We face choices between following principles or pragmatism nearly every day, although the repetition in our daily lives often erases self-analysis. Should I follow a principle (religious, political, moral, or social) that makes my life a bit harder or opt for a more realistic, streamlined, and pragmatic action to get immediate, positive results?
For example, I know that many people believe in the principle that buying from a local or family-owned business is preferable to a purchase from a faceless corporation without ties to our communities or families. But local and family businesses generally don’t have the purchasing power to offer the lowest prices in a universe filled with mammoths like Amazon and Walmart. Local or family-owned shopping also requires the arduous task of leaving the house while megastores will deposit the product on your porch the next morning.
Following a principle (like shopping local) often comes with negatives (e.g., paying higher prices) that counterbalance a comforting positive: the warm feeling of satisfaction at contributing to an uncertain, yet desirable future (e.g., a strong local economy and community). I was raised in an era and a home which emphasized religious and ethical principles. Many churches and political and social leaders encouraged us to take actions contributing to both personal salvation and a stronger community, state, or country. Sacrificing short-term pleasures (necessary during World War II) for longer-term goals was seen as natural and desirable.
During the 1960s struggles over civil rights and the Vietnam War, the contrast between principles and pragmatism became even more acute. While MLK Jr. and his followers preached and practiced nonviolence as a powerful, undeniable force (while suffering an untold number of physical attacks and murders), the Black Panthers, SDS, and other radical groups pursued a shorter-term solution founded on Mao tse-Tung’s 1939 declaration that “Political power grows from the barrel of a gun.” The Panthers’ efforts to arm themselves and their community ended very badly: most of their leaders were killed in gun battles, jailed, or assassinated by fearful and vengeful police.
Today’s utterly contentious politics continue to highlight choices between principles and pragmatism, although both sides claim they are taking the principled high road since followers respond to the idea so strongly. Is a government shutdown a principled stand for Democrats (defending continued access to health care) or a token performance for critics who say they haven’t resisted strongly enough?
I generally favor actions that advance ethical or democratic principles. But two recent instances of individuals following undefined principles instead of pragmatic advice severely damaged the Democratic Party.
In 2000, third-party candidate Ralph Nader rejected the idea that running for president would help elect Republican George Bush. In theory, elections produce winners that are the people’s choice, but in our convoluted system of electoral votes, one state and a few thousand votes for Nader elected a president who lost the popular vote. Nader’s choice paved the way for the hard-right political swing we’re witnessing today.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s life was dedicated to equal rights for women and minorities and she served as an important opponent of a conservative majority on the Supreme Court for 27 years. She overcame cancer four times, but when faced with a fifth battle at the age of 89, friends and politicians quietly suggested she could resign so that Democratic President Obama could nominate another liberal judge in her place. Biographers disagree about the reasons for her choice, but the pragmatic result is a radically conservative court majority of 6-3 that has given President Donald Trump (and others in the future) a free rein to take previously illegal actions.
Nearly every decision is based on a mixture of principle and pragmatism. Even the world-changing decision for the U.S. to fight in World War II supported both the principle of nations controlling their own territory and government, and the pragmatic necessity of keeping Germany and Japan from invading our shores.
But in our domestic politics, I still believe in one principle above others: the nonviolence of Gandhi, King, Mandela, and Tutu is the best way to oppose injustice and immoral government laws and actions. As the Trump administration advances towards martial law and dictatorship, I believe that nonviolent mass gatherings are the best way to slow and reject their plans. But those who participate need to know that attacks and arrests will probably be the short-term results of their actions. People with power and money don’t give them up without a fight, and that fight will probably include violence against the opposition.
Allen Woods is a freelance writer, author of the Revolutionary-era historical fiction novel “The Sword and Scabbard,” and Greenfield resident. His column appears regularly on a Saturday. Comments are welcome here or at awoods2846@gmail.com.