There are limits to pragmatism

I’m a pragmatist, a believer in doing whatever works. I work with church musicians (and worked with school musicians) and I understand that given constraints of time and the ability of performers I may not reach what a piece of music should sound like. I know a performer needs to learn a particular skill but may not learn it in the time available and I may need an alternate solution. I rant about church rules that have no basis in reality, that are unworkable.

It is good to know Obama is a pragmatist too. However, there are voices who think he doesn't know the difference between pragmatism and spinelessness. We're getting the mushy middle on gay rights, on health care, and on financial reform.

So what's the difference? Pragmatism is backed up by idealism or a moral conviction. I know what a piece of music is supposed to sound like and I do all I can to reach that. However, I don't worry about which particular technique gets me there and I don't berate my performers if they're not quite up to the task. In other matters I'm more interested in the goal, getting as close to it as I can, rather than the particular route of getting there or being too upset if I can't get there this time out.

There are too many times we don't see the idealism or conviction behind what Obama does. To be fair to the big guy, many Dems in Congress are not showing any more conviction. Sheesh, the GOP is in a rout. The Dems are essentially the only game in town. Someone with conviction would seize the lack of credible opposition and advance progressive causes. Instead, the Dems risk being seen as a party without conviction, who want power, but haven't the slightest idea what to do with it.

That was the reason why I voted against George the First when he was up for a second term.

The chaos in Iran show that some things are worth sacrificing -- and maybe even dying -- for. You wouldn't know it from Obama.