Eclectic Pragmatist

I should, as a pragmatist, be used to the ingenuity of those in politics who find new ways of making things worse for no compelling reason beyond believing they are on a mission for ideological purity. But I wasn’t really prepared to see ads from Republicans running against other Republicans in which the singular accusation was that the opponent is a moderate. Demonizing “liberals” has now been expanded to include candidates who occupy any part of the broad range of the middle of the political spectrum, including moderate conservatives. Compromise is now a negative characteristic common to candidates who are unable to pass the purity test for conservative ideology.

Those who consider themselves true conservatives seem unable to comprehend the history of their own country, which was founded on the principle of compromise. The checks and balances of the three branches of government are designed specifically to minimize extremism and provide both the majority and the accompanying minority — regardless of issue — with a seat at the table of governance. No one point of view would be allowed to dominate completely. Give and take — inherent to centrist moderation — would result in everyone except those with the most extreme views having a stake in the results.

Extremists (purists) exhibit two significant characteristics: they are simultaneously irrationally zealous regarding their beliefs while justifying whatever means necessary to implement their ideological principles. They have passion but not compassion. The results are predictable. Tens of millions who are economically (and thus politically) weakest are disregarded, whereas those who are wealthy and powerful are protected. The conservative agenda for cutting spending while not raising taxes means those with the least will bear the most severe burden to reduce the deficit.

Political/social conservatives, angry and frightened by how much the country has changed in so many ways, and unable to find support from the majority of citizens, are now even less willing to compromise on a long list of issues — guided by their rigid, unrealistic ideology. Because broadly based facts, data and information rarely support most of what they believe, they willingly dismiss these as non-existent and irrelevant. They live in an ideological bubble, and there’s no place for moderates within it.

History demonstrates how those with the most extreme and rigid views have been responsible for much of human misery in one form or another. Be it political ideology or religious dogma, the world is simplified into right and wrong, good and bad. Thus, by definition, moderates simply do not have strong principles. Forced to compromise and often marginalized, purists become increasingly frustrated at a moderate majority they can’t win over and increasingly angry at anything that fails the purity of their ideology.

In U.S. politics, the targets of far right conservatives have increased in number as they find more and more to be unhappy about. Much of what represents modern, enlightened governance is an anathema to conservatives, and they seek to eliminate anything that makes government larger not on merit but on principle. Small government, regardless of circumstance and purpose in the 21st century, is the holy principle upon which everything else is judged. I’ve noted some of the targets of their wrath in previous posts, but here’s yet another to contemplate.

In a world in which data and data mining are important to government, business and citizens, apparently those who prefer the ideological bubble want to wage war on the Census Bureau, using the excuse that the data sources used by it are an unconstitutional breach of privacy (even though conservatives also  insist there is no right to privacy). What was a bipartisan effort in 2005 supporting a more timely survey of economic, demographic and housing information — and promoted as better data for better decisions — is now yet another target of ideological zealots in the House of Representatives. They will be unable to actually accomplish their goals as long as Republicans do not control the Senate or White House, but it is deeply disturbing how distorted the opinions and beliefs of people become when their ideology — already short on reality — becomes increasingly irrational.

If war on moderates becomes the message to voters, those who vote would be foolish to allow themselves to be part of it. Extremists want extreme results, and if there’s anything we need less of, this is it. Governance from the middle is both the history of this country and the only viable option if the U.S. is not to become a failed society that couldn’t solve its many problems because political gridlock made governance impossible. It’s already happening, and if allowed to continue will result in a wealthy, powerful oligarchy managing democracy and economic growth for its own benefit.

A central theme in zen teachings is to be in the moment. Whatever you are doing, mundane or exciting, focus on it and find satisfaction and pleasure in it. Don’t live in the future, which is both unknown and holds its own promises of moments to come. Do this often enough and the sense of the quality of one’s life improves and we experience a greater contentment with our lives. But another tenet of wisdom says all things in moderation (a topic I wrote about in one of my earliest posts here). In this case, be in the moment, but consider what is necessary to have quality moments in the future.

