The opposite of idealism isn't pragmatism. It's opportunism.

[eppur_se_muova]

Make of that statement what you will.

[Uncle Joe]

1. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, eppur_se_muova.

[randome]

2. It doesn't need to be. Pragmatism still often wins after idealism.

Especially in a toxic, emotional environment like today. People can't process all the anger so they default to pragmatism.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Precision and concision. That's the game.[/center][/font][hr]

[Uncle Joe]

3. P.S. "The Pragmatic Case For Bernie Sanders" by The Atlantic

(snip)

On the pragmatics of electability, nearly every major national poll consistently shows Sanders equaling or bettering Clinton against all Republicans. Polls show Sanders nearly tied with Clinton nationally and rising. On electability, if anything, Sanders has the edge right now. There is nothing empirical to suggest Clinton’s superior electability—quite the contrary given her loss to Barack Obama in 2008 and her flagging campaign this year. While Clinton might gain more moderate Independents (particularly against a polarizing Republican nominee), Sanders can inspire massive Democratic and liberal Independent turnout and likely win over many white working-class swing voters.

(snip)

The Clinton pragmatism frame is a strangely naïve and fatalistic misjudging of political culture and dynamics. During most of his eight years in office, President Obama has tacked to the center in hopes of bipartisan compromise on everything from gun control to the budget, only to be met by relentless Republican obstruction, even labeled a “socialist dictator.” Republicans did much the same during Bill Clinton’s first term—pushing him more deeply into the political center, where, with plenty of support from Hillary, Preisdent Clinton and the Gingrich Congress gutted welfare, enacted a deeply compromised crime bill, and reversed bank regulations (something Hillary is OK with even after the financial crisis).

(snip)

Change is not, as Clinton has claimed, a matter of “magical” thinking or waving a “wand”—it is about pushing ideas, building movements, and challenging the status quo. Even before the general election, Clinton is campaigning on a deflating and defeatist politics of half-a-loaf “pragmatism,” aiming lower on minimum wage, opposing free college, opposing single-payer health care. With Sanders, there is no question he will push for meaningful progressive change. No candidate can guarantee passage of their platform—but at least Sanders makes change possible.

On the question of leadership, Clinton’s other central campaign theme is her record of experience. As first lady, Clinton failed at health-care reform. She never pushed for single-payer health care and never built a coalition for anything beyond a compromised managed-care system. She also supported three of Bill Clinton’s signature measures, which all proved disastrous: welfare rollback, which unraveled safety-net supports for poor families, low-income women, and millions of working-class Americans; the omnibus crime bill with its three strikes and mandatory minimum sentencing, which contributed to a generation of long-term, largely African American inmates and felons; and NAFTA, which helped impoverish millions of Mexican and Central America farmers, leading to mass migration and social and economic upheaval.

In one undistinguished term as U.S. senator, Clinton opposed gay marriage, voted for the Iraq war, and supported the Patriot Act, among other positions. As secretary of state, while logging impressive global mileage, Clinton pushed for aggressive regime change in Libya, and she worked hard to expand corporate military contracts and fracking abroad. Whether the American public finds her record favorable or not, it is not one of progressive, forward-looking leadership.

Sanders has consistently demonstrated leadership, speaking out, introducing legislation, and laying the political groundwork on a wide array of issues, including: gay rights (long before they gained mainstream support), workers’ rights and union rights, universal single-payer health care, family and medical leave protections, and expansions of Social Security. On nearly every major issue—labor and economic justice, to the Iraq War and the Patriot Act, welfare reform, NAFTA, the Keystone XL pipeline, and the Transpacific Partnership—Sanders has taken clear consistent stands, while Clinton has waffled, backtracked, and leaned to the center.

(snip)

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/02/the-pragmatic-case-for-bernie-sanders/462720/

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511237239

[Warren Stupidity]

4. The opposite of the New Deal is No We Can't.

This is fun.

[nashville_brook]

6. funny how "no we can't" has turned into Hillary Sanders' Revolution...

you know, the kind you won't have to show up for. better you don't, really.

[lumberjack_jeff]

5. Without ideals, what constitutes "opportunity"? nt

[Uncle Joe]

7. Not opportunity, "opportunism" in which case you don't need ideals, for that matter having ideals

would just be a hindrance.

opportunism

noun 1.the policy or practice, as in politics, business, or one's personal affairs, of adapting actions, decisions, etc., to expediency or effectiveness regardless of the sacrifice of ethical principles.


http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/opportunism?s=t

[felix_numinous]

8. Pragmatism requires that ideas 'work'

but within what parameters, that is the question. And the question is what system of ideals are we talking about?

Within the parameters of an oligarchy or predatory capitalism, being pragmatic to these ideals would be very different than being pragmatic within a democratic socialistic system. Tricks are being played with words and concepts here, opportunism as pragmatism is slight of hand. Thanks for this post