The Perserverance of Idealism

As many people seem to be born either liberal or conservative, so many also seem naturally inclined toward either idealism or pragmatism. Overly simplified, the pragmatist says "tell me how the system works and I'll do my best within it," and the idealist says, "let's change the system."

Though this dichotomy doesn't seem to work very well in Republican party politics (where those claiming idealism invade foreign countries), it plays a striking role in the Democratic party. In modern times Democrats find themselves choosing between an idealistic candidate, usually younger, and a pragmatic candidate, usually more seasoned in Washington politics.

This year this pattern is compounded by the idealist being African-American and the pragmatist being a woman. This startling dual breakthrough has blurred the idealist-pragmatist choice to a large degree. But it is a powerful choice none the less.

Pragmatists rarely campaign as pragmatists because who can get excited about someone who says, "I know what the deal is and I am prepared to work within the deal"? Rather, a pragmatist candidate campaigns on themes of experience, toughness, and scars of battle. Idealistic candidates have a different, some would say dreamy or unrealistic, view. The idealist says, "we've tried the old ways and they are not working." The idealist campaigns on themes of new voices, new ideas, and new leadership, that is to say a break with the past, with tradition, with conventional wisdom, and with an old and often corrupted system.

There is a strong strain of idealism even in a 220 year-old nation. It is based on hope and longing for something better. But it is also based on practical (possibly pragmatic) reasons. Power corrupts. Those accustomed to working within a system soon find it increasingly easy to game the system, to favor friends, to place personal interest above the national interest. Hence, Jefferson's radical notion of generational revolution: saddling a person with the practices and policies of the past, he argued, is like asking a man to wear the coat he wore as a boy.

Though most people who start out as young idealists become more pragmatic with the weight of years, some of us do not. Some of us cling to the hope that America can do better, that public service can be noble, that equality and justice are achievable. We don't want to settle for past policy frameworks or for half measures. We would prefer to set a higher standard and to challenge the political and social systems to struggle upward. These feelings are not voluntary. They are part of one's very character.

I hope to live to see the first woman president. But I also hope she will be an idealist, not only a gender pioneer but a bold, brave, and innovative leader who is not part of a flawed Washington system. I want America to send a powerful signal to a watching world that we have now taken a giant step into the global culture by electing an African-American. But my hope and dream also is, and has been since the days of John and Robert Kennedy, that this president will call us to a nobler mission and a higher goal, that he will remind us always of our Constitutional principles and ideals, that he will place us back on our historic path to the establishment of a more perfect union and a principled republic.

Ever an idealist, I therefore place my hope in Barack Obama. It is time for the idealists, even the aging ones, to raise the flag again.

Comments

[katzooks]

Wonderful piece, very well-stated. These things needed to be said and needed to be heard, but have somehow gotten lost in the roar and clatter of the powers-that-be, in their railings against the powers that will be, come November.

It is no small event, when a politician arrives on our political landscape, who can be rightfully compared to a true idealist, such as John F. Kennedy. So, of course, it is no wonder that the most entrenched of the corrupt old regime doth protest (a bit too much, if you ask me) against the credentials (dare I say, the aucacity?) of Barack Obama to "call us to a nobler mission and a higher goal, that he will remind us always of our Constitutional principles and ideals, that he will place us back on our historic path to the establishment of a more perfect union and a principled republic."

[elcojonu]

Outstanding article Gary; particularly from the point of view of us older, JFK Democrats.
Those of us who date from that era and are still walking around have seen and done a lot.
I, like you, have managed to hang on to my idealism(it hasn't been easy) and it's so gratifying to see a candidate of our party in the JFK mold as gifted as Barack seems to be.
There WILL be a female President of the U.S. and she will, more than likely, be a Democrat.
What kind of a Democrat ?; Idealist or Pragmatist ?; Who knows, but I hope an Idealist.
We in the Democratic Party are blessed by the fact that our party was founded on Idealism by the 2 most important figures in Political Philosophy(in my estimation); Jefferson and Madison.
Our leaders are well remembered by History and we are the party that keeps making History; we don't stand still, we keep 'pushing the envelope'.
It's time for some good, old fashioned Idealism to counter-balance the cynical Pragmatism we've been for the last 25 years.
It's time for the 'Ying' to balance the 'Yang'.

[Zach in Phoenix]

Well sometimes we get both idealism and pragmatism in the same politician; LBJ is a great example of that. Long before he was president or even "Master of the Senate", he was driven by the idea of making a robust version of the American Dream possible for everyone, especially for working class blacks, latinos, and whites. Where New Frontier legislation had been largely stalled, during his administration Johnson literally rammed through the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, Medicare, federal funding for education (the first time this had ever been done), worker training, public works, a raft of consumer protection laws, and even a program to enfranchise poor consticuencies with legal aid/advice on how to affect political change at the local level (CAP). He also managed the "idealistic" Apollo program for eight of its nine years.

His impact extended well beyond passing legislation: he ensured that the voting rights laws would be implemented, particularly when white resistance to black registration erupted at Selma. He recognized his mistake in Vietnam belatedly, but when he did he set up the peace process, and openly accepted the blame for not achieving victory. Hardly a conventional polician.

