Pragmatism and Ideology

I wanted to spin another thread here to respond to Esquire's good comments on my comment (oy, this is getting confusing). Yes, I agree; most people already have firm ideological worldviews, which is why I dread the use of the label 'independents,' who clearly have political opinions and leanings.

But, as it happens, William Galston and Harvey Mansfield are having our very same discussion. Mansfield does a good job explaining your view, Esquire -- the issue of first principles, and how President Obama appears to try to "end" politics when he claims a consensus that does not exist (and instead only masks an ideological agenda). For Mansfield, and other conservatives, I imagine, the big question isn't, Will health reform insure 30 million Americans and improve the general welfare? It's, will the health reform bill unnecessarily expand government power, beyond its limited, original and rightful (in the moral sense) scope?

Galston's reply meanders a bit, but he makes some good points. An excerpt:

As I understand the president’s argument, it goes something like this: Our current health care system’s costs are rising at an unsustainable rate, threatening businesses, households, and our public finances. At the same time, nearly 50 million people go without health insurance—some by choice, to be sure, but most out of necessity. The only way to deal with all these problems effectively is to get nearly everyone into the insurance system, with a mix of subsidies and mandates, while creating a more competitive market among insurance plans. He may be right about this, or he may be wrong. But the key point for my purposes is that he is putting forth his plan as the means to an ensemble of ends—universal insurance coverage in a system that reduces the rate of cost increases—that he takes to be both desirable and essential to the long-term common good.

He goes on to say: 1) Obama's plan does not represent an emasculation of liberty; 2) "Freedom," like 'liberty,' means little in the abstract until you begin to define it in concrete levels; 3) The modern world requires a politics that is at once technical -- and, yes, slightly managerial -- even as it contends with age-old moral questions.