Pragmatically, this is a conflict that we experience both as individuals and as cultures. Whether it’s about planning a vacation or retirement, as individuals we have to consider what we can afford to spend and what that allows us to experience. The quality of our life and thus our contentment is a personal journey of decades, and for societies it is a journey of centuries. When individuals lead lives of balance — in the moment and in the future — their culture also does. But if immediate gratification and short-term goals control our lives, society reflects that as well, with less desirable results.

Consider how the demographics of industrialized societies change over time. Peaks of births create future peaks of retirees — be it in the U.S., Sweden or China. The quality of life for those who are older, and the ability to pay for it, becomes a significant financial responsibility. At any given moment, those who are working must contribute sufficient taxes to pay for those who are drawing retirement and health care benefits currently through government programs. When birth rates are high and economies are growing, the financial burden is relatively trivial, but as a matter of demographic reality, as industrialized societies become wealthier, birth rates go down, the ratio of workers to retirees rebalances and the ability to pay for retirement benefits depends on fewer people paying higher taxes.

This is a reality that voters and thus politicians typically refuse to face. Only in those countries in which high taxes are regarded a reasonable price to pay for government benefits (from higher education and infrastructure to health care and retirement) do voters and politicians ensure that quality of life and contentment are functional priorities for the greater good. For the rest of the rich countries (search OCED to find a list), things are quite different. A rapid increase in retirees is just beginning in the U.S., whereas it won’t occur in China until the middle of this century. For both, the costs are going to become a substantial issue in ways that those living in the moment now refuse to seriously contemplate.

In this country, the shifting demographic ratio of workers to retirees is made worse by other factors. One is that many of the jobs being created are lower paying service sector positions that will not support middle class economics. Many full-time employees are considered among the working poor, who often have more than one job to pay for basics (housing, food, transportation, insurance, health care). Even though they may not make enough to pay federal taxes, they do have payroll taxes deducted. A recent study determined that when all federal, state, and local taxes are taken into account, the bottom fifth of households pays about 16 percent of their incomes in taxes, on average. The second poorest fifth pays about 21 percent. Another study indicates that the bottom 20 percent of income distribution pays 17.4 percent of their income in taxes, and the second 20 percent pays 21.2 percent.

For tens of millions, saving for retirement is not going to be possible. Those in public pension plans are depending on taxpayers to fund these, and most plans are substantially underfunded and likely to be reduced in benefits in the future. Government entitlements, such as Social Security and Medicare, are going to rise rapidly in costs as a higher percentage of the population ages into retirement, and the proposed solutions of raising eligibility ages and reducing benefits will have a variety of negative effects on the quality of life for many. The middle class has been losing economic ground for several decades and will find savings for retirement — even with plans to which they contribute directly via payroll deductions — will be inadequate. Only the top (and infamous) 1 percent will see no change in quality of life upon retirement.

Thus the conundrum. The pragmatic overview is simple enough. The economic quality of life in the current moment is already difficult for many, and the long-term future quality of life doesn’t seem likely to be any better. Reducing deficits through spending cuts will make things far worse because austerity actually reduces economic growth. Growing the economy would reduce the deficit faster while generating tax revenues to pay for entitlements, but requires reversing economic policies that favor greater short-term profits and lower tax rates (particularly the flat capital gains rate). Tax cuts are more properly known as deficit spending.

The ideological approach of trickle down (supply side) economics, tax cuts and spending reductions has never worked, largely because it’s not based on practical economic principle but rather on the fundamental tenet of small government. Even the minimum wage, which barely keeps an individual above the poverty line and couldn’t possibly support even a small family, is held in disdain by financial conservatives. The working poor are doomed to a dismal retirement without entitlements sufficient to support a modest quality of life, but the future levels of benefits are in question. As a result of the financial recession, the middle class has lost many of the assets meant to go toward retirement, even as costs for fundamental services such as health care have risen annually at a rate well above inflation.

I’ve noted before that pragmatism is about seeking truth and then deriving best practice solutions, but I’ve also noted that there is an ethical aspect in which the morality of choices also has to be considered. As individuals and as a society we can make choices that affect both the quality of the moments now and those in the more distant future. One such choice is what we want retirement to be for our parents, ourselves, our friends, our children, our society.

