[erelde]

I have often argued that "being realist" is a failure in and of itself. If people said "well, there's a king and that's what it is", we'd never have got to where we are now.

Ideologies (and ideas) are, in my view, stronger than facts, which often only represent the past, while ideas shape the future.

(these days the word "fact" is a bit of a trigger, but I thought about that well before all that jazz, and the current phenomenom seemed to prove my point to many of my friends)

[aaron-lebo]

Can't you be a realist while still being idealistic? Isn't that a bit of an advantage, too - seeing the world for what it actually is?

Searching for historical examples, JFK was both?

[spangry]

I think a person can be both, and indeed, must be both if they wish to change the world. I find that I have less and less patience for people with high-minded, admirable ideals, who refuse to do anything other than take the uncompromising, principled high-road. I've begun to realise these sorts of people are just self-indulgent narcissists, who fundamentally don't care about [the environment | racism | gender equality | defeating the lizard-people]. What they really care about is feeling good about themselves, having others think well of them and retaining a sense of moral superiority over others.

If one actually wants to achieve their ideals, I truly think the 'uncompromising high-road' approach is a footgun. I've seen it play out a number of times. The Australian Greens party, for example, voted down a carbon emissions trading scheme about 5 years ago because it didn't conform to their exact ideals. The result? They were eventually forced to accept a less stringent 'carbon tax', that was ultimately repealed about a year after it was enacted. And not once did I see any introspection, nor any comprehension that their 'principled stand' resulted in the worst possible environmental outcome. I can just imagine the self-congratulatory "we stuck to our principles, we can hold our heads up high" BS in their party room. Pity about the environment, but I guess that's beside the point.

I think that we're more likely to achieve the 'just' or ideal outcome when we address the 'is', not the 'ought'. We have to work with the situation that is in front of us; not the utopia in our heads. Don't get me wrong, having ideals is important: without a destination in mind you will find yourself on a road to nowhere. I consider myself an idealist. But I personally find that 'results' are much more satisfying than abstract ideals and lofty thoughts.

If you are a high-minded idealist, that's great. It's the first step towards a better world. But you should also honestly ask yourself: What is my true aim? Do I want to feel good, or do I want to do good?

[icebraining]

Fun fact: that's the original definition of the term Realpolitik, as coined by Ludwig von Rochau, a German writer and politician in the 19th century.

He said that the great achievement of the Enlightenment had been to show that might is not necessarily right. The mistake liberals made was to assume that the law of the strong had suddenly evaporated simply because it had been shown to be unjust. Rochau wrote that "to bring down the walls of Jericho, the Realpolitiker knows the simple pickaxe is more useful than the mightiest trumpet."

I've been reading "Realpolitik: A History" and I think there are some useful lessons for today.

[erelde]

Expressed in a very rough way:

I think one has to be realist about their tools and idealist about their goals. And the drive is the most important factor. If they're just going through the motions without intent, without ideal, it won't lead anywhere. The will to preserve (imo absurd[0]) or the will to change.

Of course, there isn't any one true model of thought. So I'm surely wrong.

[0]: I don't think anything can last, civil rights included, but things can come and go