Tag: College of Political Knowledge

Where Have All The Burkeans Gone?

Long time passing,

Gone to museums everyone.

Now that I got the ’60’s outta my mind let’s move on……….

I miss my conservative counterparts—–as I am an old fart and enjoy the lively liberal vs conservative debate……but today everyone wants to be in the ‘middle’……. the exchanges that I was trained for in my political philosophy days are long gone.

I am talking about the conservatism of Edmund Burke, the father of conservatism……..Burkeans believe in personal responsibility, limited government, free markets, individual liberty, traditional American values and a strong national defense.  Believe the role of government should be to provide people the freedom necessary to pursue their own goals.  Conservative policies generally emphasize empowerment of the individual to solve problems……….society is not merely a loose collection of individuals but a living organism comprising closely connected, interdependent members. Conservatives thus favor institutions and practices that have evolved gradually and are manifestations of continuity and stability. Government’s responsibility is to be the servant, not the master, of existing ways of life.

In short, conservatism endeavors to preserve the existing institutions, principles and policies…….we could debate a lot of things but NOTHING about the Tea Party assumes that it has these characteristics in mind.

I miss real conservatives because the debate has degraded into insults and lies…..the days of collecting facts and then arguing over the interpretation has gone by way of the do-do bird.  Today the debate is in the form of 3 minute interviews or 30 second sound bites filled with lies and misinformation.

The loud mouths of today believe in a much different bunch of characteristics that they falsely call conservatism….these are…….

Privatization of public enterprises

Deregulation of the economy

Massive tax cuts

“Monetarists” solutions to keep inflation in check even with the chance of increasing unemployment

Strict control of organized labor

Reduction in public expenditures especially social spending

Down sizing government

Expansion of international markets

Remove controls on the flow of global financial markets

These are the things that the Tea Party try to argue as conservatism…..it is NOT!  It is neo-liberalism!  Pretend all you want but a neo-liberal agenda is NOT conservative, in the true sense of the philosophy.

This is why I say there are NO conservatives left in the GOP……what few pretend to be conservative will bow to the loudest mouth in the party…..sadly in today’s political world that is the neo-liberalism of the Tea Party.

Sadly, I feel that the days of a true conserv vs lib debate is gone….long gone and may never return until sanity returns to politics.

13 Simple Rules

Or Remembering Saul–and NO this is not a post about some mythical monarch from BC Holy Land but rather the scourge of the Right….Saul Alinsky.

I recall back in ’08 during the election that brought Obama to the highest elected office in the land….there was an uproar over some of Obama’s ‘friends’…..his pastor and some random dude from the ’70’s radical group the Weather Underground…..but the one that got a bunch of play was Saul Alinsky and his book “Rules For Radicals”….a treatise for radicals and rules of civic engagement.

I believe it was that moron that the GOP picked for their VP that had the biggest object to Obama’s association with Alinsky…..Alinsky died in 1972 so the best Obama could do was read his book…..but sorry dipsticks reading the book does not make one a socialist or a communist or a Marxist….basically it makes one well read.

The problem is that the loudest objectors have not read the book….if they had they would not be so verbal for you see the Tea Party actors are basically using rules from “Rules For Radicals” in their dealings with Obama and the Congress……..

Would you like proof?

Here are the 13 rules outlined in Alinsky’s book……..

Always remember the first rule of power tactics: Power is not only what you have but what the enemy thinks you have.

The second rule is: Never go outside the experience of your people.

…The third rule is: Wherever possible go outside the experience of the enemy. Here you want to cause confusion, fear, and retreat.

…the fourth rule is: Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules.

…the fourth rule carries within it the fifth rule: Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.

…the sixth rule is: A good tactic is one that your people enjoy.

…the seventh rule is: A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.

…the eighth rule: Keep the pressure on.

…the ninth rule: The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.

The tenth rule: The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition.

…The eleventh rule is: If you push a negative hard and deep enough it will break through into its counterside.

…The twelfth rule: The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.