Go to your search engine of choice and look for the prosperity index. Take note of the list of nations and where the richest country in the world ranks. Consider what the categories making up the index say to you, and why some societies seem more successful than others at ensuring a better quality of life and greater contentment for their citizens. What is the balance of pragmatism and compassion. Then remember this when you vote. Making the world a better place, and our lives better, is never about ideology. It’s about eclectic/ethical pragmatism.

Yes, I know science isn’t perfect. Or perhaps I should say that scientists are human and therefore can introduce bias and even fraud into their work. It’s rare, but it does happen. There’s a competitive aspect that sometimes compels a few to take a shortcut to gain recognition, tenure or grant funding. These outliers say nothing about scientific methodology but much regarding how some people are their own worst enemy.

Science itself is as objective and rational a methodology as exists, and its role includes providing the light of knowledge where the darkness of ignorance exists. Ignorance, of course, includes mysticism, superstition and irrational beliefs regarding the earth, everything on it and the universe it exists in. Remember when the earth was flat and the sun revolved around it?

For a pragmatist, science, although imperfect, is vastly closer to the truth about our physical world than either religion or politics. Science can’t provide the moral/ethical framework that determines how we use the results of its research and inquiry, but it can at least give us the facts, data and knowledge with which we can make reasonable, intelligent, sustainable assessments of the planet we occupy. And yet, in the second decade of the 21st century, willful ignorance seems as abundant as ever.

In a tradition that goes back many centuries, vested interests have often been hostile to science and scientists when their own beliefs and positions of influence have been challenged. In particular, these include organized religion, political ideologists and those whose financial interests seem threatened. Thus we continue to witness believers in biblical creation insisting that both the formation of the universe and evolution as explained by science to be false, ignoring that the stories of creation in the bible are simply written forms of oral mysticism present in cultures long before the bible was written by dozens of authors over many decades two millennia ago.

The problem with religious dogma is it rarely catches up to advances in human knowledge. Two thousand years ago 98 percent of current knowledge didn’t exist. At least 95 percent of the courses now common in universities didn’t exist prior to the latter half of the 19th century. Pretending (I don’t know how else to describe it) that the knowledge of twenty centuries ago explains anything about the origins of the universe, life and the rise of humans simply defies any viable form of logic. One can have a spiritual existence and still appreciate what the physical and life sciences have to tell us.

Given that the bible says nothing about climate change, those who deny any change as a result of human activity are largely political conservatives who consider all data regarding climate change to be an excuse justifying increased government involvement in regulating business and reducing personal freedom. Ironically, those who prefer the bible to science in terms of creation tend to accept climate change warnings because of biblical exhortations to care for the earth and all that’s on it. Those most hostile to evidence of climate change seem willing to believe that 7 billion human beings and their industrialized civilizations have no effect on the thin band of atmosphere that surrounds the planet.

Political polarization has become so entrenched in the U.S. it is undermining responsible governance and allowing economic, social and quality of life declines to continue. Hostility toward science that doesn’t conform to religious and conservative beliefs only makes matters worse. The role of the U.S. as an economic power with substantial influence will diminish if it cannot reverse economic inequity and meet the challenges of climate change. It won’t matter which party is in power at any given moment. The country has already dropped to tenth on the prosperity index, which measures overall quality of life using a compilation of critical categories.

The decline of once powerful cultures is slow, and few have been able to detect and successfully reverse it before decline reached a tipping point. Pragmatically, polarization and simplistic “solutions” will accelerate a decrease in prosperity, which has immense psychological implications for a society that knows there are many serious issues but cannot find a way to address them in practical, effective ways for the greater good.

Marriage cannot be made more popular by “defending” it from those who want to marry but are not heterosexual couples. Conservatives fighting against the civil rights of gays and lesbians continue to make the issue against gay marriage about saving and protecting traditional marriage even as the percentage of heterosexual individuals getting married declines and the number of women having babies without being married rises. The culture continues to shift away from the traditional role model of marriage and family that conservatives insist is the bedrock of the nation, and the response of conservatives is to become even more ideologically rigid. From a pragmatic perspective, the result is to deny what is reality while trying to return the country to a past that is long gone.

