-- Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary
A Washington Post news story that ran in Thursday's Star-Telegram reported the negative reaction of some conservatives to the announced 'breakthrough' with North Korea on nuclear disarmament. The report was preceded by an inappropriate and misleading summary: 'The uproar among conservatives ... reflects their deep concern that the agreement marks a turn toward a more pragmatic U.S. foreign policy.' Such a statement is one that readers might expect to encounter on one of the opinion pages. Think about it: This preface seems to suggest that these conservatives do not want President Bush to become practical in dealing with Pyongyang, preferring that he remain mired in their counterproductive ideology.”
I assumed conservatives prefer that President Bush maintain his conservative principles of not negotiating with terrorists, not compromising with rogue states, not rewarding madmen like Kim Jong-Il. I assumed conservatives preferred such idealism over a pragmatic foreign policy that seeks to use diplomacy and negotiation to defuse crises in a way that keeps disagreements from spilling over into war, no matter how much we might dislike the people sitting across the table from us.
Yet in Don Erler's opinion piece, idealism becomes "ideology", something that's "counterproductive", something to get "mired in". What conservative would want that?
And "pragmatism" is now a means to achieve a principled goal. President Bush's agreement with North Korea gives Kim Jong-Il security assurances, promises massive energy aid and takes steps towards normalization of relations, all this in exchange for North Korea promising to shut down its nuclear program. Apparently, insisting on regime change in terrorist states and refusing to reward terrorist states are now considered bad means to good ends, not goals in themselves. In Don Erler's view of other similar situations with less successful outcomes (e.g., Iraq), "bad means defeated good ends. Better means might have been successful."
So, is Mr Erler arguing that pragmatism is now a favored means of achieving idealistic ends? That giving Kim Jong-Il recognition, fuel, trade, security is worth it if we get a little relief from the growing threat of nuclear terror? Somehow, I don't think conservatives are on board with this reformulation. Mr Erler's own heart doesn't seem to be in it.
Mr Erler shows much more enthusiasm as he races off in a non sequitur about John Edwards and his house and whether he is being idealistic with that "questionable" campaign theme about "Two Americas" or being pragmatic about letting those two controversial bloggers go. Mr Erler is upset that liberals aren't in an uproar over this last bit of news, an implicit act of pragmatism by the Edwards' campaign. So, conservatives like Mr Erler still consider pragmatism to be a dirty word. Except when President Bush uses it to get a deal with North Korea. Then it's a means to a good end. It's an uncomfortable position to argue. But when that's the situation President Bush puts you in, you'd better be pragmatic about making the best of it.
No comments:
Post a Comment