[inthebox]

1) Pragmatically… more concerned with practical results than with theories and principles.
2) Idealistically… somebody who aspires to or abides by high standards of moral principles.
3) A combination of both.
4) Some other method.

I'll go with #3

2] is like a vision statement
- equality
- freedom
- rights
- honor
- duty
and so on.

1] is how to achieve that.
- defense of the nation
- free press
- gun ownership
etc..


however there needs to be openness to try and test out new methods.


In the medical field :
#2 may simply be to treat people to the best of your ability.
say treating a stomach ulcer

#1 for years conventional wisdom - and it is still true - was to reduce stomach acid.
but up until 10 years ago or so no one thought an ulcer could be the result of an infec-
tion.
That was a new hypothesis back then. Studies were taken.
One group not treated for infection another similar group treated for the infection.
Both groups were followed and results tallied.
We now know that bacteria to be treated in some ulcers is H Pylori.
This has added to care and knowledge and better results.


A government example may be

#2 we want a strong stae economy. What should tax policy be?
#1 Take state income taxes. Most states have them and these state governments probably
could never imagine doing without.
However, Florida and Texas have no state income taxes and they seem to be doing
fine.

another example was welfare reform in the 90s
at first the conventional wisdom and status quo was - you can't do that its cruel and heartless, but now we know how it turned out.

In other threads there was a link to a Senator Lieberman speech :
you have to start with #2 - values, goals, ideals
but #1 means you should be open to new ideas, re think things, test and study methods and outcomes, and not be so wedded to just one way of doing things.

[Dark_crow]

The only "idealistic" political parties, movements, or governments are *LIBERAL*.... the natural heritage of Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine. John Adams and many of the founding fathers of the American Republic who were men of the Enlightenment. The idea that "We the **people** form the government for *our benefit*....**not** some Divine Right King or some Religious Poobah. That We the People are all created equally and that we are entitled to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Very Liberal, all about the people.

And that is exactly why I am a liberal conservative. Idealism is a great shining light that must be perused in a pragmatic way.

I'm glad you mentioned Thomas Paine; his name is so often missed by writers. He has my admration more that any man in history.

“Paine's pro-independence monograph published anonymously on 10 January 1776, spread quickly among literate colonists. Within three months, 120,000 copies are alleged to have been distributed throughout the colonies which themselves totaled only four million free inhabitants, making it the best-selling work in 18th-century America….It convinced many colonists, including George Washington and John Adams, to seek redress in political independence from the Kingdom of Great Britain, and argued strongly against any compromise short of independence….Paine's strength lay in his ability to present complex ideas in clear and concise form, as opposed to the more philosophical approaches of his Enlightenment contemporaries in Europe, and it was Paine who proposed the name United States of America for the new nation.”

Thomas Paine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Had he been a Christian there would be monuments erected in his name.

[ETWolverine]

Elliot,

Ronald Reagan is the most *overrated* President in the history of the Republic.

Notice that you list mostly MILITARISTIC kudos for that man... you didn't mention that he reversed all the conservation measures regarding oil made by Jimmy Carter...

That's because I was listing his PRAGMATIC actions, not the pie-in-the-sky liberal dreams that sound good but never work.

and set up irreconcilably on the course ending where we are today... embroiled in Resource Wars for Oil and victims of a Fascist Movement, Bush and the Bushies.

Wow, what a rant.

Where do I begin.

Let's see. The liberal idea of idealistic energy policy is to avoid digging for oil in Alaska, having wind farms anywhere but in Massachusetts because they block Ted Kennedy's view, and keep any use of clean nuclear power to a minimum. They also want to spend twice as much money to develop ethanol as a fuel source than it would cost to simply produce more oil. They want to drive businesses out of business through clean energy regulations. All idealistic, dreamy nonesense that DOESN'T WORK and is going to bankrupt the USA. Remember the lines at the gas pump and the oil rationing that took place under Carter? Is that the brilliant conservationist energy policy you're talking about?

As for Bush, this President has spent more money on hybrid fuel research, alternative energy research and conservation than any President in history. But let's not let facts giet in the way of a good rant, now.

You are a fool to think that the war in Iraq was over oil... especially since the first country to benefit from Iraqi oil was not the USA. I believe it was Norway. The second was Sweden, I believe. In fact, only one American company is actually involved in Iraqi oil production. The one thing we certainly have not done is take Iraq's oil.

The Soviet Union was teetering and ready to collapse because it was already a failed economic and social system. Very Failed.

Interesting. Both Brezhnev and Gorbachev said otherwise. I happen to agree with you... the failure of the Soviet system was inevitable. But Reagan, Thatcher and Pope JP2 made it happen when it did instead of 20 or 30 years later, and at the cost of tens of thousands of more lives.

It was America's cold war policy to totally avoid a hot war and just gradually bury the Soviet Union with our superior wealth and escalating national defense weapons... and so it worked.

That's right. It worked. And it worked because Reagan intensified that arms race, intensified support in Afghanistan, and forced the Soviets to spend money they didn't have to try to keep up with us. It might have happened anyway, but not for another 2 or 3 decades.

In any case, Reagan was indeed the perfect mix of idealism and pragmatism. Your buddy Carter still doesn't get it, and his recent book of rants against Israel proves it.

Elliot