The war to “save” marriage goes on despite public opinion now being more favorable toward allowing non-heterosexuals to marry. This shift in opinion coincides with a decline in marriage rates by heterosexuals along with a decline in even living together. Record percentages of individuals (both religious and non-religious) are living alone, typically having been in cohabitational relationships that didn’t work out well. Despite this, conservatives insist that marriage other than between a woman and man is a threat to that which everyone else holds dear — which clearly isn’t the case.  

My inner pragmatist is certain this issue is largely symbolic of the many cultural changes that anger those who are most conservative (but not necessarily libertarian — for whom personal freedom supersedes conservative cultural ideology). The conservative response is emotional and irrational, a tradition that permeates much of conservative ideology. For example, it can be seen in the ludicrous assertion that sex education teaches teenagers how to have sex, and that even holding hands and kissing should be discouraged as these are gateways to further intimacy. Ironically, teenage pregnancy is markedly highest in those states with the least sex education and most emphasis on abstinence. Ideology and fact, as they typically do, diverge, with pointless cultural wars being waged in state legislatures.

Which raises the perennial issue of legislating human behavior. It doesn’t work. People can be persuaded, sometimes, regarding behavior, but otherwise they will end up doing pretty much what they feel like doing for whatever reasons they have. Be it sex, drugs, abortion, drinking or other supposed “sins,” much of the effort by cultural conservatives regarding these is based on religious dogma and a belief that a lack of morality is causing the nation to decline from its role as a light on a hill — a nation favored by their god. Thus the efforts to control, limit or ban the offending behaviors. But there’s little evidence that this works as intended.

Attempts to control human nature ignore the reality that humans have been doing that which is considered morally “wrong” by others for dozens of centuries. Cultures evolve, but religious dogma rarely does. Education, which provides greater knowledge upon which to make choices, is seen as promoting and encouraging undesirable behaviors. Ignorance is actually considered better than knowledge by those committed to controlling what others do (except if such knowledge might discourage a specific choice).

The effectiveness of attempts to legislate cultural controls is dubious at best and ironically undermines personal liberty, which conservatives consider a fundamental right. More ironically, legislating the “morality” of behavior and choice engages government in the private matters of individuals, which also contradicts conservative ideology. There’s nothing pragmatic about this hypocrisy, and such efforts are permanently divisive in ways that can only have negative results.

We’ve all heard some variation of it — as we grow older, we learn more about life, have greater insight into it and become wiser. Sometimes it’s true, sometimes it isn’t. There are endless examples of the latter, but two I find particularly appalling are often repeated by those who should know better: government should be run like a business, and business executives know best how to improve the economy. Neither is true.

While it’s possible to utilize best business practices in government in terms of management of staff, building effective teams and setting goals (and then measuring progress), the primary function of business is to generate profits by offering goods and services, whereas government is about creating an infrastructure that serves the needs of citizens and business for the greater good. In modern industrial societies, governance is vital, complicated and expensive, but it’s not about making a profit.

In addition, for very practical reasons, services are made affordable so even those who have limited financial resources can have access to them. This means, for example, that postal services and public transportation might not cover their costs with the fees charged, but the benefits to society are far greater than the deficits incurred. The costs of infrastructure (building, repairing, expanding roads, bridges, tunnels, airports and so on) can be hundreds of billions (work done by businesses and their employees), and even when there are tolls and fees for using these, the revenues will not always cover all fixed annual costs for completed projects. The investments by taxpayers are repaid many times over by the ability of businesses and individuals to accomplish what would be difficult or impossible otherwise.

The skills and abilities needed for governance are actually greater than those for business in terms of the diversity of services and functions government provides. Governance is quite unlike the narrow focus of companies in their fields of endeavor. Those who insist privatization increases efficiency and effectiveness while reducing costs have not taken into account that government administration costs are typically less than those of private companies, and there are no added margins for profits. And, while executives in private enterprise do have to meet or exceed customer expectations to succeed, they do not have to deal with the expectations of citizens (potential voters), which are typically more complex and diverse.

