Political Scientists like to think they are real scientists. Sometimes, they even are. Most times, they are analysts. But since the field has science in the name, they try very, very hard to be a sciency as possible.

The results can be fairly comical.

Scientist or analyst, they still need frameworks to work from. America has 330 million people and 22,000 plus governments. Making sense of that without some kind of framework is impossible. The world has 195 countries, not counting pesky ones like Taiwan and it’s anyone’s guess how many functioning governments in that total. America is probably the over achiever but it’s going to be in the tens of thousands at a bare minimum. Sorting that out without some idea of how to do the sorting is absurd.

Luckily, we have just the thing. They’re called ‘political theories’ and they come about a dime a dozen. You know some of them already like democracy and communism but for the truly hyper over complicated systems we have big, overarching and usually wrong theories like realpolitik, authoritarianism and utilitarianism.

Realpolitik stands out largely because it’s one of the rare terms not so frequently recycled as to require definition every time it’s used. That’s why those other sound familiar and you’re wondering if they are theories or categories. It’s both. Welcome to Poli Sci.

To be fair, I’m using the broadest terms and that mostly because I’m too lazy to start defining a bunch of theory terms when I’m only talking about one today. And I’m dumping them altogether indiscriminately – some describe systems others philosophies – anywho, moving right along.

Realpolitik has two main thrusts. First, the idea that we should look at the world as realistically as possible. The second is that we should deal with the world in as realistically as possible. Sounds sensible enough, right? Ah, but as always, the devil is in the details.

Looking at the world as realistically as possible is a good idea. Humans being human we will mess that up because we have nasty tendency to define reality in terms of our beliefs rather than whatever we see objectively. So it’s more a guidance than an actual way to view the world, but still a good basic idea. You can’t fix what you don’t see clearly. Working to see as clearly as possible is a good practice.

Then we get to the bit about dealing with the world ‘realistically’. This inevitably translates into ‘pragmatically’. What’s wrong with pragmatism, you ask? Nothing in and of itself but everything when pragmatism gets substituted for principle. It’s always more pragmatic to use the short term solution or the easy out than it is to tangle with the hard stuff like clashes of principle. Problem is, all you’ve accomplished is to kick the can down the road.

We see this in the current Ukraine War. Russia invaded Ukrainian territory in 2014. Europe, especially Germany, found it more pragmatic to just slap Russia on the wrist and tell Ukraine to deal with it. Eight years later, Germany is dealing with it in a MUCH more painful way than it would have had to in 2014 if it had been more principled and less pragmatic.

But, but, if we cling blindly to principle the world will destroy itself, you say?

Haven’t I told you not to watch CNN after midnight? It gives you brain cramps.

Okay, jokes aside, principle isn’t the problem; dogmatic, unreasoning adherence is. This problem occurs in anything that we grant authority to: religion, sure, but also science, philosophy, idealism, pragmaticism, demagoguery, democracy, republicanism and loving puppies. It’s not the concept or thing that is the problem; it’s when we stick with it no matter how stupid it gets that it becomes a problem.

This is why ‘science’ has been telling us for five decades that eggs are bad; no, good. No, bad. No, good. Over and over again, the science appears to change. Human biochemistry didn’t change. Understanding doesn’t ‘evolve’ – it’s just a bunch of paid hacks and stupidly bad studies being bandied about for business and political reasons. This is obvious but we keep right on changing our diet with each shift of the political winds. This is unreasoning adherence, in this case to science.

The universe is comprised of invisible fairies with invisible batteries. Sounds silly, sure, but it’s not substantively different from the universe being made up of matter and energy that cannot be seen or directly detected, aka ‘dark matter/energy’. Here the media pokes its nose under the tent again, as it did with eggs. There’s some rational science under that nonsense but because it is couched as science and science is She Who Must Be Believed, most people don’t question the obviously irrational statements.

No, quantum mechanics doesn’t prove the counterpoint. That stupid cat is trying to point out a problem with a school of thought in quantum by refusing to be either dead or alive until someone peeks. It is not trying to get reasonable people to blindly accept the irrational – or wasn’t until politics within science got involved.

Some of it is just bad logic masquerading as science. Some is perfectly rational science taken out of context. Those aren’t the problems we’re looking at right now. The real problem is the blind acceptance because someone used the word ‘science’.

Substitute ‘democrat’, ‘conservative’, ‘liberal’ or any other label you can think of that people tend to hold allegiance to or belief in – the same problem appears. Yes, I left out religion not because it doesn’t have the problem but because we tend to use that particular ideology as an excuse to not see our own blind adherence.

See, I told you that ‘seeing clearly’ thing comes in handy.

But seeing the world only through one lens, even if clearly, is just as bad. The pragmaticism over principle of realpolitik has this effect. Our policy towards China has been made through pragmatically rose tinted glasses for over thirty years. This is just now coming home to roost and no one is going to enjoy the view.

It’s the all or nothing, one size fits all, my way or the highway, I’m not listening, lalalalala refusal to use the best tool rather than just the favorite tool. For realpolitik, the favorite tool is pragmaticism.

We political scientists forget why we have so many theories. It’s because there isn’t a one size fits all. There isn’t even a one size fits most. If all we ever use is one tool, we can’t expect to get more than one result.

What if we used both? Can pragmaticism be principled? Can principle be pragmatic? And if so, do we compromise them so badly that they become neither?

What if we use principle as the guide it is supposed to be and pragmaticism as the tactical problem solver it is best at? Don’t do evil for short term gain. Don’t let principle slide when it is inconvenient. Don’t idolize principle to the point that it ceases to be rational. Don’t forego pragmaticism for unreachable principle.

Sound contradictory? It is if you view pragmaticism and principle as absolutes. But they aren’t contradictory when we recognize that while some principles are absolute (it’s wrong to murder, period) many are guideposts to help us navigate through the confusion of life and politics. Think about it this way – if you have to make a half turn to the right, can you do it without knowing right from left? Of course not – you’d just be guessing.

Knowing right from wrong – holding onto good principles – helps us figure out the stuff that isn’t as clear cut.

But, that’s complicated!

Yeppers. But it’s a lot more complicated to straighten out messes made by pragmatically – and dogmatically – kicking cans down the road until we run out of road.

Maybe picking up the can and putting it away in the first place isn’t such a bad plan. Principle and pragmaticism can be good partners.