This year one of the most searched for words on the Merriam-Webster Dictionary website was "pragmatic." It was number two on the top ten list and the President and Publisher of Merriam-Webster, John M. Morse, suggests, "The popularity of pragmatic is reminiscent of 2005, when integrity was the most frequently looked-up word. In both cases, I think the word described a quality that people value highly...

::::::::

Robert Gibbs frequently advances messages celebrating pragmatism in politics, which implicitly or explicitly roast progressive activism and politics.

This year one of the most searched for words on the Merriam-Webster Dictionary website was "pragmatic." It was number two on the top ten list and the President and Publisher of Merriam-Webster, John M. Morse, suggests, "The popularity of pragmatic is reminiscent of 2005, when integrity was the most frequently looked-up word. In both cases, I think the word described a quality that people value highly, want to understand fully, and are looking for in their leaders."

The Merriam Webster definitions of "pragmatic" are: archaic or busy, officious and opinionated; relating to matters of fact or practical affairs often to the exclusion of intellectual or artistic matters, practical as opposed to idealistic; relating to or being in accordance wit philosophical pragmatism.

An example found in the dictionary is the following, "His pragmatic view of public education comes from years of working in city schools." Thus a "pragmatic" person is suggested to know from experience what should be done and not done.

Since Obama first stepped into the White House, pragmatic or practical has been an adjective used to describe his presidency. An editorial published by The Oklahoman encapsulates how many Americans expected Obama to govern:

Since his election in November, Barack Obama has indicated his presidency will be pragmatic and practical, searching for things that work and eliminating those that don't. His administration will not spend time rehashing the proper size of government, as has been good sport in Washington for nearly three decades.

President Obama repeated the theme during his inaugural address Tuesday, challenging Americans to support his quest for new dialogues, new processes -- yes, new politics -- as the country tackles serious economic problems while standing guard against threats that occupied his predecessor.

It was a sound, if not scintillating, speech -- consistent with the Obama precedent for good speechifying. It properly touched on the country's problems, vowed strong leadership in meeting them and sought to assure Americans that their common destiny remains shapeable by devotion, hard work and good will"

Obama's pragmatic presidency has pushed through a Credit Card Bill of Rights, a health reform bill, a finance reform bill, an expansion of Medicaid, additional funding to the Veterans Administration, stepped up regulation of student loans and eliminated some private lender subsidies, withdrawn some combat brigades from Iraq, expanded hate crime law, passed an economic stimulus, extended benefits to same-sex partners employed by the federal government, passed a tax cut deal with temporary unemployment benefits attached and now repealed "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."

His "pragmatism" has also led to a record amount of deportations of undocumented immigrants, continued renditions of terror suspects to countries where they could be tortured, opposition to marriage equality through appeals to challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act, a blocking of the release of photos documenting torture and abuse of detainees by the U.S. military, a continuation of the practice of indefinite detention for terror suspects, increased government secrecy with more blocked Freedom of Information Act requests in 2009 than Bush in 2008, a secret deal to kill the public option (while simultaneously campaigning on its behalf), the granting of waivers to companies like McDonald's so they could be exempt from health reform, the invocation of "state secrets" to protect former Bush Administration officials from criminal prosecution, the censorship of reporters covering military tribunals at Guantanamo, an increase in drone strikes in Pakistan (which has resulted in hundreds of civilian casualties), an escalation of the Afghanistan war, a permanent troop presence in Iraq, more contracts for mercenary contractors like Blackwater, and a tax cut deal that renews the Bush tax cuts and largely favors the rich by lowering their taxes (it even includes a tiny raise in taxes for those Americans at the bottom of the income scale).

Most recently, his pragmatic presidency produced a cave-in by the FCC to telecommunications companies on net neutrality. New rules that passed are riddled with loopholes that put the notion of an open, free and fair Internet at risk.

There is nothing wrong with being pragmatic, but pragmatic politics is relative. Unless the interests of citizens are the same as those in government, the pragmatic politics of citizens should be different from the pragmatic politics of people in government. For if one agrees pragmatism comes from experience and is empirical--something to be drawn from observation and reason, then pragmatism those in power talk about should always be different from the pragmatism citizens seek to adopt.