Businesses don’t always make profits, and some can lose money for many years. Governments typically run deficits because the ability to cut costs is limited by a multitude of competing interests, public policy requirements and rapidly changing dynamics (economic crises, natural disasters, military conflicts among them) that cannot wait for revenues to catch up or increase. National governments rarely have mandated balanced budgets because of so many variables, and the few that do have so many exceptions built in that the mandates are largely superficial.

As for the ability of business executives to deal more successfully with economic, monetary and fiscals policies than those from other backgrounds, the differences between business and government once again are critical to governance. The needs and special interests of business are not the only criteria for those who govern. They must balance a variety of competing needs and interests while trying to achieve results that are positive and sustainable for society as a whole. Business generally prefers less regulation and environmental requirements, but public health and safety and the greater good (quality of life) demand regulations of many kinds to avoid what goes wrong in the absence of them. Self-regulation rarely comes close to matching these demands.

Buying, running and selling companies require skills that are not particularly transferable to the requirements for responsible governance. Employees and citizens are vastly different challenges, and the practicalities of meeting civic responsibilities are far broader than what is required to focus on business fundamentals. Many who are critical of the president, governors and mayors have no idea the complexities involved and the compromises needed to effect change. Global business is complicated, but the variables are fewer in number and the constituent base consists of shareholders and customers, not citizens.

All of which is to make a pragmatic case for why government and business are very different for many reasons. Those who want to be president cannot make a viable case that business experience is superior for that role because government should be run like a business. It is disingenuous at best to make such an analogy, and intellectually dishonest to continue to do so. Voters should know and understand why.

Often, what we are sure is sound reasoning and thus a well-considered point of view is really just us confirming what we already believe to be true. It’s so natural, so automatic, that we are unlikely to recognize what is taking place. We are sure beyond doubt that our opinions are the result of intelligence and rational thought, and opposing points of view are not — calling into question how those with opposite beliefs can have come to such conclusions. Fortunately, there is a way to actually achieve greater enlightenment that represents a more objective process — pragmatism.

Pragmatism is a cross between what is practical, what works well and what seems to embody the greatest truth. Indeed, the classic definition of a pragmatist is one who seeks the truth. We might think of it as seeking facts, data and information from which rational conclusions can be synthesized. When combined with an openness to new information, ideas and practices, the result is reason that doesn’t simply verify preexisting opinions and beliefs. I think of pragmatism as anti-ideology.

As it implies, ideology is about ideals, but ideals are often not about reality and truth but rather about principles that are articles of belief and faith…not unlike religion. Many ideological “truths” are anything but, unsupported by facts and data, and often the fabrication of those with an ideological agenda. They start with the tenet and then create the case for it. There is nothing pragmatic about this. False assumptions are made into “principles” that exist in a vacuum — an ideological bubble. There can be no effective problem-solving when the process consists of insisting on ideological purity in place of facts, information and data. Best practices don’t even exist when the “solutions” don’t address the realities of the issues.

There is one typically subjective aspect of pragmatism — moral/ethical considerations. I’m not referring to religious dogma but rather simple compassion and empathy as part of the pragmatic process. One can, for example, conclude that a combination of spending cuts and tax increases is needed to reduce public debt absolutely and as a percentage of gross domestic product…but where to cut and where to tax? It seems morally indefensible to reduce spending for those who are poor, disabled or disadvantaged while cutting the taxes of those who are the wealthiest, and morally fair to sustain or even increase assistance by having those in the upper-middle class and above pay more in taxes through rate increases and/or fewer deductions.

There is also a pragmatic case in economic and social terms for redistributing money to those who are truly needy. Assistance to those with the least creates significant amounts of economic activity in communities, to the benefit of many, whereas tax cuts generate far less economic effects where most needed. Self-reliance, which is a core belief of conservative ideology, reverses this by reducing entitlements and thus, in theory, making government smaller. Although they won’t admit it, conservative ideology has a thread of social Darwinism running throughout its tenets. Social Darwinism has always been intellectually dishonest because survival of the fittest refers to ecological niches, not human society.

