To Heck With 'Authentic,' America Needs 'Pragmatic'
If I see one more article about 'authenticity' and the presidential election, I am going to scream.
But lately, "authenticity' is all we ever hear about the current crop of presidential candidates. Some people say Hillary Clinton is not authentic enough. Some say Barack Obama is authentic. Mike Huckabee says he's authentic. John Edward's says he's authentic, too. Other people say Giuliani is authentic, while some say Thompson is authentic. Lots of people say McCain is authentic.
Forget 'Authenticity,' Americans Should Demand Pragmatism
Want to know what I say? To heck with authentic! Americans don't need another 'authentic' president or another political debate obsessed with 'authenticity.' For the past two terms this country has been hoodwinked by a snake-oil salesman who passed himself off as 'authentic,' and distracted by a media obsessed with it. What we need -- and what voters and the media should be buzzing about incessantly -- is which candidate is the most pragmatic.
To put it bluntly: either the next president of the United States ushers in a new era of progressive pragmatism or we are all doomed.
Out with authenticity! In with pragmatism! That should be the battle cry of a nation yearning to breathe free of way too many elections dominated by false concerns with authenticity.
Think about it. What does it even mean for a presidential candidate to be 'authentic'? Does it mean we really believe that the person we see on stage, repeating lines that they have practiced for months, with make up on their faces, in staged photo ops, saying words developed by teams of campaign specialists -- that person is really real, the real McCoy, the actual person that we see.
Of course not. If it's authenticity you crave, go to a museum. You won't find it anytime soon on the White House campaign trail.
George W. Bush is a classic example of how useless the 'authenticity' test is in presidential campaign politics. America has never had a more duplicitous, lying, law-breaking, Constitution-undermining, Geneva-Convention-subverting all around dishonest president ever. And he has been elected twice on the carefully constructed sales pitch that he was 'authentic.' If authenticity had any meaning at all prior to George W. Bush's presidency, Karl Rove took care of the rest in two deceitful and divisive campaigns.
'Authenticity' Is a Smokescreen
Under the smokescreen of 'authenticity,' Bush has turned the idea of what is really real in American politics upside down. Bush speaks in a manufactured 'authentic' voice intended to mimic the cadence and diction of Middle America, but then passes policies that turn people who actually do speak that way into military corpses and bankrupt families. "I speak just like you," he's said for seven years running. "So, give me your money and go die in my war."
Authenticity is nonsense and, in an age dominated by the policies of George W. Bush, it has become dangerous nonsense.
Give all this, it is high time for Americans to dump 'authenticity' as the test for choosing a president and embrace a much better test: pragmatism.
Want to shake up the race for the White House? Try saying this to the next person who tells you that this or that candidate doesn't seem 'authentic' to them:
"Authentic? Who cares! This country has been obsessed with authenticity for too long already. What I want to know is which candidate is the most pragmatic? That's the one I'm supporting!"
'Pragmatism' is actually a time-honored American idea that reconnects us with a long-lost period of American history. It connects us up to great American thinkers, including Charles Pierce, William James, and John Dewey. In the U.S. Presidential election, pragmatism boils down to this very basic question:
In real terms, how will life for all Americans improve as a result of you being elected President?
According to the logic of 'authenticity,' George W. Bush promised that his presidency would bring a new era of civility, fiscal responsibility, and cautiousness in foreign policy. But in real terms, how have are Americans different as a result of George W. Bush being elected President?
In real terms -- not 'authenticity' gibberish -- George W. Bush as president has left all Americans afraid in three distinct ways.
We are afraid of terrorism.
We are afraid of getting sick.
We are afraid of becoming poor.
Some of us are unfortunate enough to be burdened constantly by all three of those fears, but all Americans have been impacted by at least one -- the pragmatic consequence of George W. Bush as president. We can say that Al Qaeda contributed to the first fear, but the second two are all Bush.
A New Era of Pragmatism
But what about the new crop of candidates? Forget for a minute (or forever) which one of them is the most 'authentic' and ask ask the pragmatic question instead:
In real terms, how will life for all Americans improve as a result of [INSERT NAME OF CANDIDATE] being elected president?
Ah hah! That is the conversation Americans want to have. Forget who is authentic and who is not. We need pragmatism.
What problems will you solve such that the life of every American will be changed for the better? Tell me how.
What economic initiatives will you promote such that the life every American will be different? Tell me how.
What foreign policy initiatives will you launch such that every American will be effected? Tell me how.
What environmental solutions will you advance, such that every American will be impacted? Tell me how.
After eight years as president, how will the life of every American be better than it is today -- specifically?
My goodness! What a ride it will be from now until November 2008 if the presidential election is dominated by pragmatic questions that usher in a new era of American progressive pragmatism -- a new age of actually working on solutions that achieve America's future in a way that makes it better than the past -- for everyone.
Authenticity is so last year, so George W., so not helpful.
To heck with 'authentic.' What America really needs -- what America has always needed -- is pragmatism.
Cross posted from Frameshop.
Follow Jeffrey Feldman on Twitter: www.twitter.com/JeffreyFeldman
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
I want the pragmatic pragmatist not the authentic pragmatist.
Drink the MSM KoolAide folks....I know it tastes good. I used to drink it.
