In light of all the “Obama the pragmatist” talk, Chris Hayes offers a few words for ideology:

But privileging pragmatism over ideology, while perhaps understandable in the wake of the Bush years, misses the point. For one thing, as Glenn Greenwald has astutely pointed out on his blog, while ideology can lead decision-makers to ignore facts, it is also what sets the limiting conditions for any pragmatic calculation of interests. “Presumably, there are instances where a proposed war might be very pragmatically beneficial in promoting our national self-interest,” Greenwald wrote, “but is still something that we ought not to do. Why? Because as a matter of principle–of ideology–we believe that it is not just to do it, no matter how many benefits we might reap, no matter how much it might advance our ‘national self-interest.’”

Indeed, in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, “pragmatists” of all stripes–Alan Dershowitz, Richard Posner–lined up to offer tips and strategies on how best to implement a practical and effective torture regime; but ideologues said no torture, no exceptions. Same goes for the Iraq War, which many “pragmatic” lawmakers–Hillary Clinton, Arlen Specter–voted for and which ideologues across the political spectrum, from Ron Paul to Bernie Sanders, opposed. Of course, by any reckoning, the war didn’t work. That is, it failed to be a practical, nonideological improvement to the nation’s security. This, despite the fact that so many willed themselves to believe that the benefits would clearly outweigh the costs. Principle is often pragmatism’s guardian. Particularly at times of crisis, when a polity succumbs to collective madness or delusion, it is only the obstinate ideologues who refuse to go along. Expediency may be a virtue in virtuous times, but it’s a vice in vicious ones.

There’s another problem with the fetishization of the pragmatic, which is the brute fact that, at some level, ideology is inescapable. Obama may have told Steve Kroft that he’s solely interested in “what works,” but what constitutes “working” is not self-evident and, indeed, is impossible to detach from some worldview and set of principles. Alan Greenspan, of all people, made this point deftly while testifying before Henry Waxman’s House Oversight Committee. Waxman asked Greenspan, “Do you feel that your ideology pushed you to make decisions that you wish you had not made?” To which Greenspan responded, “Well, remember that what an ideology is, is a conceptual framework with the way people deal with reality. Everyone has one. You have to–to exist, you need an ideology. The question is whether it is accurate or not.”

Chris goes on to suggest that Obama may be a pragmatist in a more salutary and philosophical sense: that of 20th century American pragmatism as represented by thinkers like John Dewey.

I might use slightly different terminology, but I think the critique of “vulgar” pragmatism is right on the money here. Deciding “what works” requires establishing, first off, what it is you’re trying to accomplish. And this is always a matter of ends, or, in other words, what you value. Being “pragmatic” in this sense is choosing the most efficient means to your chosen ends, but the ends themselves have to be arrived at on some other ground than pragmatism.

Beyond that, though, there’s the question of what constraints–if any–there ought to be on the means we choose to pursue our ends. For instance, just war theory is both about ends (the goods to be pursued by duly constituted civil authority) and the permissible means (e.g., restrictions on what may permissibly be done during war, such as targeting civilians). Ideology, in the non-pejorative sense, can simply refer to the articulation of our fundamental commitments, both to the goods we seek and the means that are permissible in pursuing them. Ideology in the bad sense makes people unwilling or unable to re-think their presuppositions in the light of new evidence, but recognizing this pitfall doesn’t eliminate the need for bedrock value commitments.