…The thirteenth rule: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.

The only real winner in using Alinsky’s rules is ideology………..

Ideology has taken over Washington like never before. It explains why Republicans are willing to suffer political blame for the shutdown: It’s all connected to what Robert Samuelson has dubbed “the politics of self-esteem.” Ideologues on either side of the spectrum believe they’re working not for themselves, but for the betterment of the country. That thinking “suggests that you don’t just disagree with your adversaries; you also look down on them as morally inferior.” And “if politics’ subconscious payoff is higher self-esteem, it makes sense not to cooperate at all,” Samuelson notes in the Washington Post. With the shutdown, “tea party types can feel they’ve affirmed their moral courage.” As for the left, those pushing ObamaCare already have health insurance, but they’re on a crusade for those who don’t. “The ACA serves as a platform for them to assert their moral superiority.” And when politics is full of people who consider themselves “true believers,” it becomes even more dysfunctional. Click for Samuelson’s full column.

BTW, the TP is using the book nicely…..but according to past Tea Partyers……..does that make people like Ted Cruz a socialist or a communist or a Marxist?  Obama had read his book and used the tactics in his community organizing efforts and he has been labeled a socialist…..,by that logic….so is the TEA PARTY!

Look In Your Closet There Could Be One Lurking….Waiting!

Did It Really Take Courage?

College of Political Knowledge

Subject:  Early American History

I enjoy and study the period in early US history, 1750-1820….this was a time when a lot could go wrong in the Colonies….and the merchant class was a ticking bomb waiting for the best time to assert their influence……

Today we celebrate the signing of the Declaration of Independence, but it was submitted on the 4th and finally signed on the 6th of July…..my readers are well aware that I do not worship at the alter of Jefferson…actually I firmly believe that he compiled the DoI, especially the thoughts that were offered up by Thomas Paine in “Commonsense”………he spent his time working from notes for the final draft of the DoI…….

Many students and people have commented on the extreme courage it took for the Founders to sign the document….I will agree that it took a degree of courage but it was not a blind courage of the outcome of their action……(This part ought get the fir a flying)…….in my opinion the history of Early America has been romanticized for the sake of patriotism….making more of the Founders than they were……

Do not get me wrong……I admire the men that put their names to the document but they may not be the supermen a lot of people and academics want them to be……I know you want to know just what makes me think this of our Founders, right?

In 1775 the Founders sent the Olive Branch Petition to the king and he went ballistic and called the Colonies as a rebel state…….Lexington Concord showed that the locals could take on the best military in the world and hold their own…..and then Breed’s Hill where the colonials met a large Brit military force and held its own and caused many causalities for the Brits…..the Founders felt that England’s military might not be the cohesive force that they told them they were and there was a possibility that they could fight the Crown to a draw and possible to a loss……at this point in history the English army had fought many wars and won most of them……but in replacing their losses had given them men with little training and not the tradition that we hear so much about…….and armed with this information some of the Founders, the radical ones, thought that the Colonies had a real chance of success.

All history is revisionist…..and since there are NO Founders left for us to interrogate we must depend on their writings, speeches, letters and other memorabilia left behind…..the Founders were men and being men were not infallible….regardless what academics and their works would have you believe…..

What Happened To Demand Independence?

College of Political Knowledge

Subject:  Early American History

It is the week of the 4th of July when we celebrate the signing of the Declaration of Independence….the document that was our founding document (something that I do not agree with at all)…….while it is an important document it is not in the same class as the US Constitution……

Most Americans are aware of the slogan, “no taxation without representation” and the magic words of Nathan Hale, “I regret that I have but one life to give for my country”….most have a vague knowledge of the Sugar Act of 1764 or the Stamp Act of 1765, but what about the Townshend Acts of 1767…….. thanks these days to Google we can look them up and have an instant knowledge, but few do……..and of course most know about the Sons of Liberty, the Boston Tea Party, Boston Massacre, Concord, and on and on…….but my question is just what prompted the wealthy colonists to think of demanding Independence?  (You may stop here and answer if you like)…..Was it truly a desire for freedom or just a dislike of having to pay taxes?

