from his remarks today introducing his national security team:
To succeed, we must pursue a new strategy that skillfully using, balances, and integrates all elements of American power, our military, and diplomacy, our intelligence and law enforcement, our economy and the power of our moral example. The team that we've assembled here today is uniquely suited to do just that.
In their past service and plans for the future, these men and women represent all of the those elements of American power and the very best of the American example. They've served in you uniform and as diplomats. They have worked as legislators, law enforcement officials, and executives. They share my pragmatism about the use of power and my sense of purpose about America's role as a leader in the world.
It's really not clear whether Mr. Obama's 'pragmatism' is the best representation of that term. If it's true, as defenders of the make-up of his national security picks insist, that Mr. Obama will stand firmly on the left of where his decidedly centrist choices stand, then he's just contradicted that notion with his presentation today.
Mr. Obama has declared that his nominees 'share' his pragmatism, meaning that he believes that the mushy middle is 'pragmatic.' But, there isn't really a definition of pragmatism which defines where that 'center' actually sits.
Obviously Mr. Obama feels that the moderate tone he has adopted since the more populist rhetoric of the campaign is 'pragmatic.' But, he's not bothered to present any progressive voices with the same pragmatic embrace that he has these centrists in his transition.
It is true that pragmatism is an attempt to reconcile ideological arguments into a reasonable compromise, but it's also true that many progressive views and approaches toward issues and governing can also be 'pragmatic' in their execution and result. It's just a convenience, which is generated by the choices Mr. Obama has made to represent and advise him so far, that he's able to assert that these choices represent some pragmatism.
It's also true that the progressive voices who have been shunned by his transition are being marginalized in his administration into a category which suggests their approach may be unreasonable or extreme. Marginalizing independent progressive voices and presenting his centrist choices as 'pragmatic' is not an approach I expect or understand from the new president.
If he is to provide the dominant progressive voice in his administration as supporters of his actions in this transition suggest and produce the pragmatism he promises, he'll need to define himself outside this inner circle of centrists and moderates. The best way to do that would be to bring some dominant progressive voices into his administration and present them with the same definition of their approach as 'pragmatic' that he's now associating with just one side of the ideological divide in our party (and elsewhere).