During today's
excellent debate on Democracy Now over the Elena Kagan SCOTUS nomination, the term "pragmatic progressive" was brought up by Amy Goodman. Apparently the White House has been using the term to describe Ms. Kagan. Glenn Greenwald rightly noted that the same term is used by President Obama's loyalists as a way to justify many of the policies most frustrating to Obama's progressive supporters and critics.
It then dawned on me that Glenn Greenwald hasn't been accusing Kagan of being George W. Bush, as Greenwald's foe in the debate Lawrence Lessig put it. He's actually accusing her of being a lot like Barack Obama, and he's right. Of course it makes perfect sense that Obama would nominate someone who tries to solve problems in the same manner that he does. I wouldn't call it pragmatism because I happen to think that it's the wrong approach. I would call it a non-confrontational approach to dealing with opposition to their goals. This would explain why Ms. Kagan has been hesitant to publicly make her views known on so many issues. Like Obama, she doesn't want to get pinned to a strong position.
It also makes sense that people who like Barack Obama find it easy to see Kagan as a good choice, because she will try to build consensus on the court in the same way that Obama tries to build it in the Congress. Hence we see the vociferous defense of her by Obama loyalists here on DU, and the scepticism by those who often criticize Obama, which can easily and unfortunately be chalked up to powerful jerks of the knee.
So if you happen to believe that Barack Obama is doing a good job of advancing progressive values, then Elena Kagan is your gal. They are cut from the same cloth in my opinion.