Some, probably most, will say that it was the culmination of all these things that lead to the declaration, right?

If the founders were set in their desire for the independence of the colonies from England….please explain the Olive Branch Petition…….

On June 3rd, 1775, the Congress passed a resolution forming a committee to draft a letter to the King. The members of this committee were Ben Franklin, Thomas Johnson, John Rutledge, John Jay and William Livingston. This committee presented its letter to the Committee of the Whole (the whole Congress) on June 24, but it was not approved. Instead, on July 6th the Congress reconsidered the matter and sent the committee back to form another proposal, adding John Dickinson and Jefferson to the committee.

Portrait of John DickinsonJohn Dickinson

Thomas Jefferson wrote the first draft, but John Dickinson, especially, thought the draft was too harsh and would only anger the king. So he was given permission to make alterations to Jefferson’s draft. On July 8th Dickinson’s version was presented to Congress and approved, but not unanimously. This letter has come to be known as the Olive Branch Petition, because it extended an offer of reconciliation to the King. The Olive Branch is of course a symbol of peace. It has also been called the “Humble Petition” and the “Second Petition to the King.”

The letter affirmed the loyalty of the colonists to the King and assured him that they did not seek independence, only redress of their grievances. Congress’ vote in support of Dickinson’s draft, which was much more fawning in its tone toward the king, showed Congress’ willingness to give those who held Dickinson’s views one last chance at reconciliation, though they generally didn’t believe it would work.

Read the text of the Olive Branch Petition here.

The Olive Branch Petition was signed by 48 members of Congress and entrusted to Richard Penn of Pennsylvania, a descendant of William Penn, the founder of the colony. Penn left America on July 14th and arrived in London on August 14th. He delivered the letter to Arthur Lee, who was the Agent in England for the Massachusetts Colony.

So in about a year the colonists went from please take us back attitude to give me liberty or give me death attitude…….why?

What happened to change their minds so drastically?

Well to answer my own question…….the King and his representatives answered the petition with a proclamation that the colonies were now in a state of full rebellion….and that started the ill feelings.  After about six months after the King’s proclamation the pamphlet, Common Sense” was published and within it was a call for full independence for the colonies from the mother country, England….

After the Paine pamphlet was published and read by the common people there began an incubation of the idea of independence…..until that point the so called founders were set in trying to keep the ties with England….it was reconciliation not independence that was on their minds….independence was an idea that originated outside the circle of wealth that was the “Founding Fathers”……

He Was Just ‘Creepy’

College of Political Knowledge

Subject:  Early American History

Anyone that keeps up with my site knows that I am a bit obsessed with the founding of the nation…..that the history that we have all been taught is not exactly what may have happened…….it is acceptable only because few challenge the prevailing ‘wisdom’….well I have never been willing to accept too much without research and history is one of those subjects.

Yeas ago my dissertation on the Declaration Of Independence was rejected because I was making the case that Jefferson was not the author of the document…..he may have worked from notes but the ideas were not his…..even the wording in some cases were not his……so to say that I am not a Jefferson worshiper would be an understatement…….

I have never been one of those who worship at the alter of Thomas Jefferson and awhile back I read a short piece in Newser that made me stop and think….not only did I agree with the points made but it got my brain all fired up for more research…..my addiction!

Newser) – Two new high-profile biographies of Thomas Jefferson are out, and both go way too easy on him over slavery, writes Albany Law School professor Paul Finkelman in the New York Times. They’re guilty of the sin committed by many Jefferson biographies—they either gloss over his slave-owning ways or use the old he-was-a-complicated-man-in-complicated-times defense. Please, writes Finkelman. The “ugly truth” is that Jefferson “was a creepy, brutal hypocrite.”

