Craig Berry, Eunice Goes and Karl Pike
A looming general election inevitably invites reflection on what might, in real-world politics, be ‘doable’. What policy offers will prove popular with the electorate? What can actually be achieved in government? But such questions, and many more, are an ever-present feature of social democratic praxis, which emerged from dialogue within the socialist tradition around how the doing should be done. The Labour Party’s poll lead might suggest that a few correct answers have been found – but there is more than a little soul-searching left to do if this advantage is to be translated by social democrats into a genuinely transformative moment.
Social democracy is an inherently pragmatic creed. But this is a far less straightforward statement, and a more meaningful one, than it might first appear. There is a thin version of social democratic pragmatism, aligned with everyday use of the word, that valorises the pursuit of limited political aims, due to recognition that significant change will always be resisted by forces of the status quo, and indeed may risk making things worse for the worst off in the short term. Accordingly, for some observers and participants of politics, ‘pragmatic’ is a word associated with negative political practice: one too often willing to concede an argument. For others, ‘pragmatic’ is the go-to strategy for avoiding ‘ideology’, confusing the latter with dogma. In the British Labour Party’s case, like with so many things, ‘pragmatic’ is a factionalised term.
Yet it need not be. There is also a richer version of social democratic ‘pragmatism’, aligned with a broader philosophical tradition. Pragmatism requires no compromise on values and aims, only a recognition that the path to achieving them is context- and knowledge-specific. Pragmatists are not anti-theory or anti-ideology, but rather acutely conscious that the circumstances that give rise to the generation of theory are constantly evolving. Theory may drive ambition, but its reification can also jeopardise our ambitions if it insists upon inappropriate means of pursuing them.
This intellectual terrain is explored in Karl Pike’s conversation with the philosopher Elizabeth Anderson. Social democrats have always recognised the flaws and failures of institutional shibboleths within the socialist tradition, from utopian communes to the command economy, as well as the acquiescence to private governance within ‘market socialism’. For Anderson, pragmatism is an appropriate philosophical partner to social democracy.[i]
Pragmatism has always been – and will always be – encoded in the political agency of the labour movement: how it organises itself, how it pursues formal political power, and how it governs when it gets the chance. But there is no singular pragmatic approach to any particular objective, or response to any particular challenge.
At the heart of pragmatism’s appeal, surely, is its utility. But a shallow pragmatism that, at worst, enables entry into and influence within the labour movement for a politics not motivated by social democratic aims, and, at best, undermines the movement’s cohesion by jeopardising the political identities upon which organisation depends – and therefore its ability to win power and use it effectively – is closer to abandonment than affirmation of pragmatism’s core imperatives.
If this sounds like a critique of a narrow Labour politics associated with some on the right of the Labour Party, that’s because it is. Equally, however, some on the Labour left have been guilty of misappropriating pragmatism too. Simply insisting that risky and radical policy solutions are actually sensible and moderate, insofar as they are proportionate to the scale of the crises Britain faces, does not – even if ostensibly true – guarantee they are realisable without serious consideration of the social, political and economic contexts in which they might be realised.
On starting from where we are
In her new book, Hijacked, Anderson advocates ‘patient democratic experimentation’ to arrive at lasting, effective policies that – for all of us – can deliver social democratic outcomes, that is, equality, democracy and solidarity.[ii] Pragmatism is not about solving problems in any simplistic sense; it is about starting from where we are, even if we do not quite know where we might end up. And the speed at which we should be travelling will always be contestable rather than given. Of course, so far, so agreeable. Yet much of this is connected to two other aspects of politics: ideological confidence (believing you are right, and that your opponents are wrong) and political judgement.
As we write this editorial, there is much debate and discussion about both a future government’s inheritance, and the political choices the Labour opposition faces when confronted by a Conservative Party that, in Keir Starmer’s words, is ‘trying to salt the ground’.[iii] Here, the above intellectual and political tools – social democratic pragmatism, ideological confidence and sound judgement – come to the fore. In responding to a Conservative Party programme of illusory long-term spending plans and tax cuts, the Labour leadership will know it is facing a foolish politics. An ideologically confident Labour Party would oppose unaffordable and damaging choices. Its leadership would judge that after nearly a decade and a half of false promises, politicians need to act responsibly in delivering a plan that rescues Britain’s public services, reduces poverty and inequality and takes the country forward in a way that builds upon its strengths. The social democratic pragmatist would, then, see contemporary British conservatism as today’s dogma, and would reject it.
