Dogmatism vs Pragmatism

Scott Sumner, who is quickly becoming one of my favorite modern thinkers, offers some thoughts and insights on comments made by the BB&T Chairman and dogmatic libertarian John Allison.

I consider myself a dogmatic libertarian with the strong desire to become a pragmatic libertarian. I think it is near impossible to identify one's personal value system and philosophy as pragmatic without first being dogmatic. Let me explain.

By dogmatic, I mean one feels very passionate about what they believe in yet allows that emotion to significently determine their argument. In addition, their exposure to the true depth of the philosophy they are attempting to defend is shallow. Consequently, they have an argument heavy on emotion and light on intellectual depth.

The pragmatic thinker tips the scale. He is heavy on understanding and possesses a deep understanding of his argument, but is able to keep his emotions in check and make the appropriate, practical concessions to his opponent and his environment.

If one were to look at it in terms of Atlas Shrugged, the dogmatic libertarian would only be able to defend the work (and most likely not particularily well), whereas the pragmatic libertarian could both defend and critique it.

I think this view applies to both liberals and libertarians, but not conservatives, as I find much of their thinking contradictory and convoluted.