Pragmatism vs Idealism in Government Policy

[Dr Morbius]

This thread has been inspired by the spate of threads concerning the recent "kill order" given by the Obama administration against this Anwar al-Awlaki guy.

The questions prompted here are these: to what extent do we expect government to hold to the ideals we treasure, and to what extent do we expect government to simply get the job done?

We cannot always have both, and in fact I think it's rare to get both at the same time.

My own answer is that we expect government to always hold to the ideals - following the law, respecting the rights of all, that sort of thing - until and unless the cost is too high, whether that cost be financial or human. I'd like to remind everyone that for the first 175 years of this nation, government did not respect the rights of African-Americans, and no cleanser can wash away the stains from what our government did to native Americans. When did our government EVER really live up to our standards anyway?

I admit to a pragmatic political philosophy. I want my government to function, and function well. Indeed, I'd like my government to be the global model for efficiency, and to those who scoff that this is impossible, I'd like to point out it's never been tried. So the place I'd draw the line between idealism and pragmatism in governance is probably lower than most others.

Can a government be workable that always adheres to its principles? If so, how?

[Clio the Leo]

1. A very noble question...

... unfortunately the chasm that exists between the ideologue and the pragmatist is a gulf that can never be bridged.

[JVS]

2. A desire to take the constitution seriously is not idealism.

[Dr Morbius]

3. One can take the Constitution seriously and still think it isn't adequate.

[JVS]

4. That process for that is to amend, not to ignore.