----------------- HES POSTING ----------------- 
Jim Wible is correct--Menand does indeed comment on the difficulties of 
pragmatism in the aftermath of World War II. In fact, he writes: 
"Pragmatism was designed to make it harder for people to be driven to 
violence by their beliefs [p. 440]." It is not simply that universities 
became intolerant of pragmatism--the entire American project since 1945 has 
been one of certitude about particular "moral principles."  These were, by 
the way, similar principles that nearly killed, but actually transformed, 
Oliver Wendell Holmes in the Civil War. We fought bizarre wars in Vietnam 
and Korea on these "principles." We supported shameless thugs in Zaire, 
South Africa, El Salvadore, and elsewhere if they would but mouth the 
"right" moral principles. Students were killed at Kent State, and many 
other campuses became dysfunctional. 
 
Pragmatism puts a premium on "the asking for and giving of reasons." In a 
period of aggressive moral absolutes there is no room for questions and 
reasons.  Those who ask for them, and those who offer them, are subjected 
to inconvenient consequences. Menand also writes that "..once the Cold War 
ended, the ideas of Holmes, James, Peirce, and Dewey reemerged as suddenly 
has (sic) they had been eclipsed." September 11 has spawned a new cottage 
industry for moral absolutists, but with luck this too will pass. And then, 
perhaps, we can get back to the demanding task of actually having to think 
about our actions rather than having them scripted for us by the keepers of 
tired truths. 
 
On the economics front, now that "markets have won," perhaps we can all 
relax a little bit and become more honest and circumspect about the things 
that markets do wonderfully, and the things that markets cannot do at all 
well. That would be a welcome change, it would seem. 
 
Dan Bromley 
 
------------ FOOTER TO HES POSTING ------------ 
For information, send the message "info HES" to [log in to unmask]