That's the best thing I've read on this subject to date. It really deserves the attention of a book because it's a point that we all could benefit from really considering when the "competence/ideology" language game surfaces. Thanks, Glenn!

And I mean that with no intended sarcasm nor empty flattery.

I'd only add - and you touched on this - that "competence" is often used as a cover for "ideology I agree with." Thus, Cheney and Rumsfeld were held up as paragons of competence by the right eight years ago, much as Emanuel and Geithner (sp?) are the current technocratic superstars for many of cour comrades and friends on the Democratic side.

"Competence" may be the new "centrism..." a meaningless buzzword for any policy or bureaucrat approved of by conventional wisdom.

The problem isn't ideology per se. The problem is bad ideology.

greenwald,

the word that should be being debated here is not 'ideaology' but 'morality'. make that one substitution and you immediately see how vacuous the debate is, and how easily greenwald accepts the framing of the right which has corrupted and preempted debate for years now.

but never mind all that. even if one has no hesitation to being morally bankrupt and hypocritical, every single policy of the bush adminsitration has been a disaster for the poeple of the united states (say nothing of the world) based entirely upon that greatest of all virtues pragmatism. And those who have opposed these disastrous polices purely on the basis of their recklessness and anti-pragmatism, were right, independent of the moral repugnance and criminality of the bush regime. and similarly, all of the foreign policies now being embraced by obama (and nearly identical to the reckless and anti-pragmatic policies of the bush regime) are likely to be disastrous in that they will drain precious resources andwork against the security of the united states and it people.

Bush was an ideologue with little focus on pragmatism because the conservative ideology actually resonates with a lot of Americans (fewer than 4 years ago, but it's still a strong brand).

Something like twice as many Americans are willing to label themselves "conservative" as "liberal." Obama's administration is eschewing ideology because, politically, they have no choice.

So, I guess what we are seeing is that The Empire will be well cared for during the Obama administration, as it has been for the last half century. Possibly we will avoid the hubris and miscalculations of the Bush II regime, but our foreign policy will still be based on "our interests" being propped up by compliant dictatorships and military intervention. Oh well.

We can still hope for a change in direction, but it would be nice to see a sign.

There can be no coherent or competent action without precept or ideology; one acts with the intention of realizing an ideal.

That said, I believe this imputation of "post-ideology" to Obama is wildly overstated.

We know a great deal about his ideology, both from his time on the trail and from his books.

He believes in "brother's keeperism," the idea that we rise or fall together. This is one of the central tenets of (generally) liberal ideology. This involves a robust public sphere, replete with all the social services we can afford, e.g., health care and education.

He believes diplomacy is better than militarism and that isolating "enemies" doesn't necessarily facilitate world peace.

He believes it is better to build consensus than to simply defeat your opponents and ram "change" through.

He believes the United States has no moral right to its levels of consumption.

He believes that poetry and art should be taught in schools because it's good for the soul; schools are not simply job-training centers.

And on and on and on.

This guy is hardly a cipher and it amazes me that so many people have so many doubts about what he believes in.

Anyone paying attention has by now a very clear sense of this guy's organizing principles or ideology.

Am I missing something, here?

The establishment same-olds that Obama has appointed are co-authors of the great disasters that have befallen America -- foreign wars and the financial collapse. Where is the competence?

Words don't mean what they used to mean.

Foreign policy decisions "should ultimately be pragmatic actions in defense of national self-interest"...

So if I think it is in our best interests to hold ourselves to the highest principles of the UN Charter, does that make me a pragmatist or an idealist?

Using pragmatism as a shorthand for immediate consequences and narrow self interest would really offend the Prangmatists. Did William James ever overlook ethics, and embrace ends justifying meeans? No. A good Pragmatist takes a much deeper view of consequences. Outcomes are always uncertain; actions can be judged in themselves.

If we take the word ideal to mean, with Robert Frost, something we cannot have but cannot help but want to have, then maybe we achieve a bit of clarity. Pragmatism with a capital P is an ideal, too, and those who prop it above all else are expressing an ideology. Glen's post highlights why pragmatism is an ideal in Frost's sense. Strictly speaking, no action can be purely pragmatic, yet there are people who wish that were not the case.

I've wondered many times over the last eight years whether people who feel disenfranchised by the Washington establishment are experiencing a clash of ideals. Perhaps it's not really about Democrats vs. Republicans, or progressives vs. conservatives, or even millionaires vs. non-millionaires. Perhaps, instead, what many of us can't help but want bears little relation to what politicians in Washington can't help but want, and we feel that clash acutely no matter who's in office. We ignore the discrepancy at our own peril.

Thanks for the thought-provoking post.

NYTimes:

THE 2000 CAMPAIGN: THE RUNNING MATE; The Armchair General: Richard Bruce Cheney

By ERIC SCHMITT
Published: July 26, 2000

In choosing Mr. Cheney as his running mate, Gov. George W. Bush has turned to an unflappable Washington insider whose easygoing exterior masks a steely confidence [...] Mr. Cheney, 59, who served 10 years in the House of Representatives and four as President George Bush's defense secretary, brings stature, decisiveness and decades of government experience to a campaign sometimes short on all three.

But the real secret to his success may be an ability to wrap a staunchly conservative ideology in a mantle of moderation and civility to get people to trust him and get things done.

It is not just Republicans who feel at ease with Mr. Cheney [...] Mr. Cheney has a knack for working with political rivals, colleagues say.

''Dick does not bring political sex appeal to the ticket,'' said Bill Frenzel, a longtime friend and a former Republican congressman from Minnesota. ''What he brings is the competence and confidence that if anything happens to the president, the country will have a competent vice president to step in.'' [...]

- - NYTimes 7/26/2000

* * * * *

And that was the narrative all through the campaign, eight years ago.

And the narrative was very much downplaying the part about "staunchly conservative ideology".

And the "competence" narrative was adopted by the rest of the media.

And that was what millions of people THOUGHT they were voting for in 2000.

Not that there's anything wrong with competence and effectiveness in and of themselves, but the narrative in 2000 was that Cheney's "staunchly conservative ideology" didn't really matter.