Frank Underwood and a Brief History of Ruthless Pragmatism

His character may be fictional but his philosophy isn’t — just ask Barack Obama or any master of political gamesmanship.

National Journal
Lucia Graves
Feb. 19, 2014, 6:38 a.m.

The greatest com­pli­ment Frank Un­der­wood be­stows upon any­one in sea­son two of House of Cards is when he calls his polit­ic­al pro­tege, Rep. Jac­queline Sharp, a “ruth­less prag­mat­ist.”

Frank (Kev­in Spacey), has done a lot to de­serve the title him­self (and here I should is­sue a spoil­er alert for any­one who hasn’t fin­ished the second sea­son). He sleeps with Slugline journ­al­ist Zoe Barnes when it’s polit­ic­ally ex­pedi­ent, and kills her when it isn’t. He builds up Rep. Peter Russo when it’s in his in­terest and gets rid of him when that’s what suits him. Even his mar­riage to his wife, Claire Un­der­wood, is prob­ably cal­cu­lated: She came from a wealthy fam­ily, he was just gear­ing up for his first con­gres­sion­al cam­paign, and he needed the money.

Claire, played by Robin Wright, doesn’t shy away from ma­nip­u­la­tion either, as when she tells a preg­nant em­ploy­ee who’s threat­en­ing to sue her that she’s will­ing to let her baby with­er and die in­side her if that’s what’s re­quired. “I love her. I have to love her,” Wright said re­cently of her char­ac­ter Claire. “She’s so evil, but I don’t see her as evil. She’s do­ing her due di­li­gence, and that’s the way things work. That’s how you get jobs done, and if there’s a hindrance or a road­b­lock, you’ve got to re­move the road­b­lock.”

The show’s cocre­at­or and writer Beau Wil­li­mon says his char­ac­ters are in­spired by the mas­ters of polit­ic­al games­man­ship: Lyn­don John­son, Thomas Jef­fer­son, and Ab­ra­ham Lin­coln, people who were “will­ing to break the rules in or­der to prop­erly lead.”

That in­stinct goes back to Amer­ica’s found­ing. George Wash­ing­ton’s fam­ily coat of arms bears the Lat­in motto ex­it­us acta pro­bat (“the ends jus­ti­fy the means”). LBJ was fam­ous for his broker­ing and ca­jol­ing: “He could get up every day and learn what their fears, their de­sires, their wishes, their wants were and he could then ma­nip­u­late, dom­in­ate, per­suade and ca­jole them,” John­son bio­graph­er Dor­is Kearns Good­win wrote of his ap­proach. And Lin­coln, as we were re­cently re­minded by Hol­ly­wood’s Steven Spiel­berg, made all kinds of cor­rupt bar­gains to en­sure the pas­sage of the 13th Amend­ment.

The “ruth­less prag­mat­ist” title has also fre­quently been ap­plied to Pres­id­ent Obama. And even Obama him­self de­scribed his eco­nom­ic policy in that way: “The truth is that what I’ve been con­stantly search­ing for is a ruth­less prag­mat­ism when it comes to eco­nom­ic policy,” Obama told The New York Times in 2009. “In­ter­est­ing choice of mod­i­fi­er,” noted Jac­ob Weis­berg at the time.

Rich Lowry of the Na­tion­al Re­view agreed with that as­sess­ment. “So far, Pres­id­ent-elect Obama has ac­ted with a ruth­less prag­mat­ism,” he wrote back in 2008. He also called him “a shape-shifter” and “an es­tab­lish­ment Demo­crat de­term­ined to do whatever works.”

Dav­id Axel­rod, fol­low­ing the 2008 elec­tion, called Obama a “prag­mat­ist and a prob­lem solv­er” and Obama him­self, upon in­tro­du­cing his na­tion­al se­cur­ity team, said “they share my prag­mat­ism about the use of power.”

He bet on that ap­proach again dur­ing his 2012 cam­paign, as Mar­in Cogan re­por­ted for GQ. “It’s not a great mes­sage, not an in­spir­ing mes­sage, but the Obama cam­paign is bet­ting on a strategy of ruth­less prag­mat­ism — go neg­at­ive, tinker around the edges of fair­ness, and hope that des­troy­ing their op­pon­ent con­vinces enough swing voters to stick with the pres­id­ent.”

The term prag­mat­ism, Alec Mac­Gil­lis ob­served in 2009, has dis­tin­guished roots. “Wil­li­am James and John Dewey pro­moted it as a philo­sophy that el­ev­ated know­ledge gained through ac­tion over the­ory and con­cepts,” he wrote, “Obama has been prag­mat­ic in this sense when it comes to, say, the fin­an­cial crisis, em­bra­cing tri­al and er­ror and res­ist­ing the more sys­tem­ic solu­tion of na­tion­al­iz­ing banks.”

Some say that style was ob­serv­able even be­fore he entered polit­ics. One New York Times Magazine re­port­er asked some of Obama’s former stu­dents how they thought he’d man­age the coun­try. ”Based on what I saw in the classroom,” Dan John­son-Wein­ber­ger, a pro­gress­ive lob­by­ist in Illinois, told the Times‘ Al­ex­an­dra Starr, “my guess is an Obama ad­min­is­tra­tion could be sum­mar­ized in two words: ruth­less prag­mat­ism.”

Giv­en the con­gres­sion­al grid­lock of re­cent years, that doesn’t sound like such a bad thing. The ques­tion, giv­en the cur­rent le­gis­lat­ive para­lys­is, is does the ends jus­ti­fy the means? “It’s a para­dox that the people who are mak­ing the rules some­times have to break them in or­der to move us for­ward,” Wil­li­mon said in a re­cent in­ter­view. “And, you know, we want our politi­cians to be per­fect people, and yet at the same time we want them to lead our coun­try, and that means some­times play­ing out­side the box.”

Obama’s ver­sion is a far cry from Frank Un­der­wood’s style of prag­mat­ism, but the show res­on­ates be­cause it gets something right about Wash­ing­ton — and not just the doorknobs and drapes. The best char­ac­ters on the show, as in life, are mor­ally com­plex (the one time we see Claire cry is when the first lady tells her she’s a good per­son). And if Frank doesn’t fit any­body’s defin­i­tion of be­ing a good per­son it’s be­cause he prides him­self on something else: be­ing ef­fect­ive.

That’s something Obama has ad­mired prag­mat­ists like Lin­coln for and it’s likely something he ad­mires in Frank Un­der­wood. Kev­in Spacey cer­tainly thinks so.

What We're Following See More »
IN ADDITION TO DNC AND DCCC
Clinton Campaign Also Hacked
9 hours ago
THE LATEST
1.5 MILLION MORE TUNED IN FOR TRUMP
More People Watched Trump’s Acceptance Speech
9 hours ago
THE DETAILS

Hillary Clinton hopes that television ratings for the candidates' acceptance speeches at their respective conventions aren't foreshadowing of similar results at the polls in November. Preliminary results from the networks and cable channels show that 34.9 million people tuned in for Donald Trump's acceptance speech while 33.3 million watched Clinton accept the Democratic nomination. However, it is still possible that the numbers are closer than these ratings suggest: the numbers don't include ratings from PBS or CSPAN, which tend to attract more Democratic viewers.

Source:
×