that being a pragmatist is mostly about doing what works, which is to say especially doing what works for the pragmatist. In the lessons of my youth this was called 'letting the ends justify the means', which was never presented as a good thing, but rather as an attractive and menacing threat to morality.
Pragmatism is certainly not of necessity inconsistent with being a corporatist, an opportunist and a pragmatist. Historically, the pivot to pro-corporatist politics of the DLC was about seizing an opportunity to get corporate money to support campaigns. And it was a 'pragmatic' solution to the problem of democratic candidates being stuck with pro-labor. pro-regulatory positions in conservative districts. That argument is still used to defend political positions taken by conservative democrats across much of the country.
When pragmatism is placed as a priority, there is freedom to move/triangulate, which is to say freedom to campaign in any manner using any tools/tricks of the trade that provide leverage toward a win. And winning we are told by the legacy third-wayers who were at the heart of the DLC, -is- everything.
That freedom means being unchained from party traditions (such as being a pro-labor party of the common man) and even moral principles. Under pragmatism, there is no reason why even blatant lying, or worse, isn't and can't be made acceptable.
= new reply since forum marked as read