In the end, reason cannot be reasonable if the manner in which it’s arrived at doesn’t meet the standard of seeking the truth and from that the best, most practical way of resolving issues within the context of moral and ethical concerns. Truth can include emotion and remain reliable and credible, whereas emotion cannot create truth. Many who are most angry and anxious about change and the resulting economic and cultural issues are most often also furthest from truth and pragmatism even though they believe they posses both. Their justifications and solutions rarely align with reality (facts and data), and thus their reasons are not reasonable, which is why they are not moderates but rather far from the center and thus far from pragmatism.

If one accepts the assertions and political rhetoric regarding excessive government regulation, the only reasonable conclusion is that the slow, tenuous economic recovery over the last several years was the result of far too much regulation — of business directly and indirectly as a result of environmental regulation, along with a lack of business freedom. Before I note why these claims simply don’t align with reality, it might be interesting to note that of the 288 billion additional USD created in the economy in 2010 compared to 2009, an astonishing 93 percent went to the top 1 percent of taxpayers, whereas the remainder of the population received an average increase of 80 USD after inflation. This means the top 1 percent enjoyed an increase of 11.6 percent and the top 0.01 percent (~15K households) received an income increase of 21.5 percent. So regulation and freedom apparently were less an issue for those most favored by the U.S. economic system.

There were a number of factors that made the recovery anemic to the point where it seemed it might even reverse itself, but the primary one is that unlike an economic recession, a financial one is always followed by a slow recovery because it is the result of asset bubbles and excessive consumer debt. Excessive regulation was not a factor. In fact, it could be argued that under-regulation of the financial services industry, combined with an overheated housing market fueled by bundles of sub-prime mortgages sold to investors and insured with credit default swaps, was the cause of the financial recession.

Legislation passed afterward (without the votes of those who disdain regulation) to restrict the dubious practices of banks and financial institutions resulted in a law of more than a thousand pages, a point used to justify how regulation has gone mad in government. This conveniently ignores the reason why regulations and tax codes are so lengthy. For every page of regulation there are many pages specifying the details necessary to keep those being regulated from finding ways to get around prohibitions and requirements. Eliminating or minimizing loopholes requires significant text to anticipate as many ways as possible there might be to subvert regulations. The length of a law’s documentation says little about the potential negative value and effectiveness of regulation, but much about those being regulated.

Does regulation sometimes result in the elimination of some jobs or prevent the creation of them? It probably does, but it also results in the reverse, and creates as many or more jobs because of tasks related to complying with regulations and companies that supply equipment, services and consulting to meet regulatory requirements. And let’s not forget the practical reasons for regulations. Public health and safety, consumer protection and a variety of other benefits all result from regulation and its enforcement. The benefits in terms of quality of life, health and financial well-being can easily be greater in value than the costs. As an example, oversight and regulation of banks since the recession have reduced bank profits and bonuses, but have saved consumers far more in hidden service fees and unreasonable charges.

There are lots of assumptions about regulation hard-wired into the ideology, opinions and beliefs of those who believe that it can’t be good for the economy, personal liberty or themselves in ways they can’t prove but are convinced exist. Any student of human behavior will invariably conclude that self-regulation is seldom sufficient or effective relative to government regulation. There’s nothing pragmatic about the libertarian faith in markets to reward the honest and punish those who find many ways to game the system.

You’ve likely heard some version of the phrase, when reasonable men… Those who hold regulation in low opinion have a multitude of reasons they can cite to justify their conclusions and beliefs. The mystery of how this is possible from the perspective of those who see regulation as an obvious necessity, and who have even more reasons to support their viewpoint, is how those most hostile to regulation manage to arrive at such a conclusion. What is rarely appreciated is that there is reason and there is reason — same name, different meanings. The differences are substantial and involve the presence or absence of pragmatism. So this is my next topic.

I won’t say that pragmatists are invariably optimists, but the very nature of seeking truth through facts and information and then resolution through practical choices does make one feel optimistic that problems can be addressed with varying degrees of success. But, in the absence of pragmatism, things are quite different. A consistent concern in every analysis of how the U.S. is going to deal with the multitude of economic and financial issues facing it is the growing polarization among citizens and politicians and how this will prevent both resolution of these issues and even the ability to govern.

