I think domajot’s point about pragmatically shooting for the stars is spot on. If one’s policy is only finding the current pragmatic solution with whaterver circumstances you find, then you are leaving leadership and vision behind. Naturally, if all you have is vision and no way to get there, then you are just as bad off, maybe worse.

Agreed. They tend to bug me a bit because of their tone (especially those who might otherwise be on “my side”), and at times I have problems grasping them and their thoughts, but they have lots of thoughts, and some of them end up being right.

Maybe, but idealists have a tendency to make extreme and ill considered judgments, at the cost of not consideritng consequences.

Pragmatists are informed by a variety of idealistic views, but they are grounded in simply asking the question of what will work best.
I like the idea of keeping both feet on the ground while contemplating the clouds with great enjoyment..

Prgmatism is a great thing (I’m a prgmatist), but some people are just idealists; it’s how they’re built (Goethe once said that our character is our fate), and that’s how they see things; that things are either right or wrong. Besides, they’re needed because prgmatists often have problems making normative judgements.

My other favotite word, balnace, awaits attention.
I occurs to me that the time has come to accept balance as a primary goal in policies. This involves giving competing voices a share in the outcome by seeking the outcome with that in view from the outset.
It’s different that compromise, which may or may not achieve balance, depending on who holds the power cards at any given moment.

I don’t know if the idea of balance will fly, so I’m happy to celegrate the resurrection of pragmatism, wheteever I see it.

I plan to vote that way, although deciding which candidates are the most pragmatic will not be easy.