I just recently finished a class on American Thought Since 1850, and much of what I learned revolves around history and politics and how it is shaped and formed through the stories we as citizens tell about our own collective past. By understanding that history and truth is found in what we say about it, not some transcendental notion, which we will never be able to reach or truly understand, we can get a sense of what we need to do to solve problems and reach common solutions to progress society. I just wanted to throw this out there so its there, and whatever happens, happens.
The United States has been through several periods in history where various types of thought have been dominant and seemed to be most prominent throughout with the intellectual elite and even among those who formulate and shape public policy and the larger, overarching belief of what is right, what is wrong, and what is normative in society at large. Throughout the history of the United States the tenets and ideals found in pragmatism have been some of the central themes in American thought and what many have called a uniquely American way of thinking and approaching problems. However, as with any notion of what is normal and seen as the popular manner of thinking, these beliefs and this style of thought with regard to solving problems have had their low points in the country’s intellectual mores and norms. The question one must ask is whether are not we are still in the point in our collective history where the pragmatic approach to problem solving and political thought is still at a low point or if it has regained promise and significance in our system and within and among the population at large. Richard Rorty in Achieving Our Country discusses this issue and several of the current problems which are a threat to pragmatism and the practical approach to thinking about history and moving forward with regard to engaging and the manner in which persons will face the problems facing America or remain spectators in the political system and opt out of becoming active and involved in influencing policy and politics. In line with this one must come to understand what it entails to be involved and active in politics and how we as a people view politics and history in the United States with regard to what we know and see as true along with how this effects how we act and choose to view and participate government and being an agent of change or choosing not to. By using pragmatism as the lens through which one views American history and practical politics, one begins to see that all which is known and accepted to be true is only so, because there is a collective consensus around these notions that they are the traditions and beliefs around which we have formed our understanding of what it means to be an American and an individual in society.
In order to truly understand the manner in which politics is in America today we must look at the history of the political system and the culture that resides within and outside this system. While looking at this system can provide us with great inside it critical to understand that there are different ways in which one can view this collective United States history that both keeps us together as a people, whether one admits it or not, and defines us as a nation and society both to the individual and the culture as a whole. Rorty’s view of the history of politics in America and how we view this history is described along the lines of objectivity and subjectivity among the American people as we as a whole look back on events and cultural norms in politics. His view is that objectivity in history is basically irrelevant because what history means to us is what it means to each individual. That is while our history is collective, it is formed on a consensus of what society deems to be right or wrong, not necessarily what is objectively, morally right. It may be nice to discuss what is right or wrong, however; what is important and significant is what we believe to be the truth because in most cases it is difficult, if not impossible, to find what the overarching, transcendental truth is with regard to the critical issues facing the nation and society at this time or at anytime in the past or future of the country. In fact, much of the time, all that we know about history is what we say about it, the narrative truths which have been passed from generation to generation, and given their almost eternal and seemingly everlasting nature, they have a great amount of weight in how we view our history as Americans, and how we practice politics in today’s society. Andrew Bacevich reiterated the importance of this notion when discussing the importance of the myth of isolationism in American foreign policy in contemporary American politics, that while the understanding of America’s isolationist past may not actually be true, we continue to perpetuate it because it is what is believed to be true among the vast majority of persons whether educated or not because this story is indoctrinated in our collective past, and it holds great significance. Whether this is true or not, we as a collective have come to a consensus to treat it as true and see it that way, this is what holds significance in our political culture. This way to view and discuss our history and its effects on the manner in which we practice politics today, is a very pragmatic one because we are looking at what is in front of us as a nation and as a people, not some idealized notion of a transcendental truth. In turn, we see this notion actually put into practice in Rorty’s discussion on politics and the current left right divide, and the effects of each ideology’s principles on the American political and cultural system.
In politics today often we are faced with the prospect of either being left or right and having to choose between these two ideologies which are, according to the popular trend, diametrically opposed, particularly, Rorty claims with regard to national pride and patriotism. We in America are lead to believe that only the American political right has the tradition of pride in our nation as it is, and patriotism in the country, and this is in part to the stigma which has encompassed some of the political left, which has been perpetrated since the protest movements which made up the 1960s and the New Left. During this period, as both Rorty and Livingston note, there was a great shift in the way in which people on the left side of the political spectrum began to think about history, culture, politics, government, and society at large. This paradigm shift would change everything for how we as people act as part of a group among other groups and as an individual among other individuals both inside and outside of our self and other identified political group. This has lead many who felt that during this time their efforts and energies went to waste, to feel disgust and a form of self hatred or mockery toward the country and American pride and patriotism in general. Rorty, through analysis of Dewey and Whitman, says that this is manifested in our current public system, where certain portions of the American electorate on the left feel left out and believe that they can not affect the system in any meaningful way. This has caused them to become solely protestors and spectators as opposed to active agents in the process toward progress in achieving an America in which one can have pride. In having this happen, we are left in a form of political stasis for at least a portion of the population where Americans cease to be a changing, progressive society, as society no longer aimed at being the country of the future which it was set out to be according to Hegel. By reaching this point of stasis, which Dewey believes is the worst nightmare for America and its future, the American left is not fulfilling the promise of a pragmatic politics because instead of focusing on achieving results and promoting and advocating progressive policy, this faction of the left is centered on ideals and very strict principles. They have become so radicalized that they can no longer exist within the political structure and believe there is no way to enact progressive policies or practice politics whatsoever.
