Pragmatism is the Vessel of Propaganda, Thankfully Obama is an Idealogue

Jonah Goldberg writes a nice column mocking Obama's pragmatic above-the-fray arrogance.  He also elucidates the virtues of ideology.

The philosopher Bertrand Russell wrote in 1909 that if everyone becomes a pragmatist, then "ironclads and Maxim guns must be the ultimate arbiters of metaphysical truth." Russell's point was that there's nothing within pragmatism to delineate the proper and just limits of pragmatism. We must look outside pragmatism for that.


Our values, customs, traditions and principles provide the insulation against the corrosive acid of undiluted pragmatism. When you bundle these things together, it's often called an ideology, and there's no reason to apologize for having one.

Also recall from an old post of mine on propaganda:

...the educated, and especially the intellectual, are most susceptible to propaganda. Once you realize that people with little education tend to just follow what their parents and community tell them, you realize that only the educated are truly open to new ideas, many of which are poorly supported.


A President must be a jack-of-all-trades.  His biases will lead him to listen to "experts" with those biases.  A pragmatic mind is one that is most easily shaped by the limited voices he hears, and thus is the most susceptable to propaganda.  However, this President appears to be unwavering in his ideas, agenda set in stone, unshaped by public opinion.  Ironically, as Goldberg points out, the President's claims of pragmatism are just the self-delusioned arrogance of a blatant ideologue.

A Side Note on Immigration

I got wrapped up into a lengthy debate today on immigration at the blog of my friend and illustrious economist Bob Murphy.  I thought it was a good conversation, so I'm going to post of my comments and some other responses.

Bob's post and my thoughts are in response to a Cato Institute web video that included a question answer session with famous libertarian economist and blogger Tyler Cowen.  [He notes these comments here] His comments set off a firestorm of anger amongst some of the intellectual libertarians, but I'm not concerned with those issues.  Among them were some sharp rebukes of those who are anti-immigrant.  While I have no time for xenophobic anger or violence, I am becoming increasingly aware that the nativist argument is actually fairly sound.

Def. Nativist - someone who wants to maintain the purity of ones own culture.

Def. Minarchist - referring to minimal or very small government


I am pro-immigration. I believe in open borders. The best way to ensure freedom is to allow people to choose their government. Competition will shrink the size of the state.

However, I have seen noone make a good argument against nativism. Not that I subscribe to the argument, but I don't have a slam dunk reason against it.

My basic nativist argument is this:

You have a democratic minarchist state. The country flourishes economically. Millions of people around the world want to come and enjoy the economic benefits. The minarchist state opens its borders, letting in millions of hard working people who happen to be statists. The minarchist state slowly disappears as the statist immigrants become an increasing part of the voting population.

Blackadder adds:

The issue isn't whether every immigrant will be highly statist, but whether immigrants are likely to be more statist on average. That immigrants are likely to be more statist (and that this effect can last generations) is, I think, amply demonstrated by history.

Then Taylor:

"Is it also possible that these statists, once they arrive and are saturated by a non-statist society, will begin to adopt different principles, rather than the other way around?"

Then Me Again:

Sure, that's possible, but I lean towards Tyler Cowen's comment that culture is "sticky". Voting patterns amongst certain demographics tend to change very slowly over time.

While I am still not a nativist, I can understand their viewpoint.  I won't agree with bigotry anyone who disrespects immigrants as individuals, but for now, I can't really tear down the arguments as I have presented it.

ABCNews Picks Up Story on White House Threats

Click here.

Vulgar Threats from the White House

In this interview, (HT EPJ)at radio station WSJ in Detroit, Frank Beckmann interviews Tom Lauria, an attorney who represents a group of lenders that object to the term of the White House deal with Chrysler. The White House is bullying these bond holders to give up their contractual rights and take far less money than traditional law would give them in bankruptcy court. The bond holders also object to the UAW being handed ownership of Chrysler.

I am transcribing the words of this attorney, so forgive me any errors starting at around the 1:30 mark.

"...cause let me tell you, it's no fun standing on this side of the fence, opposing the President of the United States. Uh, in fact, let me just say, you know, people have asked me who I represent..and that's a moving target. I can tell you for sure that I represent one less investor today than I represented yesterday. Uh, one of my clients was directly threatened by the White House, uh and, in essence compelled to withdraw its opposition to the deal under threat that the full force of the White House press corps would destroy its reputation if it continued to fight..."

I guess what der leader wants, der leader gets. Hail Victory!

UPDATE: A nice article from the Financial Times explains how dangerous this behavior by the White House is to financial markets. Likening it to Machiavelli.

"More importantly, the Chrysler saga sets a dangerous precedent for US capital markets. For once, the law is unambiguous: senior secured creditors should be paid before junior unsecured creditors and employees (the words “senior” and “junior” are a bit of a give-away on this point). By turning legal wisdom on its head – and vilifying investors that opposed the move – the administration is signalling the principle is no longer sacred.

While that, in itself, will not cause a massive capital flight away from the US, it will have some serious repercussions."

I Will Never Buy a GM or Chrysler Again

Today, Chrysler announced a deal with the U.S. Treasury to avoid bankruptcy. The deal gives the United Auto Workers' union 55% ownership of the firm. The federal government would own 10%, and Fiat would take 35%.

What does this mean? The UAW and the federal government will run the firm....into the ground. Chrysler, which has almost zero chance of being profitable now that they are run by two organizations that hold profitability last on their list of priorities, will be a function of the government. The UAW is too interconnected with the White House and the Democratic party and will owe its allegiance to them. Make no mistake, you and I will now have to subsidize Chrysler for years to come. These taxpayer dollars will then be turned around in the form of multi-million dollar donations to the Democratic Party.

General Motors is also on the same path. They are now entertaining a deal with the government that Larry Kudlow details this way: (HT EPJ)

What is going on in this country? The government is about to take over GM in a plan that completely screws private bondholders and favors the unions. Get this: The GM bondholders own $27 billion and they’re getting 10 percent of the common stock in an expected exchange. And the UAW owns $10 billion of the bonds and they’re getting 40 percent of the stock. Huh? Did I miss something here? And Uncle Sam will have a controlling share of the stock with something close to 50 percent ownership. And no bankruptcy judge. So this is a political restructuring run by the White House, not a rule-of-law bankruptcy-court reorganization.

That's right. The U.S. Federal Government will own 50% of the company. The UAW will own 40%. Political interference by the White House, the Democratic congress, and the UAW will prevent GM from ever becoming profitable again without government subsidies. Billions of your tax dollars will go to a company that will turn right around and give tens of millions to Democratic party candidates and our current President to help them stay in power.

If you believe in a truly free America you will do the same. Never buy any of their cars ever again.