In other words, the U.S. may be unable to save itself as it becomes paralyzed by ideological and cultural gridlock. For all the rhetoric about how the country needs to apply itself to regaining its momentum and how American exceptionalism makes it unique, the reality is that the ability to remain a viable, sustainable, competitive nation in the world economy while also reversing the decline in the quality of life for many of its citizens depends entirely on less ideology and more cooperation. Because critical problems are not being solved in practical ways that are both fair and reasonable, they only become worse and thus increase the partisan obstructionism that exacerbates every issue. This has failure written all over it.

As a pragmatist, I see two reasons for why things have reached this point. One is the ideological bubble that many conservatives view the world from within, and the other is a general level of ignorance among those who consider themselves very conservative. They cannot comprehend how commerce and financial markets actually function, have no idea what central banks do and why, do not understand why oil prices fluctuate on the world market, have no idea why deficits actually exist and even less knowledge of why cutting spending can make things even worse…and so on. They have lots of opinions, believe the country is headed in the wrong direction and assume as a matter of faith that government is the problem. And, speaking of faith, they define their world by it regardless of the reality and consequences of their beliefs. Having divided the world arbitrarily into good and evil, they refuse to compromise with “evil.”

All of this results in simplistic “solutions” that cannot begin to answer complex issues while attempting to impose ideological tenets despite substantial evidence and historical data that contradict these beliefs. For example, reducing deficits to no more than 20 percent of GDP by spending cuts alone cannot work. It’s mathematically impossible without significantly reducing retirement, health and military spending. At minimum a dollar of tax increase must accompany every three dollars of spending reduction, and those insisting that taxes can never go up are only making it impossible to address this important (but not yet critical) issue.

It’s not surprising that pragmatists are absent among strict ideologists and the very conservative. This is not to say that pragmatists are always in agreement, but they recognize and embrace that the give and take of compromise is fundamental to reaching meaningful agreements that are as optimal as can reasonably be expected in a large, pluralistic society. They can disagree on the details and yet find consensus because the essence of pragmatism is antithetical to ideological rigidity and extremist opinion. Unfortunately, pragmatists — referred to politically as moderates and centrists — cannot function effectively when sufficient numbers of citizens and their elected representatives are not pragmatic but dogmatic. Only when enough voters demand pragmatism will it be possible to functionally resolve issues and govern responsibly for the greater good.

So, to be realistic, this life-long pragmatist is not optimistic about the future of the U.S. relative to the rest of the industrialized world. It’s a case of too many citizens being their own worst enemy, making it impossible for the country to save itself. Instead of looking forward, too many are looking back at the country’s past and trying to recreate it in a world that is utterly changed forever. Mindless cultural wars and ideological intransigence will all but guarantee that the increasingly inferior infrastructure, educational achievement and diminished quality of life in the U.S. become worse…and permanent. The have-nots will increase in number as the haves receive the most rewards, and in the end the only thing exceptional about the country will be how much it resembles other cultures that became complacent, self-absorbed and second rate in so many ways.

Despite the prestige and power the president of the U.S. appears to have, there is a functionally limited ability to do nearly as much as the individual who is president may aspire to and those who voted for him may want. The influences of political parties, special interests and constituents, combined with the political realities of how government functions and the complexity of issues it deals with, make the effectiveness of any president as highly dependent on perception and personality as on achievements. Most presidents find that their popularity in polls ebbs downward over time despite accomplishments and seemingly good intentions.

Really intelligent, pragmatic presidents are few and far between, and those with sufficient personal charm to create goodwill among those who are dissatisfied can be even more rare. Add to this the demonization of presidents by political opponents, pundits and unhappy voters, and it’s a wonder anyone wants the job. Indeed, we’re lucky that the best and brightest are ever willing to run for the office.

As a pragmatist, I find presidents such as Clinton and Obama to represent exceptionally intelligent individuals who would excel in any executive position because of their ability to deal with complex issues and seek best practice solutions within the limits of day-to-day politics (governmental and corporate). I am far more comfortable with middle of the road Democratic presidents than right of center Republican presidents. Even if the president is a moderate conservative, the Republican party itself is plagued with a base of constituents who are very conservative and elect congressional representatives who value ideological purity over practical governance. It seems a supreme contradiction for those who govern to actively dislike government given how much both business and citizens depend on government. As a practical matter, government is an essential part of economic, social and cultural realities.