This departure from a pragmatic view of history and political activity makes itself exceedingly apparent when we view the intellectual urge to solely focus on theory and move away from actual practice. Both Rorty and Livingston discuss this distinction in terms of separating philosophy from practical usage, and the effects on the American population since the 1960s, particularly 1964, with regard to politics, both cultural and real. Now given the fact, that for pragmatic politics to hold true, there has to be real applications and real results, it is of great importance to look at the practical side of this problem, however; by dismissing philosophy we are also choosing between two options which we simply do not have to. That is, it is important for these people on the left to keep the mind set of progress and the spirit of change inherent in their protest, culture oriented politics, yet they must also be aware of the realities presented to them. Livingston’s discussion of the urge to theorize is a way for these people to detach themselves from everyday problems, and from actually having to find solutions. By simply theorizing, discussing, and coming to conclusions, they are able to return to the tradition of the 1960s and focus on cultural politics, removing themselves from the inherent difficulties found in real politics. The key is to not become too radicalized in either tradition, philosophical or practical, and instead use the tenets of pragmatism to delay the choice between revolution and reform. This seems to be the breaking point between Rorty and Livingston, in that, Rorty somewhat dismisses the cultural aspect of our politics today, and in doing so misses a large part of what makes our system tick and forcing us to choose falsely between these two notions of politics today.
While Rorty is correct in saying that in today’s political system, too often people on the political left seem to be ineffective in their use of politics because they remove themselves from the system, he seems to miss the impact that cultural politics can have on real politics both in application and in achieving real policy and legislation in America today. Livingston discusses Rorty’s mistake in Chapter 4 of Pragmatism, Feminism, and Democracy, when he reiterates Lincoln’s quote that, "he who molds public sentiment, goes deeper than he who enacts statutes or pronounces declarations," noting that to forget this would be to forget much of the history of the American left. Rorty calls the left, the party of hope, and by doing so inherently makes it a party of feelings and a personal sense and commitment to improve relations among people. These feelings run deep in the tradition and in the mindset of leftist politics, and in many instances were born in cultural politics, where individuals begin to identify among themselves and form groups based on race, gender, and economic status, which according to Rorty maybe the only effective use of these politics. However, by forming these groups and interacting among the rest of the polity, there is sympathy and empathy which grows for the fellow citizen and it is due in a good part to the cultural politics practiced today. This is they significance of what is termed cultural or identity politics, that it is a part of our system, and we must find how it can be beneficial to progressing America, and not alienating a large portion of the electorate to a point where they feel nothing can be done and they cease to exist as active political persons, and no longer have agency in the system. I believe that this is the instance in politics and history which we are seeing currently, where there is a meeting of cultural and real politics, and that because of this we are reentering a more pragmatic way of thought which we lost in the 1950s and which was held dormant for many ever since.
By examining both the history and the politics surrounding group identification, we can clearly see that there is and has been a focus of these groups as being the centers of the political world, and the subject to which politicians and cultural leaders focus their attention. This is noted by Cruse in his text The Crisis of the Negro Intellectual and reiterated by Livingston, when he says that America was built on the notion of groups and without this manner of thought we would not have had the great racial strife and competition that has tormented us in many different ways throughout our history. What is essential to realize here which is pointed out in Livingston’s text, is that for these individuals who fight for such cultural causes, the goal of the politics is to change culture and shape society in a way so they are seen and treated as equals within all of society and among all of its people. The real politics that Rorty discusses is form them fleeting if they are not able to change the societal norms and relations in America, and this of course leads to the disgust which Rorty consistently mentions, which in turns forces them to be spectators. Therefore, what becomes needed is for these radicalized groups to maintain there sense of cause, and use it to work to change the American way in a beneficial manner. We need to change the story from one that is exclusive to these groups to one that includes and incorporates them into the solution to solve the problems, political and social, that face America today.
Politics in America today, and particularly on the left, have changed a great deal in the past few years, and with the recent victory of the Democratic Party and Barack Obama and their ability to capture the imaginations, to a degree, of the nation, tells us a lot about the manner in which we view politics. In today’s political tradition, we are looking at both the significance of cultural and real politics to get things done, that is we are rejecting the false choice of deciding between revolution and reform in America. Instead, it seems that there is a reemerging notion we can integrate our cultural politics into an effective real politics, somewhat like the coalition of labor and the intellectual elite in the early part of the twentieth century, which Livingston and others have noted, that formed the pragmatic, real politics centered American left. This coalition was in the tradition of pragmatism, and today we can and are re-imagining this alliance by fusing cultural and real politics to a point where a candidate like Obama can pool the masses of the Democratic Party, particularly the youth, intellectuals, and black populations, all of those former centers of dissent which have made up much of the New Left over the past forty years. By allowing these camps to maintain their political awareness and deeply held convictions with regard to their own identity group along with their idealism to a degree but inviting them into the system, we can practice politics in a manner that truly affects and create real change, in what can be seen as a new pragmatic tradition.
Gender, Racial, and social groups are almost inescapable in the corporate capitalist and socially democratic America we live in today, therefore, it seems near impossible to detach these groups from politics in the country and as such we can not simply remove these identities from having an impact on how we govern and form public policy. Through pragmatism we will be able to reconcile these two visions of the country, reform and revolution, Dewey and Marx, and find a solution that allows America to progress and achieve what the left sees as the necessary goal, an America which allows for equal opportunity and equal results for all people. They key is to get these leftists, re-enchanted in the American civil religion which Dewey speaks of, the America that is greater than us all, and holds the promise of a better future for all of its citizens and all those who come to its shores. Only by accepting that there is a need to be a part of the system to affect change within and without it, can this new pragmatic tradition advance, and will America be able to progress.