Consider the following --

White House pragmatism has meant wars continue. It has meant wealth continues to be funneled to corporations or the top 2% in America. It has meant more secrecy in government. It has meant more ignorance of the coming devastation that the Earth will incur as a result of global warming. It has meant more economic globalization that utilizes neoliberal and centrist ideas. And, all along the way, it has been those opposed to the concentration of wealth in the hands of the few, the ballooning of a surveillance state in America, the welfare the military industrial-complex enjoys, the wars which brutally maim and kill innocent civilians in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and other countries, etc, who must give it up, be "adults", learn how government works, and compromise.

Pragmatism from those at the top has been a cover for further delegitimizing liberal or progressive politica in America. It has been a cover for turning the Democratic Party into a more "business-friendly" party. It has been a way of further debasing the idea of social justice in American society and culture.

When faced with a Tea Party making echoes in the media, citizens have noted how members are hell-bent on dismantling social programs. They have noted how the Tea Party seems to be working for free market advocacy organizations like FreedomWorks or the American Enterprise Institute. Many have found it pragmatic to speak out and oppose the Tea Party. On the other hand, the White House has time and time again noted the Tea Party echo and sought to stifle the echo by acknowledging the legitimacy of the Tea Party's complaints about government programs and the size of government.

The Obama Administration has found it pragmatic to continue and escalate a war in Afghanistan that even the establishment think tank, the Council on Foreign Relations, can barely bring itself to support. Citizens are finding it less and less pragmatic to fight the war in Afghanistan. According to a recent Washington Post-ABC News poll, six in ten Americans are now dissatisfied and think the war is "not worth fighting." The public did not reach this conclusion because it is largely opposed to U.S. wars, but it has followed the policy of the Obama Administration and is figuring out that agenda items that should be advanced are not possible so long as war continues to rage on in Afghanistan.

Citizens are overwhelmingly against the grotesque escalation of security by the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), which treats all Americans like criminals and forces them to submit to an unreasonable search or seizure, a violation of the Fourth Amendment. They are waking up to the reality that all this equipment is being purchased in the name of fighting terrorism, but it is not the pragmatic answer to fighting terrorism. Recognizing that passengers have saved airplanes from full-blown terrorist attacks more than TSA has since 2001 gets society closer to a pragmatic solution. Of course, TSA Administrator John Pistole and Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano want nothing to do with real pragmatism; they want security policies that can create opportunities for corporations to profit because that's what contractors have been lobbying government for.

Progressive citizens who are pragmatic cannot appear pragmatic to those who work in the White House. They will always seem "childish" or "petulant" or "sanctimonious. That is because those in the White House have forgotten what it was like to be on the outside. They have become a prisoner of Beltway politics. They do not remember how lower and middle class Americans are scrambling between two and three jobs each day to get enough money to pay some bills that they cannot fully pay off without the use of credit cards.

They have chosen to ignore the burden of war that young and poor Americans are carrying because they wanted the American Dream and joined a war in Afghanistan or Iraq to get one step closer. They have insulated themselves from the idea that freedoms and liberties must be preserved, that the notion of human rights deserves any consideration.

What citizens know is that historically, Americans have pragmatically watched as Americans revolted against the British, they've watched as slaves and abolitionists rose up to oppose slavery, they've watched as women took a stand for equality and the right to vote, they've watched as African-Americans fought Jim Crow laws and earned civil rights through boycotts and marches--acts of civil resistance. They've watched as workers of America challenged power and won collective bargaining, an 8-hour workday, a weekend, and other social victories that society has collectively benefited from since they fought and won in the early 1900s.(Some pragmatic watchers have even stepped over the line and participated in these movements, which won key victories.)

Citizens can never know if power will buckle when met with challenge. And, doubting the capacity of citizens to influence society and trends in political culture virtually ensures defeat. Without confidence, it is foolish to think courage and fortitude will not be abandoned, that compromise will not come before it is time to compromise.

There is nothing inherently wrong with pragmatism. So long as one is not doctrinaire when pushing pragmatic solutions, those solutions will have some level of benefit. But, anyone who thinks he or she is a pragmatist should understand what a poor man finds pragmatic will be different than what an affluent Democrat or Republican in the White House finds pragmatic because a poor man's experiences are far different from the experiences of someone who is now leading a life of privilege.

Authors Bio:
Kevin Gosztola is managing editor of Shadowproof Press. He also produces and co-hosts the weekly podcast, "Unauthorized Disclosure." He was an editor for OpEdNews.com