Andrei Dascalu
2 min readApr 24, 2019


“They now reject the very premise of pragmatic governance. There is intense scorn towards the kind of policymaking that involves the give-and-take necessary to get work done.” that’s the gist right there.

The scorn towards what’s known as political pragmatism is well deserved. Despite the claim of pragmatism, the give and take hasn’t helped one bit towards fighting climate change, for example.

And that’s part of the reason why pragmatic governance is dying.

But if pragmatic governance were efficient, it wouldn’t be dying. It’s simply the outcome of different needs right now. I wish AOC’s grand plan weren’t necessary, but it is, because if we wait for the pragmatic political wing then we’d wait ourselves to death for results. I’m not saying her plan is salvation, but it sounds like the kind of leap forward we must strive for.

The pragmatism of yesterday doesn’t serve the goals of today, the way society has changed today. It’s not just a matter of old vs new, but it’s a matter of the way of doing things as well.

You’re saying that personality trumps policy. In the way media does things, perhaps. But media is just a reflection.

Ideally, personality = policy. If you look at Al Gore or AOC, their stance and personality is shaped around the policies their support. Their (mainly the latter’s) way of communicating is surely baffling for the old school pragmatics, but it speaks to today’s audience and the results (AOC’s success in taking office) shows it.

It’s not a lack of pragmatism. To be pragmatic is to recognize what it takes to achieve your goal and to be mindful of the necessary sacrifice and AOC is well aware of it. Fortunately, so far her opponents are missing this very obvious point.