Our intention here is not necessarily to endorse pragmatism as a philosophy, rather to recognise its relationship with social democracy, and all the promise and perils this entails for social democratic politics. Most of the contributors to this issue of Renewal can be found grappling with these dilemmas, albeit indirectly. Anna Coote’s contribution advocates for ‘universal basic services’ (UBS), an explicitly pragmatic proposition, as both a knowing alternative to universal basic income, and in the sense that a UBS programme could be built incrementally. Yet in mandating the state’s responsibility for meeting a greater range of human needs, UBS is hardly a modest proposal.
Two of the article’s contributions address one of the most significant miscalculations that social democrats across Europe have made in recent years, that is, accommodating ‘austerity’ in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis. Matthew Donoghue reviews books by Sean McDaniel and Björn Bremer on austerity and the left across Britain, France, and Germany, arguing that their analysis demonstrates the need to challenge, rather than triangulate, narratives fundamentally incompatible with social democratic aims. Carlo D’Ippoliti’s contribution tells the same story, focused on the Eurozone’s fiscal framework and its recent refresh. Accepting tight constraints on the ability of social democratic governments to intervene in the economy is not an act of pragmatism, rather a curtailment of the possibilities of pragmatic change.
One of the most energetic and contentious debates across the labour movement today is that concerning the prospect of a ‘progressive alliance’. The idea perhaps perfectly encapsulates the complexities around what it means to be pragmatic. Its champions will of course borrow the language of (thin) pragmatism to present a progressive alliance as a framework for tactical voting: making compromises in order to get things done. But for others the ideological rationale is stronger, with the alliance designed to draw a clear divide between parties of left and right – eliminating the political centre where pragmatism ostensibly resides – or enabling the long-term integration of red and green ideas via a short-term electoral strategy.
As noted above, pragmatism – the fuller philosophical tradition – need not conflict with ideologically-driven action: a progressive alliance could be seen as part of a highly pragmatic attempt to revise out-dated ideological categories. At the same time, a pragmatist would be cautious about undermining a foundational identity of social democratic agency – that the Labour Party is a national party – and key elements of the constituency system. For this reason, what Florence Sutcliffe-Braithwaite’s contribution, on the formation of a progressive alliance in a local authority, characterises as an ‘ad hoc muddle’ is likely to remain a feature of centre-left electoral co-operation.
Pragmatism does not preclude principled politics
The next Labour government will have to be pragmatic. But this itself does not provide a straightforward guide to policy direction. The social and economic conditions likely to be inherited from the Conservative government will make fast and decisive course-corrections extremely challenging.
At the same time, the continuation of tried-and-failed policies will cause political headaches for Labour more quickly than it ever did for the Conservative Party, requiring a willingness to question established policy paradigms. Although it does not reflect specifically on pragmatic politics, John Denham’s contribution, on the apparent weakness of Labour’s ‘soft left’ – a comfortable home for many Labour members – points implicitly to the dangers arising from the absence of a deeply pragmatic tendency that only appears to relegate its practical politics below an avowed commitment to social democratic principles. Similar themes appear in Nick Garland’s review of Jon Cruddas’s latest book, A Century of Labour. For Garland, the ‘ugly, utilitarian devices’ that are inescapable features of modern governance are not as separate from earlier socialist traditions around virtue and community as Cruddas suggests and may have historically served these causes rather well.
A commitment to pragmatism is essential, but escaping its contradictions is illusory. The contributions here touch upon some of the key policy and political challenges that Labour is set to confront. Recent issues of Renewal have addressed major policy areas such as welfare provision and industrial strategy, where the sheer scale or endurance of interventions already in play – and the mounting evidence of their shortcomings – will require new approaches that demonstrate both serious intent and a delicate touch. The challenge is not so much to act pragmatically, but to determine what pragmatism even looks like in these contexts. There is much than can be learned from overseas – we will explore this in the context of climate change in an upcoming issue of Renewal.
