Donations cover 70% of our operating costs and keep In These Times in print. Please join our community of donors today.

A Sit-Down with Studs

By Laura S. Washington

I’m not a big believer in the cult of personality. Neither was Jim Weinstein, the founding editor and publisher of this magazine. He was my friend and mentor. But I know Jim will forgive me if, in my inaugural column for In These Times, I tell you a bit about myself. I pen an op-ed column for the Chicago Sun-Times,… return to article

  • subscribe to print magazine

  • Zoom OutZoom In Reader Comments (3)

    Page 1 of 1 pages

    Well, it sounds like an enjoyable visit, I would certainly have liked to go along, just to check out the viejo wordsmith and hear him out. But when Terkel decries “pragmatists”, what does he mean? Is he referring to those who he believes have capitulated with the Right? Those whose values focus upon reaching goals they believe are realistically attainable, whether they go along with former ideals of the American Left or not?

    Does the American Left have defined set of ideals? Did they formerly? I’m sincerely asking.

    It’s a tough choice, I think. Is the pragmatist more to be respected, or the stalwart idealist? What do you do when the world changes, as it must? Should the ideals change as well, or is that a gesture of surrender?

    Not to throw stones at an old man, of course. You have to admire a guy in his 90s who still has most of his marbles, even if everything he says isn’t crystal clear. Maybe that’s why the author described him as “delphic”: eloquent but ambiguous.

    Philippines Posted by Kuya on Apr 19, 2006 at 2:03 AM

    The problem with making it an issue of pragmatism versus idealism is that neither terms on their own will help us build the Left.  If pragmatism is supposed to be a common sense approach to attaining goals, then lets look at what goals we’re accomplishing and if they make sense. 

    If we have leaders who are making decisions in the name of pragmatism, and those decisions help to widen the already enormous gap between the rich and the poor, does that make sense?  If in the name of pragmatism, our leaders say “if I knew then what I know now, I’d never have supported a war with Iraq, but now we’re in there, it’s pragmatic to stay the course”, does that make sense?  Fat chance!  I want to know what goals we’ve attained with this pragmatic approach.

    What passes for common sense these days is going to be our undoing.  Our situation is so distorted due to economic & political inequalities, folks throw their hands up in the air and become downright apocalyptic in their political choices.  And the Right knows how to capitalize on that nihlism.  People have lost faith.

    That’s why the Left has no hope unless it can put forth a vision that speaks to people.  Studs has just a few years on my great Aunt Ruth, and as much as the world may have changed in their lifetime, I think Studs & Aunt Ruth probably have more to offer to building the Left than a think tank full of politicos.  For Aunt Ruth, there is a virtue in caring for somebody when they’re down.  There are those who struggle to make a life, take care of themselves and their families, and there are those who get rich off of other people.  There is no virtue in the greedy and the powerful.  These notions are at the core of what made the Left the common sense choice for my Aunt Ruth during the Depression. 

    We had better listen to and learn from Studs and Aunt Ruth, before it’s too late.  And then we had better organize.

    United States Posted by jwmc on Apr 20, 2006 at 10:48 AM

    pragmatism

    1. The compromising of one’s ideals to better deal with the specifics of a situation.
    2. The pursuit of practicality over aesthetic qualities; utilitarianism.
    3. A philosophic school linking the meaning of beliefs to the actions of a believer, and the truth of beliefs to success of those actions in securing a believer’s goals.

    The first of these meanings leads to the corruption of principled beliefs, obviously.

    As for the second, I personally find it ultimately unsatisfactory. As Emma Goldman has been so famously paraphrased, “If I can’t dance I don’t want to be a part of your revolution.”

    The third possibly has some merit, with the caveat as expressed by some old German guy, “Philosophy is to the real world as masturbation is to sex.” As I like to put it, “Work towards the best, prepare for the worst.”

    I would like to express my deep love and admiration for America’s chronicler of the working man (and woman).  You’ve created a truly monumental body of work, Studs.  Salud and Solidarity Forever.

    United States Posted by luminous beauty on Apr 20, 2006 at 9:28 PM
    Page 1 of 1 pages

  • register a new account »Posting Security

    To participate in our forums, please register for a free account.
     

    Retreive lost password »

Article Appeared in this Issue

Full contents
Past issues

Also by Laura S. Washington
Popular Discussions