Jefferson’s personal writings make clear he viewed black people as inferior to whites, nearly sub-human, writes Finkelman. He sold individual slaves away from their families as punishment or to pay for his wine and art collections. His will freed only five, and they were relatives of mistress Sally Hemings. We have to face it: The man was OK with slavery. He may have written the Declaration of Independence, but in the subsequent 50 years, even as George Washington and others freed their slaves, Jefferson remained “a buyer and seller of human beings.” Read the full column here.

All that got me interested in the whole slavery vs Jefferson thing….we all know about his views that slavery was wrong….but it was not wrong enough for him to disassociate himself from the practice…..some Jefferson thoughts on slaves…….from his work, “Notes On The State Of Virginia” in 1787……..

Among the Romans emancipation required but one effort. The slave, when made free, might mix with, without staining the blood of his master. But with us a second is necessary, unknown to history. When freed, he is to be removed beyond the reach of mixture.

They secrete less by the kidnies, and more by the glands of the skin, which gives them a very strong and disagreeable odour.

in memory they are equal to the whites, in reason much inferior, as I think one could scarcely be found capable of tracing and comprehending the investigations of Euclid; and that in imagination they are dull, tasteless, and anomalous.

I advance it therefore as a suspicion only, that the blacks, whether originally a distinct race, or made distinct by time and circumstances, are inferior to the whites in the endowments both of body and mind. … This unfortunate difference of colour, and perhaps of faculty, is a powerful obstacle to the emancipation of these people.

Just a few of his thoughts from his manuscript……

And then there was the program of manumission…..I know….HUH?

Slaves were offered freedom if they fought in the Continental Army……but what is the program?  Manumission refers to granting liberty to slaves, a person should not try to use the word as a substitute for emancipation. These two terms, while referring to similar actions, are completely different. In general terms, manumission refers to the voluntary freeing of a slave. Emancipation, however, refers to the release of control, which may or may not be voluntary and the situation does not have to be one of slavery.

But Jefferson foresaw a problem with the program…….manumission only increased the number of free blacks living in proximity to whites, and accelerated the potential for conflict. Therefore, as his neighbors manumitted their slaves more frequently, Jefferson proposed that all freed slaves be forced to leave the state. His fear of racial interaction was so great that he proposed that white women bearing mulatto children should also be banned from the state. There was simply no answer to the problem of slavery. “We have the wolf by the ears,” he concluded,” and we can neither hold him, nor safely let him go.”

Jefferson, the hero of states rights, was not some magnanimous leader….his ideas on states rights were more about property rights and property rights were a code word for slaves…..so his ideas were more about saving his holdings than some grandiose philosophical idea…..a personal desire more than some concern for the body polity.

At some point Americans need to stop deifying the ‘popular’ founders, as if they could do NO wrong…..they were merely men and as men were not infallible.

Who Killed Political Thought?

College of Political Knowledge

Subject:  Political Philosophy/Political Theory/Ideology

Back at the end of the Ice Age, when I was in college I studied political philosophy and ideology….they were not the same course…it was separate studies….that has vanished in today’s political world.  There is NO longer political thought or philosophy only a political ideology…..again, in my day….not the same thing.

Political philosophy was such writers and thinkers like Burke, Machiavelli, Mill, Paine, Ricardo, Aquinas, et al…….today ideology is dictated by such organizations as Heritage, Family (whatever), Demos, strategists and campaign managers…..there is NO deep thinking anymore….just shallow nondescript issues….petty thoughts for petty minds…….

Political philosophers looked at the state, the nation, rights and duties and obligations of those that chose to participate……..Great works like Leviathan, Common Sense, The Social Contract and Natural Rights Of Man….great thinkers from the 17th, 18th, 19th and early 20th centuries…….ideas that shaped all of mankind….and then the pea brains started speaking, from the 20th and into the 21st century….no real political thought just a montage of slogans, one liners and sound bites…that is the “great” thinking of today.

After the French Revolution, Antoine Destutt de Tracy created a branch of study concerned with ideas……and it became ideology….he wanted to establish ideals of thought and action based on an empirically verifiable basis where both criticism of ideas and a science of ideas could see the light of day.