It is perhaps in the realm of international politics that the pragmatic dilemma is most magnified. The next Labour government will enter office with less influence on world affairs than any previous Labour administration. What is the pragmatic response to this scenario? Recognising decline and focusing on domestic challenges? Playing to our strengths, even as they diminish, and doubling down on the narrow routes to global influence that Britain can still access? Or accepting the world as it now is, and seeking to forge new alliances, as uncomfortable as they may be to social democrats? None are satisfactory: pragmatism is not synonymous with realism, a predominantly conservative tradition that forecloses to the possibility of progressive change.
There has been some discussion of British influence in recent months, including in commentary on Keir Starmer’s response to the Hamas terrorist attack in Israel and then the war in Gaza. Undoubtedly, Starmer made a very serious mistake in his responses to a journalist when asked about the prospect of power or water supplies to Gaza being cut off. Later clarifications took too long, and he should have quickly apologised for the error. Similarly, Labour’s overall strategy on a ceasefire was at first difficult to understand, and then swiftly unfathomable as Israel’s bombing of Gaza saw civilians – including children – bear the brunt of a horrifying, escalating war. The Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, made the right decision in calling for a ceasefire at the end of October 2023. Starmer said soon afterwards that he did not think this position was ‘correct’. It clearly was, morally and diplomatically.
At some moments, the argument was made that what Starmer did or did not say would not affect the situation anyway. At other moments, discussion of leadership strategy was pushed instead. All of this missed the point. But it does suggest that – at least for now – on foreign policy Labour is not prepared to put a different case. If Labour’s caution is such that it prohibits the articulation of the most basic social democratic principles and respect for international law and human rights, then a veneer of pragmatism will ultimately serve to undermine the space needed to pursue, pragmatically, meaningful change.
One diplomatic, economic and social issue that dominated British politics for years may well prove to be of huge consequence again over the next few years: Britain’s relationship with the European Union. As Emily Robinson and Jonathan Moss’s contribution – on the politics of emotion, based on research into debates around Brexit – reminds us, the notion of a clear distinction between ‘heads’ and ‘hearts’ in political reasoning is manifestly false. Without a track record of competence, Labour must not neglect the value that being seen as a principled government, driven by progressive ends and sensitive to how people feel about their lives and the world they inhabit, will play in convincing the public – even after a general election has been won – to trust its judgement on the question of means.
As the country continues to experience the consequences of Brexit – both now and in the years ahead – Labour will again have to consider how to build on Britain’s strengths, make principled decisions, and reach appropriate judgements on the matters at hand. Brexit is not a strength. And while the political and policy dilemmas are of course obvious, Labour cannot choose its inheritance should it win the next election. This is another area where a future Labour government will need to act responsibly, cognisant that the status quo is not sustainable, irrespective of short-term political calculations. At times, the argument has been made that Keir Starmer’s Labour is not really that different from Rishi Sunak’s Conservative Party. This, in our view, is transparently nonsense. A lack of confidence on Labour’s part certainly contributes to this caricature, but there is another cause too – one we will be considering in our next issue (a double issue to arrive in September 2024): that for all the day-to-day rhetorical duelling in Westminster, many big public policy decisions are simply being put off. That may be ‘pragmatic’ in the ordinary sense of the word for our politicians, but it is not social democratic pragmatism. Both parties may retain this posture in advance of an election, but it cannot last.
[i] We can point also to the philosophy of Axel Honneth, whose work seeks to rejuvenate socialist political thought through thinking with pragmatism, most notably in his 2016 book The Idea of Socialism.
[ii] E. Anderson, Hijacked, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2023, p241
[iii] See https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/keir-starmer-accuses-tories-of-salting-the-ground-by-spending-billions-on-tax-cuts_uk_65b13271e4b09e7f5b9e0519.