Blue Dog Democrat for Ron Paul. A return to representative government.
Agreed. I frankly don't care if the Democratic nominee has an Imelda Marcos-sized closet full of skeletons, or has a winning personality, or talks the good talk--if he or she can't win and can't govern. Almost nothing the media talks about really matters, and almost all of it favors the Republicans (soft on substance--big on emotional appeal).
Vote your conscience in the primary. But in the general election, don't whine that the candidate isn't your preferred messiah figure who will end poverty and war and big money corruption. Naderheads and anti-establishment idealists who refuse to vote because the candidate doesn't pass their purity tests are working for the Republicans. You gave us G.W. Bush and I'll be damned if you give us Rudy too.
Someone who remembers the Bill of Rights and the Constitution who is willing to tell the truth about what we have to do to take our country back from the slime heads we have now would be wonderful but..... all of the cndidates seem less on truth and honest and true love of country than I, I, I and I. The win, win , win is why the republicans are willing to do all and give all to win over standing apart from bush and the mania he has for war and destruction. If we have republicans will to stand apart and vore with the morals and ideals of those who elected them would find they would be breathing cleaner air and doing what they were sent to congress for. I have talked to republicans who think like I do so as a democrat if i can find people who think as I do they exist and if the people who elected these republicans who will not, by their own choice, walk from the path bush has set us upon then they will be as guilty as I hold bush to for sending our soldiers to war based on lies for the gain of a few cooperations when the soldiers bleed and die he only smirks and refers to World War III. If I were republican I would be ashamed of them.
There was once some American politician, now deceased, who said: "I'd rather be right than President.
Democrats--sorry, folks!--often seem like they should be wearing hats and T-shirts that read: I'D RATHER BE RIGHT THAN ELECT A PRESIDENT.
Ralph Nader can get the first set.
I love this post, but I'm not sure how pragmatic and/or different it is from current practice.
How, exactly, do citizens evaluate the "pragmatic" representations of candidates
Every issue of importance is massively complex, which is why the vast majority of those who seek to make decisions about candidates based on their actual proposals depend on analytical surrogates to decide for them, or at least to present their evaluations.
These surrogates range from the AARP to any union you'd like to name, to... you get the idea.
The analytical rabbit hole awaits anyone trying to do this in their own... madness awaits.
Which is why "authenticity" has, quite scarily, become more important and why it will remain so.
In selecting a candidate, we are more than anything else selecting an ultimate arbiter of pragmatism
"Authenticity" is therefore a medium of trust, which is the most that any citizen can hope for... that their candidate can be trusted to do the right pragmatic things for the country and for us individually.
Of course, authenticity got Germany Hitler... but so did the cold-blooded analysis of those who had the capacity and resources to make dispassionate judgments.
On paper, Hoover may have been a more pragmatic choice for President than FDR.
Go figure.
Thanks for some truth. This isn't a casting call, or a dating service.
Question 1) why should I vote for YOU
Question 2) why should I VOTE.
Well, I guess it all boils down to would you rather have a beer with an "authentic" candidate or a "pragmatic" one? Who's more fun to be with?
We could be suspicious that this a disguised endorsement of Hillary Clinton as it sounds like the kind of garbage that comes out of the DLC. You think she is too hawkish, Bush like or in the pockets of lobbyists? No she is just pragmatic.
$4.3Millio
1200 meetup groups
exponential growth in support
much more spent by supporters outside of campaign donations
candidate has simple solutions to complex problems. they will take time, but will benefit all.
blue dog democrat for ron paul!
www.ronpau
What the hell is authentic. Like the Marlboro man. I heard he was a gay model who lived in New York's upper east side, the meat packing district. Authentic got us the chimp. Anyone who has ever lived in the country has met W. There everywhere. Nice enough people I guess, but President? Not a chance. Maybe sheriff. Or dog catcher. Maytag repairman.
Acting tough and the wisdom of fear.
If you are not troubled by Hillary’s reaction to the unveiling of her double nature then you are diluting yourself.
Ok! We would all like to vote for Obama but are scared of BIG Daddy republican.
But there are other alternatives, don’t be fooled in to false choice. Edward is a good choice if your conscience can allow you to vote for Hillary and your republican fear cannot allow you to vote for Obama. Are we an alternative to them if we are so frighten by their behaviour that we rather vote for someone like them instead of someone who champion our ideal.
We tried to vote for the tough idiot who thinks and acts like Binladin what did it get us.
If we are going to loose which we will if we vote for Hillary, lets loose being who we are instead of out-hawking the hawks. Just as Hillary cannot be more black then Obama even if she (patronisingly) tries to muddle here grammar in front of black audience (massage Ebonics is OK). We cannot be an alternative we are the other-republican party. It is not a democracy if you are afraid to stand for your ideals for fear of loosing votes.
Please stop settling for what the cynics say that we have to settle to win, because, her name only would galvanize the republicans that she so desperately emulates.
Mark my words Hillary will starts wars she will not end them, this is a little girl acting tough.
And the people who act what they are not tend to exaggerate their performance
Thank you Mr. Feldman!
Now I know that I am backing the right candidate,
And it most certainly ISN'T Hillary.
OUT with flight suits and slogans.
IN with thinking.
All for it.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