As president, pleasing most of the people most of the time is pretty much impossible. Most citizens don’t really understand how much goes into trying to meet expectations while surrounded by advisers, political allies, political adversaries, voters who love you, voters who hate you and all those who wish to have their own particular agendas recognized as more important. Staying focused and making good decisions cannot be easy, particularly for those presidents whose egos and political ideologies exceed their grasp of what is at stake.

Voters mistakenly assume that a “good” president can easily fix what is “wrong.” For example, if gas prices go up, they assume it’s because the president hasn’t aggressively pursued domestic oil production. This ignores how little difference increased drilling will make given the large percentage of imported oil necessary to supply a nation that doesn’t value fuel-efficient vehicles very much. Domestic reserves are not large enough to sustain decades of higher production, which itself takes years to develop. And given the rising global demand for oil, prices are not under the control of the U.S. anyway. Blaming the president for higher prices at the pump may be convenient, but it’s ineffective and irrelevant to reality.

Whoever is president in the coming years and decades will be faced with impossible contradictory demands that cannot be met, increased competition for resources in a competitive global economy and a political system that has increasingly become part of the problem, not the solution. In a country with increasing economic inequity, diminishing educational excellence and even availability, and a culture that largely doesn’t understand how and why globalization has profoundly changed the economic/political playing field, no matter who is president, he or she will discover that what they promise and what they can actually do have little in common, and keeping some of the people happy some of the time will be about as good as it will ever be.

The evolutionary origins of religion are conceptualized by multiple suppositions, but the most persuasive among these is the development of areas of the human brain capable of processing such thoughts and feelings. There is no physical evidence to support religion, but among the quirks of human development is the ability to suspend disbelief and imagine one or more gods in response to any unexplainable physical observation — which is not surprising given that mysticism and superstition preceded science by thousands of years. The resulting multiple religions (an estimated 300) and numerous variations of belief, dogma and faith have been the source of much conflict, violence and human misery for a very long time.

The conflicts inherent with religion can be seen in the cultural wars that permeate U.S. politics. Even with the separation of church and state very clearly written into the constitution, there is no shortage of conservatives using distorted logic to declare the country a Christian nation while trying to impose their religious beliefs upon others. They readily use any pretext to protest the war on religion and religious freedom, war on Christmas and war on the country’s putative values — which they deem as American exceptionalism. Indeed, they insist that their god favors the U.S. above all other nations.

Not only does this needlessly create unbridgeable divisions with the culture, it also ignores the other significant aspect of the separation of church and state: freedom from religion. More than ten percent of the population is atheistic or agnostic.

There is no pragmatic justification for insisting that religion is part of governance. Those who wrote the constitution were very clear that those who govern are not to impose or use religion upon citizens. There’s nothing ambiguous about this. They knew well how organized religion in Europe had imposed itself politically on others. Indeed, the desire for religious freedom was a primary motivation for some to colonize America (although even here religious tolerance was often marginal in the early colonies).

Faced with a changed world and country they find disconcerting, conservatives have become fearful and angry, and one of their refuges is religion. Unfortunately, many have become willing participants in the efforts of the most zealous to reverse the separation of governance and religion that has been a founding principle — although sometimes inconsistently applied — of the nation. The resulting secularization should be welcomed by all for its inherent fairness, but those who say they are the defenders of freedom and personal liberty are often the same ones who would use religious dogma to restrict the freedom and personal liberty of others. Hypocrisy is not a pragmatic characteristic.

The authority of the church began to erode in the 18th century as religious tolerance and non-conformity increased. Individuals began to define morality more individually. The secularization of government and society were inevitable results. The failure and curse of religious faith is that its “truths” can get in the way of larger realities. Religion works best, if it works, as a private matter, not as a completely inappropriate attempt at public policy. Personal liberty (civil rights) is about live and let live (peaceful coexistence) under the neutral laws of society, and for this to occur, the society must be secular. It’s the most pragmatic way of allowing people to find their own way in life in matters most personal.