Pragmatism over Ideology

Honestly I have not followed what has been going on in Washington DC over the debt crisis, because I am rather tired of following what has been happening there.

In a way, I feel that almost all human conflicts - be it among family members, friends, colleagues, communities, or countries, can all be attributed to a fatal human flaw, which is to place one's strong beliefs or opinions above pragmatism.

I am a fanatical fan of the Tudor period. I have probably watched all the movies and TV shows about that period. I have read Alison Weir's popular biographies of Henry VIII as well as Elizabeth I. That was a period of much political upheaval, with many people losing their heads for ideology.

From the view of us contemporaries, it must have been unthinkable that people from the Tudor period would rather die a painful death than to simply state that they believe in whatever the authority wanted them to believe. Of course, it is perfectly understandable since these people fervently believed that they would go to hell after death if they were to lie about their faiths.

Thomas More was a true humanist for his time. Way ahead of people in his generation, he believed in the education of women, and he educated his daughters the same way he educated his sons. One would think that such an enlightened scholar would then have a more enlightened view of religion. But no, he would burn those Lutheran "heretics" when he was Lord Chancellor and he himself would get executed simply because he refused to acknowledge King Henry VIII as supreme head of the Church of England. One could not help wondering if "cost/benefit analysis" were to be conducted for him, he would realize how much better off himself, his family and the humankind would benefit from his living until his natural death.

Catherine of Aragon was a famously devout Catholic. While there is no doubt that Henry VIII was terribly cruel and selfish, I could not help wondering how much better everyone would have been if she had simply taken the pragmatic approach which had served Anne of Cleves so well. It was obvious that Henry VIII wanted to marry Anne Boleyn, and one way or another he would get his first marriage dissolved. Instead of recognizing the underlying cause, Catherine of Aragon focused on the technical details which Henry VIII was going through to get what he wanted - whether her previous marriage to Prince Arthur (Henry VIII's older brother) was ever consummated. Once she got hung up by the excuse with which Henry VIII was making to get rid of her, she forgot to reason with herself what was the best path forward, given that indeed there was no great path forward but at least some were better than others. Fighting with the king, while pledging her loyalty and devotion to him, was about the most stupid thing one could think of. If she cared about her only daughter Mary, she could have negotiated with the king that she would agree to an annulment if Mary were to remain Princess.

Apples don't fall far from the tree. Mary would grow up to be as dogmatic as her mother, earning herself the nickname "Bloody Mary" for burning so many protestants. One could argue that Henry VIII was actually a pragmatist, albeit a tyrannical one. Anne Boleyn, whose clever efforts forced Henry VIII to break from Rome and marry her, was altogether too emotional. Had it not been for her inability to control her emotions, she was after all a pragmatist as well. Her daughter Elizabeth I would turn out to be the most pragmatic of all Tudors. She attended Mass when her half sister Mary was queen. When she became queen, she did not persecute the Catholics the way Mary persecuted the Protestants. In fact, she might have been the first person to embrace a "don't ask don't tell" policy which worked beautifully for its time.

Now fast forward over 400 years, I wonder if what we are witnessing today will be viewed with equal amusement by people 400 years from now, as "much ado about nothing", as we view what happened during the Tudor period.