I'm definitely more of a pragmatist, but winnability isn't my biggest issue. I think people who run hard lines on issues rarely get things done, especially in more controversial issues. I'm just not wired to be extreme one way or the other.

I think some idealists are a tad naive, though some are just really principled. We need them though. If we didn't have extremes, who would be the moderates?

I tend to do just what you said. I'm idealist on some issues, and pragmatic on others. However, when it comes to elections, the idealism tends to win because of my "rankings". I rank the importance of certain issues, and vote based on the candidates response to those issues. Because my highest ranked issues tend to be "all or nothing" sort of things, it becomes a vote of idealism.
To what you said about voting for who you think would be the best, vs. who you think is winnable, I admit I waver. Although, in the past presidential election I did vote who I liked the most in the primary, NOT who was the most "winnable".
There's my book, take it for what its worth!

What you said is true -- Everyone, regardless even of what they think of themselves, is both a pragmatist and an indealist to some degree.

I don't know which I am, but just a few thoughts:

One of my favorite sayings is, "Politics is the art of the possible."

If the Libertarians weren't so "pure", they might actually be able to accomplish something instead of having to always wait for the conservatives (whom they despise) to get around to doing it for them.

It really burned my biscuits in the last election to hear people say they were sitting out the vote this year because, "the choice of the lesser of two evils is still evil." Unless Jesus himself runs for President, any election is going to come down to a choice between "evils," just like every other decision in a fallen world.

I vote with idealism in the primaries and as a pragmatist in the general election. The point of the primary is to identify the candidate with whom you most favor. But by the time it's down to two people, then the pragmatic is the way to go.

No politician will ever match 100% of my ideals. But one who is really close will do for me.

What if my ideal is a pragmatist? :-)

But seriously though, I value pragmatism and clear-headedness in politicians a great deal. What does that make me, Shrode?

I think that's pretty good, Andrew:)

Seriously though, I have thought about how these two categories describe you. I was originally thinking that you were an idealist in some areas (torture, for example) and a pragmatist in other areas (like supporting Obama in the primaries).

But now I'm leaning towards thinking that you are more of an idealist. For example, your support of Obama was kind of pragmatic, I thought, considering that not many of his actual values and policies lined up with yours, but then I realized that it depends on what your "ideals" are. Peace, unity, goodwill towards men: these seem to be your ideals, and so you supported Obama because those ideals were more important.

And didn't you disagree when one of the candidates (Huckabee?) threw all of his delegates towards Romney, so that McCain wouldn't get them in one of the states? It was a "pragmatic" move.

I think you are right, I think you value compromise and "pragmatism" as high ideals, I think it makes you an idealist. I can't think of an example of you being more of a pragmatist, except for the Obama example, which I really think in retrospect, just pointed to a particular set of ideals.

Does that make sense?

(And Jen, me too...but that can be hard in the primaries if your guy has no chance at all.)

Peace, unity, goodwill towards men: these seem to be your ideals, and so you supported Obama because those ideals were more important.

Well I think everyone wants those things, but I didn't vote based on them. I considered supporting Obama because I thought Republicans needed to be kicked in the butt for a few years, but other than that, it was Obama's level-headedness and the way he appeared to be a pragmatist that attracted me most. I didn't vote for him, but if I had, peace, unity and goodwill towards men wouldn't be why. Those things don't exist in this world.

I don't think my stance on torture makes me an idealist either. Certainly my hoping that we exercise basic human decency in this war puts me there, but I've stated again and again that it seems to be, at best, an unreliable way of getting information. The recent senate report confirms that we've gone too far, and that we don't have strong enough guards to keep us from going further. So I think it's a mixture of both there. Certainly, I'm an advocate of human rights, but I also want our information to be entirely reliable, and torturing prisoners has never struck me as a good way of doing that.

And didn't you disagree when one of the candidates (Huckabee?) threw all of his delegates towards Romney, so that McCain wouldn't get them in one of the states? It was a "pragmatic" move.

I don't remember that, but I might have. I think my main problem during the primaries was Rush's "Operation: Chaos" thing. There's a good example of me not liking osmething simply because it stepped on my "principles."

I think part of it is the way you posed the dilema. Is pragmatism only a thing people exhibit in elections? I don't voting for someone just because they can win, and that can't be my only reason, but I also think the President neesds to have the ability to unite people behind him/her. What good are leaders if no one is inspired to follow them?

I feel I'm more pragmatic when it comes to solving problems, or at least I'm more moderate. I believe in compromise, I believe in making concessions. In most issues, I think both sides bring something worthwhile to the table, and both sides bring things that we could do without. That doesn't mean the two sides can work together, but all it means is that I believe good solutions rarely come exclusively from one side or the other. But maybe I'm an idealist for thinking that? :-)

By the way, I'm not arguing with your characterization of me (except for the peace, unity and goodwill towards men thing ;-)), I'm just trying to understand the question better.

I'm pragmatic with ideals. I have a visceral reaction to the "ist" at the end of adjectives. I like Bob's point about the necessity of extremists because they keep important things in front of our faces. You just can't let them dictate policy.

What came to mind for me was Abraham Lincoln vs. Frederick Douglass. Douglass was very frustrated with Lincoln's "foot-dragging" on slavery. He had an understandably myopic focus on the issue and the idealism of it. But Lincoln knew that to push too hard in the context of the times would lose the battle. It could result in two countries and perpetuate slavery indefinitely. He saw the bigger picture, that if he pursued the goal of national unity, slavery would fall under its own weight. Later Douglass saw the wisdom of this and greatly admired the President.

It was a kind of a beautiful dance, to me. Both goals were equally worthy of pursuit and the two ideals needed each other. Together they accomplished one of the most noble goals in history.

I consider myself an idealist.

I back candidates whom I trust. This is more a matter of character than anything else, though there are certain non-negotiables on issues, too. (Example: I trust Barack Obama, but he's completely wrong on too many issues for me to back him.)

In the Republican primaries, I got behind Mike Huckabee and can't tell you how frustrated I was hearing people say that they liked him but wouldn't get behind him because he couldn't win. He might have, if all of those people had gotten behind him!

In the general election, though, neither candidate was acceptable to me and I did wind up going to a third party candidate. I knew he wasn't going to win, but I also knew that I had to be true to my values.

One of the perils of being pragmatic is that if Christians bow to a political party, then we've let ourselves be used. I think that the Republican Party assumes Evangelical support at this point, and doesn't feel compelled to try to earn my vote, because we've let it run unchecked for too long.