A helluva idea!  Taking the formation of ideas, mostly political, and turning it into a science.  And for about a hundred years it was so……the formation of ideas that could be verified and debated….but then something went horribly wrong.

The 1912 presidential election still had some political philosophy or an ideology….but it was on the wane……but not before some strong, valid points were made by TR and his Bull Moose Party……..to include…………..True to Roosevelt’s progressive beliefs, the platform of the party called for major reforms including women’s suffrage, social welfare assistance for women and children, farm relief, revisions in banking, health insurance in industries, and worker’s compensation. The party also wanted an easier method to amend the constitution.

By the last of the 20th century……ideology was being re-defined as slogans, insults and one liners…..it became more about elected a certain strain of individual and not about ideas to make the country a better place…….the big thinkers of this period were Newt, the Speaker of the House and here is his big political thought……

………In 1995, Gingrich, then speaker of the House, wrote a memo for GOPAC, which trains Republican candidates, citing language as “a key mechanism of control used by a majority party.” In his inimitable, insufferable fashion, he went on to say that his videotaped GOPAC courses had elicited a “plaintive plea: ‘I wish I could speak like Newt.’

“That takes years of practice. But we believe that you could have a significant impact on your campaign and the way you communicate if we help a little. That is why we have created this list of words and phrases,”..

He went on to give those Republicans who wanted to “speak like Newt” a list of “contrasting words” that he urged them to use in their campaigns: “These are powerful words that can create a clear and easily understood contrast. Apply these to the opponent, their record, proposals and their party.”

The list included several words and phrases that are by now routinely batted about in the course of public commentary about the opposing party, usually by Republicans against Democrats..: “betray,” “bizarre,” “cheat,” “corrupt,” “destroy,” “endanger,” “greed,” “hypocrisy,” “ideological,” “incompetent,” “liberal,” “lie,” “machine,” “mandate,” “pathetic,” “radical,” “sick,” “taxes,” “traitors,” “unionized,” “waste” and “welfare.” There were many more listed.

Newt’s influence is still being felt and used…..and America is NO better off!

And the Dems were no better………Bill Clinton and his cronies at the Democratic Leadership Council were the “big” thinkers on the Left…..they were the ones that made globalization, outsourcing and financial manipulations possible……with all their free trade agreements that did little for the middle class to their repeal of Glass-Steagall which made the 2008 collapse possible…….theirs was not about the country either….it was about the creation of wealth not the governing of the country and its people……

The DLC has not going away….it’s influence is still a hard part of any Democratic platform…..and America and its people, the majority, are NO better off!

Political thought was dying slowly but by 1995 the pace quickened and as it is today….true political thought is dead!  Now all we have is regurgitation of insulst, slogans and one liners….true thought of how to make the country a better place is over….for the last 20 years the whole process of electing a president is pathetic and a joke.

America will return when real political thinkers gain the upper hand but until then we will be governed by amateurs and posers!

Turn The States Loose!

College Of Political Knowledge

Since the election of ’08 we have had numerous attempts or perceived attempts, if you like, to limit some of the rights that we have as Americans…..like voting, electing officials, civil rights, on and on……and recently Americans have had an outlet, besides the internet, for their whining and dislike for the direction of the country…….that outlet has been the site where they can partition the government for certain things….the most popular has been the secession partitions….Texas alone has over 100,000 signatures and all 50 states has one also….so it is not an isolated occurrence…..

There are federal laws concerning many of what we like to call rights….but in the recent past the states have started limiting these rights……while the states cannot make them illegal they can, once they stack state legislatures they can severely limit the access to these rights…..want examples?  FINE!  Abortion, whether one approves or not, it is still not illegal by federal law……more?  Marijuana…..federal law against but states are staring the process to de-criminalize it……..voting–states are attempting to regulate who gets elected by using some obscure crap about voter fraud–there is NO rampant voter fraud!  Or states that can eliminate elected officials at the whim of the governor……there are more about for the brevity of this post, you get the idea……

Since states want to control these federal rights and want to undermine the federal government I say there is a way…….since the Tea Party came to power they have stubbornly insisted on massive spending cuts….not so much to make the the government more stable but rather to undermine the federal government to the point that is is nothing more than a group or people that get paid to do nothing but show up once in awhile in the capital…….like I stated previously…..there is a way to do this and make the whiners and the small government people happy……..

