Theory versus Practice

We never resolved our disagreement.  Throughout my childhood, my father and I argued about which was more important: theory or practice.  He was on the side of practice, whereas I, by default, was on that of theory.

Although my father was extremely intelligent, he was dyslexic. This meant that he avoided the written word.  Despite this limitation, he became a self-taught electronic engineer who was skilled enough to troubleshoot the radar systems of cutting edge fighter jets.

His difficulty with reading did not manifest itself until after transistors took over from vacuum tubes.  This development made it difficult for him to decipher theoretical innovations.  Hitherto, he was able to learn all he needed from direct experience.  What worked, as opposed to what didn’t, was usually enough to figure things out.

I, on the other hand, was good at school.  My reading comprehension was such that I got high grades.  This aroused my father’s envy; nevertheless he dismissed my academic achievements as ungrounded.  My “facts” were not based on reality and therefore were no match for experience-based common sense.

College professors were a focus of my father’s ire.  He would frequently scorn them as living in an ivory tower.  Although they might have big brains, because they were removed from day-to-day actualities, they frequently came to ridiculous conclusions.

Today, after three decades of functioning as a professor, I am painfully aware that many of my colleagues are indeed remarkably impractical. Anyone who has participated in academic politics quickly learns foolish proposals abound.  Possession of a Ph.D. is plainly no guarantee of good judgment.

As a consequence, I have come to the conclusion that both theory and practice have significant limitations.  Each needs to supplement the other, whereas when artificially separated, they have substantial drawbacks.  Practicality, unguided by theory can, for instance, be ineffectual in unfamiliar territory.  While it might enable a person to repair electronic equipment, it is not of much assistance in inventing integrated circuits.

Meanwhile, theory, when it is detached from reality, can pursue fantasies. Instead of producing useful results, it often prompts people to engage in idealistic carnage.  Marxism is a prime example.  In quest of fictitious social justice, it has brutally slain over a hundred million souls.

Which brings us to the contemporary political scene.  Donald Trump is the apotheosis of practice.  As a successful businessman, his goal was, and is, to make things work.  Pragmatic problem-solving, not conceptual hypothesizing is his forte.  More interested in the application than the history of capitalism, he promotes job formation not intellectual explanations.

This has the downside of making it difficult to formulate long-term political aspirations.  Focused as he is on the here and now, it is difficult for him to inspire visions of a better world.  As a result, he moves from one tangible challenge to the next.

As for liberals, they wallow in disconnected theory.  Always prepared to make big promises, these assurances are habitually based on a fervent allegiance to socialism.  The notion of a world in which everyone is totally equal, as opposed to evidence that this state is possible, is their loadstone.

Unfortunately collectivism has been disconfirmed thousands of times over. Nonetheless, progressives refuse to notice.  Thus, when one of their programs fails, they simply move on to the next imaginary victory. This succeeding project will surely achieve what the prior daydream did not.

ObamaCare illustrates this propensity.  Hence, when this government intrusion into the health care system did not provide the promised benefits, it proponents would not admit their error. To the contrary, they doubled down and demanded a total federal takeover of medical care.

This same heedlessness of reality infects liberal foreign policy. Being nice to the Iranians was supposed to reduce international tensions, yet when it did not, they declined to acknowledge that the deal they made with the mullahs might be defective. In this case too, they insisted they had always been right.

We are about to find out if the American people are as dedicated to Marxist theory as liberals.  Will they vote for the blandishments of mendacious left-wing politicians or reward the economic successes of a practice oriented, albeit inarticulate, president?

While it would be nice if Donald Trump could convey coherent ideals, he has delivered on promises to fix identifiable dilemmas.  Would replacing him with left-leaning zealots be an improvement?  Would their fictions prove more satisfying than low unemployment or tangible diplomatic victories?

Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.

Professor Emeritus

Kennesaw State University