy of the “Former Guy,” whom Mark Edmundson describes as “our first pragmatist president.”  To ask whether Trump is a racist, a sexist, a patriot, a defender of freedom - these are not the right questions because “Trump is not anything….He is what will get him what he wants at any given moment….what will advance his cause - and his cause is himself.”  

Obviously, this brand of pragmatism resonates with a broad swath of the American electorate - including more than a few evangelical Christians.  These are folks who profess to be everything Mr. Trump is not, and of whom the ex-President is reportedly contemptuous.  Nevertheless, twice they have turned out in great numbers on his behalf solely because he “delivers what they want.”  

One should not conclude from the foregoing that pragmatism can’t be employed by good people to achieve socially responsible outcomes.  But as the aforementioned pragmatist philosophers understood, the enterprise must be grounded in good will and a firm commitment to personal integrity.  It cannot, as Mr. Trump believes, be solely about winning.  Unfortunately, this is the “toxic pragmatist nonsense” many Americans have opted for,  even if it entails the jettisoning of our country’s historic ideals.      

“Truth,” Mark Edmundson avers, “has been on vacation long enough - it’s time to put it back to work.”