Professor, what could that simple answer be?

Articles Of Confederation–return to the beginning and re-install the AOC……but why would this make those people I mentioned happy?

Well, let’s look at the Articles

  1. Establishes the name of the confederation with these words: “The Style of this confederacy shall be ‘The United States of America.'”
  2. Asserts the sovereignty of each state, except for the specific powers delegated to the confederation government, i.e. “Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated.”
  3. Not being sovereign, it does not call the United States of America a “nation” or “government,” but instead says, “The said States hereby severally enter into a firm league of friendship with each other, for their common defense, the security of their liberties, and their mutual and general welfare, binding themselves to assist each other, against all force offered to, or attacks made upon them, or any of them, on account of religion, sovereignty, trade, or any other pretense whatever.”
  4. But to instill a national feeling, “[t]he better to secure and perpetuate mutual friendship and intercourse among the people of the different States in this union,” it establishes equal treatment and freedom of movement  for the free inhabitants of each state to pass unhindered between the states, excluding “paupers, vagabonds, and fugitives from justice.” All these people are entitled to equal rights established by the state into which he travels. If a crime is committed in one state and the perpetrator flees to another state, he will be extradited  to and tried in the state in which the crime was committed.
  5. Allocates one vote in the Congress of the Confederation (the “United States in Congress Assembled”) to each state, which is entitled to a delegation of between two and seven members. Members of Congress are appointed by state legislatures. Also, individuals may not serve more than three out of any six years.
  6. Only the central government is allowed to conduct foreign political or commercial relations and to declare war. No state or official may accept foreign gifts or titles, and granting any title of nobility is forbidden to all. States are restrained from forming sub-national groups. No state may tax or interfere with treaty stipulations already proposed . No state may engage in war, without permission of Congress, unless invaded or that is imminent on the frontier; no state may maintain a peace-time standing army or navy, unless infested by pirates, but every State is required to keep ready, a well-regulated (meaning well trained), disciplined, and equipped militia, with sufficient public stores of a due number of field pieces, tents, a proper quantity of arms, ammunition and camp equipage.
  7. Whenever an army is raised for common defense, colonels and military ranks below colonel will be named by the state legislatures.
  8. Expenditures by the United States of America will be paid by funds raised by state legislatures, and apportioned to the states based on the real property values of each.
  9. Defines the sole and exclusive right and power of the United States in Congress assembled to determine peace and war; to exchange ambassadors; to enter into treaties and alliances, with some provisos; to establish rules for deciding all cases of captures or prizes on land or water; to grant letters of marque and reprisal (documents authorizing privateers) in times of peace; to appoint courts for the trial of pirates and crimes committed on the high seas; to establish courts for appeals in all cases of captures, but no member of Congress may be appointed a judge; to set weights and measures (including coins), and for Congress to serve as a final court for disputes between states.

I think these would make the whiners happy….they could run roughshod over their constituents at will…….they would be in complete control of others lives and rights….but also would mean the each state would have to bear the brunt of the costs for disasters, education, etc……..but they would NO longer be accountable to a central government…….and is not that what all these toads really want?

Under the Articles of Confederation, the central government’s power was kept quite limited. The Confederation Congress could make decisions, but lacked enforcement powers. Implementation of most decisions, including modifications to the Articles, required unanimous approval of all thirteen state legislatures.

States would be in total control of the destiny of the state as well as its residents……now that is what they really want!  If that is what they want….I say screw them….let them go…….

Personally, I think it is a damn silly idea……but I bet we can find a bunch of people that will like it……whatcha think?

Do We Need Limited Government?

