Introduction

Pragmatic Politics is a new Blog dedicated to viewing politics from a pragmatic rather than a moral point-of-view. The emphasis is on "what is" (positive approach) rather than "what should be" (normative approach). This is not to say that politics (or politicians for that matter) should be without morals or without ideals. In fact, the opposite is true. But rather, I argue that as a polity and electorate, we (the people) should focus more on issues that have immediate, tangible and salient impact than on those that have less-tangible, less-salient or less-immediate impact.

Take for example the issue of abortion. For many people, this is their most salient issue, and in some cases it is the only issue that really matters for them. In such cases it becomes what is known as a "lexicographic preference" (a preference that is infinitely preferable above all other preferences). To be sure, this condition exists on both sides of the abortion issue; those who are ardently pro-life as well as those who are ardently pro-choice. Thus, neither side is immune to this phenomenon.

In pure economic terms, when all economic participants possess a lexicographic preference, then a general equilibrium is unattainable. So what does that mean in layman's terms? Essentially it means that issues that "polarize" opinions become much more difficult to resolve politically. For those that do come to some sort of resolution (policy), that resolution is much more prone to being manipulated by and/or favor a small group of people rather than a broad constituency. Thus, the resulting policies are much less likely to be representative of general population preferences.

It seems to me that over the past 15 years or so, there has been a fundamental shift in American politics as it relates to issues and preferences. At a time when information about any potential issue is readily available to millions with just a PC and a web browser, we as a polity and electorate have narrowed (rather than broadened) our focus to fewer and fewer salient issues (per individual) and have staked our positions on these few issues so firmly that compromise is much more difficult. Furthermore, our positions on these fewer and fewer issues, as well as the issues themselves, have become much more moralistic and less pragmatic. We spend a lot of time debating whether two people of the same sex should be allowed to legally marry and raise a family, rather than focusing on whether any family, gay or otherwise, will ever be able to afford a house, obtain quality health care for a reasonable price or be able to afford a college education. We worry about teaching (or not teaching) creationism in schools when we should really be examining whether anything we are teaching, let alone our entire compulsory education system, is of any real value to our students. In short, we are fixated on issues that have marginal impact on society as a whole rather than issues that would truly benefit the majority of the population.

It's time for us as a polity and electorate to begin to focus on those issues that truly matter for the majority of society. We are not as different as we would be led to believe. The homosexual parent wants the same thing for his/her child that the heterosexual parent wants; safe neighborhoods, quality education and the dream of a better world. Pro-choice and pro-life advocates both want access to quality and affordable health care, a clean environment and economic opportunity for all Americans.