Reading the comments on one of the myriad "Kill the Bill!"/"No, Let it Live!" diaries, I ran into a kossack decrying the evils of pragmatism.
Which is, to be blunt, just plain dumb.
So fine, I'll throw my hat into the ring.
The comment, which I will give the dignity of neither sourcing nor quoting precisely, asserted that "pragmatism" is responsible for the mess that we're in today.
I agree that pragmatism is responsible for where we are today. From a wider viewpoint, I disagree that where we are is a mess.
Consider, for a moment, Kennedy's dream of putting a man on the moon. Now myself, I love NASA. It, along with the NSF and the Endowment for the Arts, are what I consider the three most underfunded government offices. I suppose that makes me an idealist, in a way. I want to live in a better world. I want to live in a world where science and art are valued, and where we care about exploration and discovery. And putting a man on the moon is, frankly, one of the most awe-inspiring human achievements in all of recorded history. I think it was a worthwhile goal.
Many people would argue that the goal was not pragmatic. I will agree. Putting a man on the moon is a fit of pure idealism. But the IMPLEMENTATION of that goal was pure pragmatism. You don't get from the Earth to the moon by just saying you want to do it. There are steps you have to take, to get from here to there. You can't just wake up one morning and say, "Today I'm going to the moon." Maybe one day, but not today, and certainly not in 1961.
So what did we do? We took pragmatic steps toward an idealistic goal.
Sound familiar, maybe?
Health care for everyone is an idealistic goal. It's a goal that many of us share. But the Dennis Kucinichs and Michael Moores of the world seem to think that we should wake up tomorrow and proclaim from on high that we will suddenly, perhaps miraculously, provide health care for everyone.
Consider for a moment what would happen if we had single-payer health care tomorrow. A sizable portion of the labor force - anyone working for a health insurance company - would suddenly be out of work. Many of them could probably find jobs with the government, fulfilling much the same role, but in the short term we'd be looking at serious economic turmoil in the middle of the worst recession in most of our lifetimes. Great idea. Oh, but yes, all the newly unimployed would at least have access to single-payer health care. For what that's worth.
The idealistic goal of providing health care is wonderful. I love it. You probably love it. But we have to recognize that change doesn't happen overnight, and that change invariably brings unintended side effects - the bigger the change, the bigger the side effects.
Our current health care system doesn't work. Most of us know this. But as with the moon landing, there's an overwhelming practical dimension to getting from Point A to Point B. Ignoring that fact is almost as bad as ignoring the idealistic dream itself. If you can't recognize that getting quality health care for every man, woman, and child in this country will take hard work, careful planning, and no small amount of legislative sausage-making, you're in no position to help make that dream a reality.
So when I see someone decrying "pragmatism" like its some base impulse, I simply cannot understand. Yes, pragmatism is responsible for where we are today.
Is America perfect? Of course not. But it's a darn sight better than it was 50 years ago, 100 years ago, 200 years ago. Even for the worst off among us, our standard of living is greatly improved over what we would have seen at the height of the industrial revolution, and throughout the corporate graft that followed through the rest of the 19th century. Our America is better now. And we have pragmatism to thank for it.
Is health care reform perfect? Of course not. And because of that, it's our duty to keep the dream alive, to keep fighting for better health care for the people that need it most. We SHOULD be fighting for a strong public option, even for single payer. It's important. It's a critical step toward the dream of providing quality health care for all Americans.
But does that mean we should abandon any plan that doesn't get us to our goal overnight?
The real question, the ONLY question, is whether the current health care reform proposal is better than the status quo. Some of you seem willing to argue that it isn't - that the elimination of preexisting conditions and the imposition of rigid requirements that providers spend no less than a fixed fraction of their income on providing care; that somehow these and other benefits are overwhelmed by the OMG UNCONSCIONABLE EVIL of mandating that people buy health care. If that's your opinion, fine. I'm not going to bother listening to you because you're so obviously deranged, but fine.
Progress is not made by scuttling the reforms we can manage to enact. Just as progress isn't made by abandoning our dreams as soon as we get the tiniest sliver of them. We have a chance to get real, meaningful health care reform in this country. Is it perfect? Of course not. But is it an improvement on the status quo? Yes. Almost anything is an improvement at this point.
And it moves the Overton window. Look at the Republicans throughout this debate, DEFENDING MEDICARE. A generation from now, these reforms will (1) be better, through constant legislative refinement (quite possibly including a public option), and will (2) be as inviolable as social security and medicare. This is a chance to show that government can help people.
Unless you don't think that it can. Unless you think that this is just more wasteful government spending, contrary to CBO reports, contrary to what most experts say. Unless you think that your particular brand of preferred reform is the only reform that can be worth trying.
As far as I'm concerned, there's a party perfectly well-suited for people with that sort of myopic arrogance. And it is not the Democratic party.