[Adam_Smith]

Christian Science Monitor, seen by way of Yahoo Opinions, has the following small essay with the title "The emptiness of Obama's pragmatism". However, a better title would have been "A Critique of Pure Pragmatism". It was cast as a critique of "Obama's pragmatism", I am sure, to give an impression of greater currency.

According to the author, Jacob Bronsther, a former Fulbright Scholar, graduate student in political theory at Oxford University and law student at New York University, "Pragmatism refers to one philosophical movement and two political ideas". This part of his essay I find unpersuasive since I am certain that in reality there are at least as many conceptions of "pragmatism" as there are pragmatists, most of them involving varying blends of the three notions Bronsther singles out. Nevertheless, I find the article helpful for the way it points out the limits of purely "pragmatic", (however defined), approaches to public policy.

We must take better account of the moral, or if you like, ideological, aspects of policy making:

Our Founders did not fear such theorizing, and at this critical juncture in our history, it seems we must jump in once more. What is the purpose of government? What rights and obligations do citizens have, and why? How should we distribute society's resources, and why?

Today, perhaps as a result of the prevailing view of pragmatism, (good), over ideology, (bad), these questions are not seriously explored as much as they should be -- even though ideological factions are not shy in insisting upon their own answers.