Every election season, Americans are asked to choose sides. Are you liberal or conservative? Do you support capitalism or socialism? Should government be bigger or smaller?
But what if those aren’t the right questions?
What if the real question is simpler: Does it work?
The Problem with Picking Teams
For too long, American politics has been like a football game where fans care more about their team winning than actually solving problems. Republicans automatically oppose any idea that sounds “liberal,” even if it might help their own voters. Democrats reflexively support “progressive” policies, even when the evidence shows they don’t deliver results.
Meanwhile, the problems pile up. Healthcare costs bankrupt families. Infrastructure crumbles. Good jobs disappear. And instead of focusing on solutions that work, politicians argue about which ideology is pure enough.
This approach is rooted in radical compassion. A compassionate politics recognizes our interconnectedness and common humanity. It challenges us to see ourselves in our “enemies.” Towards a Politics of Pragmatism: The Compassionate Middle Way | by Matthew S. Goodman, Ph.D. | ILLUMINATION | Medium But it’s also rooted in something more practical: the understanding that “what matters is what works.” Pragmatism & Tradition – Political Studies: Edexcel A Level
Enter “Whatworksism”
Imagine a different approach to politics—one that judges policies not by whether they’re “capitalist” or “socialist,” but by whether they actually improve people’s lives. Call it “whatworksism”: the radical idea that we should do what works, regardless of which political playbook it comes from.
This isn’t about splitting the difference between left and right. It’s about abandoning the playbooks entirely and focusing on results. Pragmatism stresses the priority of action over doctrine, of experience over fixed principles, and it holds that ideas borrow their meanings from their consequences and their truths from their verification. Pragmatism | Definition, History, & Examples | Britannica
The Healthcare Wake-Up Call
Want to see whatworksism in action? Look at healthcare around the world.
In America, we’ve spent decades arguing about whether healthcare should be “free market” or “government-controlled.” Meanwhile, health expenditures per person in the U.S. were $13,432 in 2023, which was over $3,700 more than any other high-income nation. The average amount spent on health per person in comparable countries ($7,393) is about half of what the U.S. spends per person. How does health spending in the U.S. compare to other countries? – Peterson-KFF Health System Tracker
Other countries didn’t get caught up in ideological purity. They looked at what works. Most peer nations place a strong emphasis on cost containment and efficiency and achieve this through regulation of and negotiation with health providers to lower costs. International Comparison of Health Systems | KFF Some use more government control, others rely more on private insurance, but they all use price controls and negotiations to keep costs down.
The result? They spend half what we spend and get better results. That’s whatworksism.
The Elite Shell Game
Here’s the dirty secret: America’s ruling class already practices whatworksism—but only for themselves. They love “free markets” when it comes to your wages, but they demand government bailouts when their banks fail. They preach “personal responsibility” to working families while using every tax loophole and government subsidy available.
They oppose “socialism” for regular people—like affordable healthcare or free college—but they’re perfectly happy to accept corporate welfare, tax breaks, and government contracts. They’ve rigged the system to privatize profits while socializing losses.
Real whatworksism would end this double standard. The rules would apply to everyone. If price controls work for healthcare, we use them. If free markets work for innovation, we protect them. If public investment works for infrastructure, we fund it. If private competition improves services, we encourage it.
What Whatworksism Looks Like
Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal wasn’t the product of a single ideological vision but a series of experimental policies, each tested and revised based on outcomes. Some programs succeeded and endured; others failed and were abandoned. Pragmatism as a Non-Ideological Practice | by Myk Eff | Michael for President | Medium
That’s the whatworksism model: Try things. Test them. Keep what works. Scrap what doesn’t. Adjust as you go.
Take Social Security. Conservatives called it “socialism” when FDR proposed it. Today, it’s one of America’s most popular and successful programs. It works, so we keep it.
Take the interstate highway system. Eisenhower, a Republican, built it using massive government spending. It created millions of jobs and boosted economic growth for decades. It worked, so no one seriously proposes tearing it down.
Beyond the Labels
Whatworksism doesn’t care if a solution comes from the left or right. It asks different questions:
- Does this policy actually help working families?
- Can we measure whether it’s working?
- Are there safeguards to prevent corruption and abuse?
- Do other places with similar challenges get better results doing something different?
In Japan, if spending in a specific area seems to be growing faster than projected, they lower fees for that area. Similarly, in France an organization called CNMATS closely monitors spending across all kinds of services and if they see a particular area is growing faster than they expected, they can intervene by lowering the price for that service. Getting The Price Right: How Some Countries Control Spending In A Fee-For-Service System | Health Affairs Journal
These aren’t “socialist” or “capitalist” policies—they’re effective policies. They work, so other countries use them.
The American Advantage
America has always been a nation of pragmatic problem-solvers. We built the interstate highway system, created the internet, and put humans on the moon not because of ideological purity, but because we focused on getting things done.
The founders themselves were pragmatists. The Constitution wasn’t based on a single political theory—it was a practical compromise between different ideas, designed to create a system that could adapt and improve over time.
Building a Whatworksist Coalition
The beautiful thing about whatworksism is that it can unite people across traditional political lines. The small business owner struggling with healthcare costs and the union worker watching his pension disappear both want the same thing: solutions that work.
They don’t care if those solutions are labeled “conservative” or “liberal.” They care if they can afford to see a doctor, keep their job, and retire with dignity.
The Path Forward
Whatworksism isn’t about abandoning all principles—it’s about organizing those principles around what actually matters: improving people’s lives and building a country that works for everyone, not just the wealthy and well-connected.
It means electing leaders who ask “Does it work?” instead of “Does it fit our ideology?” It means supporting policies based on evidence, not political team loyalty. It means being willing to change course when something isn’t working, rather than doubling down because we’re too proud to admit mistakes.
Most importantly, it means recognizing that in the face of ideological absolutism, humility is a strength, not a weakness. It invites collaboration, creativity, and innovation while resisting the hubris that leads to stagnation or failure. Towards a Politics of Pragmatism: The Compassionate Middle Way | by Matthew S. Goodman, Ph.D. | ILLUMINATION | Medium
The choice is ours. We can keep playing political football while the country’s problems get worse. Or we can try something radical: focusing on what works.
After all, isn’t it time American politics worked for Americans again?
