The Higher Pragmatism

The contest for the Democratic presidential nomination seems, at last, to have come down to the issue of pragmatism.

The party’s political establishment, bolstered by the mainstream media and the political science crowd – all keepers of the status quo’s flickering flame – want us all to understand that Washington’s a tough town.  You can’t get much done, and that little, tiny bit can only be accomplished by dealing with the powers-that-be.

By compromise.

Which is all true, except this.

Sometimes, revolution comes.

Sometimes, people get fed up and demand change in terms that cannot be ignored.

Sometimes...

As I recall, that’s how this country got started.

As I recall, that’s how an all-male American political system was persuaded to extend the franchise to women.  And how a white-dominated political system was persuaded to pass the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act.

As I recall, that’s how India broke free of British colonial rule.  And how the Berlin Wall fell.

Of course, revolutions don’t always work.  The French Revolution turned into The Terror, and then into the Napoleonic Empire.

The Revolutions of 1848 turned into repression in Germany and the Hapsburg empire, though the resulting wave of educated, progressive-minded emigrants did wonders for the United States (and probably enabled the Union to win the Civil War).

The Bolshevik Revolution degenerated into Stalinism, and Mao’s Revolution morphed into the Cultural Revolution.

The Arab Spring turned into repression in Egypt, chaos in Libya, and a Hobbesian struggle in Syria.

Still, these revolutions happened.   Establishments every bit as corrupt and powerful as the corporate-controlled politics of 21^st century America have been challenged, and sometimes, overthrown.

It’s all a question of how fed up people are – whether and when they’re sufficiently fed up to reject further compromise.

In our own country, a major political party – the Whig Party – was shattered by the force of citizens who would no longer accept its inability to take a firm stand against the expansion of slavery.  A two-party system was broken, and an entirely new party, the Republicans, moved from third-party status to the White House in six years.

And gave us Lincoln.

And – perhaps the most heartening example of all – the Progressive movement took control of both the Democratic and Republican parties, when the people grew sufficiently frustrated with corruption and corporate control of politics.  That was a little over a century ago, right here in the USA.

Revolution can happen.  If things go wrong, for long enough, it’s almost certain to happen.

When a society goes off the rails – when it simply stops working – revolution is often the only alternative to decline, decay and dissolution.

But revolution can only happen when enough people say, in effect, “Compromise isn’t enough.  We keep compromising, and losing ground.  The system, itself, has to change.”

Revolutions happen when people realize that the “pragmatism” of playing within the rules just doesn’t work any longer.  When they demand that the rules themselves be changed.

Which, when you think about it, is another kind of pragmatism.

A higher pragmatism.

I can’t speak for anyone but myself, but I know a thing or two.  I grew up in politics, and spent many years of my life in the “real world” of America's two-party Establishment.

And I’ve taught and/or studied history for more than forty years.

Speaking as one American, I think it’s time for a revolution.  That’s why I’ve finally decided to stop voting candidates of both major parties. 

No more "lesser of two evils" for me.  

I’m ready to start building a third party, anytime anyone wants to get to work on it.

In the meanwhile, I’m voting for Bernie Sanders – and sending him a little money, every now and then.  Because Bernie isn’t really a Democrat.  Bernie's a change agent, a revolutionary.

Bernie stands for the sort of revolution we need, to take this country back from the super-rich, the corporations, and their minions.

I support Bernie.  I'll vote for him.  I really hope he wins.

But I won't vote for Hillary Clinton, no matter whom the Republicans nominate.

Hillary’s a smart, capable, experienced woman.  In normal times, I’d be delighted to see her in the Oval Office.

But Hillary is not for revolution.  She celebrates her competence at working within the Establishment.  That's the main premise of her candidacy - her ability to work within the system.  Ultimately, she’s happy with the way things are.  She's at home there.

She just wants a promotion.

Ultimately, for all her many good qualities, Hillary is part of the problem.

Which is why, if she’s nominated, I won’t vote for her.  I’d rather vote for some obscure, third-party candidate than continue to lend my voice to the Establishment - and the two-party duopoly which works for that Establishment.

And I won't be "wasting" my vote.  The only waste would be to vote, yet again, for the way things are.

Revolutions demand a higher pragmatism.

Things won’t change until we stand up and demand it.

This is me, standing up.