College of Political Knowledge

Is it a smaller government or a limited government?  Which is the one that all conservs are screaming about?  One day it is a smaller federal government and the next it is more limited government……which shall it be?

Let us look at limited government……by definition our government is a limited form of government…..the real definition, not some tag line in a candidate’s debate performance or some PC slogan that misinforms the voting public…..in today’s political world it is the later….for not one of these people has any idea of what is meant by “limited government”.

Limited Government is a precept of constitutionalism. It states that a government’s power over its citizens has limitations. The governmental authority is prescribed, restricted, and limited by law or by the constitution. An individual’s rights and liberties are protected against governmental power even if that power is exercised in the name of a majority of people. In a limited government, there exist minimal governmental intervention in personal liberties and the economy.

The type of federalism that we have was the founders brain child and by the very definition it is a limited government….hence the three branches….that are employed to keep this government from over extending its reach and thus keeping the size of government contained…….

What all these yahoos are yelling about is SPENDING…not necessarily the size of government….although they try to equate spending with the size….I wish that were possible I would be a well hung political historian….

We cannot call a government limited if one part accuses another of intruding into the lives of the citizens while they are intruding into the lives of citizens……it is that simple.  One cannot oppose the government for imposing ….say health care and at the same time you propose to keep women from their personal decisions…..and then call yourself a warrior for a more limited government….sorry….. just not kosher.

The Ultimate Pragmatist!

College of Political Knowledge

Subject:  Political Theory

Recent events in Europe have made me think of some of the classes I took in college…..especially the rise of the Far Right political traditions and why they are becoming more popular than in the past.

First of all let us look at the definition of the term “Pragmatism”…..

1
: a practical approach to problems and affairs <tried to strike a balance between principles and pragmatism>
2
: an American movement in philosophy founded by C. S. Peirce and William James and marked by the doctrines that the meaning of conceptions is to be sought in their practical bearings, that the function of thought is to guide action, and that truth is preeminently to be tested by the practical consequences of belief
I will explain why I start with pragmatism in later part of this post…please bear with me…..
Okay, a pragmatist in politics is when a middle road, if you will, is pursued in an attempt to gain power and to find an acceptable path to an agenda.  In today’s world and with all the political correctness this would mean ‘bi-partisanship’.  But in today’s political world there is little middle of the road thinking…there is however extremes in the left/right paradigm.
There is one political theory that can truly be called the “Ultimate Pragmatism”.  Fascism!
Fascism’s outstanding traits is its eclecticism, the propensity of its numerous individual variants to accommodate or synthesize ideological components from a wide range of sources taken from any part of the left-right spectrum. Italian Fascism, for example, merged elements of right-wing politics (nationalism, imperialism, authoritarianism) with left-wing syndicalist claims of creating social justice and abolishing class conflict, and the cult of the Roman past with elements of the Futurist cult of hypermodernity. It also attracted a number of former Marxists in Italy and Germany, hosted left-wing and right-wing variants of corporatist theory, and accommodated currents of philosophical idealism and technocratic modernism; clerical Fascism and neopaganism; cultural racism (which treated patriotic Italian Jews as full members of the re-born Italy, although a more “biological” current eventually led to the adoption of anti-Semitic race laws); and the full spectrum of aesthetics from neoclassicism to futurism, from anti-cosmopolitan ruralism to international modernism. Even Nazism was far from homogeneous ideologically, embracing ruralist and technocratic visions of the new order, varying degrees of paganism and accommodation with Christianity, several varieties of racism, an anticapitalist (“Strasserite”) current, and even a strand of promodernist aesthetics. Fascism’s animus against communism and the degenerative impact of liberalism on the organic national community nevertheless makes it sensible to locate fascism within the tradition of right-wing politics rather than simply “beyond” left and right (as it sometimes claims to be).
There you have it….the Ultimate Pragmatist…….take from all brands of political theory and come up with one that gives the most power with the least amount of freedoms……I guess we could disguise Fascism with the term Populist…..but a rose by any other name………