Our convention will take place on the 43rd anniversary of the VRA of 1965, and our nominee will be African-American. I think that is a real testament-to America in general-but also to a politician who seemed to combine both idealism and pragmatism.

[elcojonu]

Those were the days !
I hope there will be more and more of them.
The newer generations deserve exciting times.

[ChartreuseMuse]

Gary Hart makes many good points especially about how power corrupts & the system increasingly is "gamed" by those institutionalized within it. Sadly, surprisingly, Democrats have themselves done a fine job of this, especially within the realm of ballot access laws & running third party candidates out of races based on dubious legal arguments, disenfranchising their registered voters.

Hillary Clinton wasn't the only woman in the race for president. There are 2 others still in who meet all of Hart's requirements for pragmatic idealism and, to quote Hart, "an idealist, not only a gender pioneer but a bold, brave, and innovative leader who is not part of a flawed Washington system."
Cynthia McKinney, former Dem, now Green Party candidate, & Kat Swift, another Green, want to bring those very attributes back to our leadership. You would never hear of them though, because we have allowed our electoral system to develop into a private association, candidates vetted through 2 private clubs & approved like cattle down a shoot, all others culled, ignored, certainly not allowed into the now privatized national presidential debates!!

So Mr. Hart, I believe we actually need even more idealism than you have in mind here. Would you not agree this nation needs to free up its elite political spectrum to other parties, other ideas, & do away with the duopoly that drove us down this narrow path, for it to truly be back on the road to a more perfect union & principled republic?

[Jason357]

That's a fantastic article. It an ability for critical thought that is so lacking these days.Thank you.

[OMauriceS]

For all of you racists, President Obama...Get used to it!

[Mojane]

"An idealist says, 'let's change the system.'"
I'd add "for the better", not just change.

[closetodemfection]

Very interesting article, Mr. Hart.

It sets up a perfect argument for why we need an idealist and pragmatist on the ticket. An idealist unchecked by a pragmatist can't get anything done. A pragmatist without an idealist might be inclined to make the most "reasonable" or "doable" choice... while this sounds good to me, many in our country - certainly in our party - are calling for bold policy moves i.e. "Change."

If Senator Obama chooses another idealist for his VP, he will have less a chance of accomplishing what he has set forth. As you stated, Senator Clinton is a pragmatist, and could be the perfect compliment for Obama given that their platforms are the same and they want the same things. She will be the bad cop to his good cop. One blogger put it this way:

"If the Blue Dogs want to pee on the rug with the Republicans, Barack can talk about how we need clean rugs, and Hillary will be behind him rolling up a newspaper. A Sunday paper."

I say this ONLY if they can really work together on a personal level - that remains to be seen. Only Senator Obama and Clinton know what their relationship really is.

But I do believe that pragmatists and idealists need each other.

[elcojonu]

Idealist = Progress
Pragmatist = Business-as-usual
Sometimes you need one, and no the other.
It's time for some Idealism in our National Political Life.
It's the Ying Yang of life.

[closetodemfection]

Very interesting article, Mr. Hart.

It sets up a perfect argument for why we need an idealist and pragmatist on the ticket. An idealist unchecked by a pragmatist can't get anything done. A pragmatist without an idealist might be inclined to make the most "reasonable" or "doable" choice... while this sounds good to me, many in our country - certainly in our party - are calling for bold policy moves i.e. "Change."

If Senator Obama chooses another idealist for his VP, he will have less a chance of accomplishing what he has set forth. As you stated, Senator Clinton is a pragmatist, and could be the perfect compliment for Obama given that their platforms are the same and they want the same things. She will be the bad cop to his good cop. One blogger put it this way:

"If the Blue Dogs want to pee on the rug with the Republicans, Barack can talk about how we need clean rugs, and Hillary will be behind him rolling up a newspaper. A Sunday paper."

I say this ONLY if they can really work together on a personal level - that remains to be seen. Only Senator Obama and Clinton know what their relationship really is.

But I do believe that pragmatists and idealists need each other.

[JBryan]

The time will come when there will be a Woman President, and because of Hillary Clinton it will most likely be sooner rather than later. This historic primary has shown us that we can seriously consider candidates regardless of race or gender.

Sadly for those of you who supported Hillary the campaign also revealed that she was not the candidate whose time has come. We are at a moment in history where the country is looking for Change with a capital C and Hillary"s pragmatic approach as Mr. Hart points out only represented change with the small c.

Her loss had far more to do with the times and our mood than with her gender. Had she run in 2004 or had Barack Obama not been so suited to these times things might have been very different for her. It is rare when we have a convergence of the times and the candidate and I believe the country senses that and is responding to the call. This was not a rejection of Hillary Clinton the woman rather this was an affirmation of our ideals as progressives and an understanding of the opportunity we have for Change.

[Boadicea]

Amen!!

[califlefty]

How shall we measure Obama's idealism vs. pragmatism ratio? Lets begin by looking at the three members on his VP vetting panel: Caroline Kennedy, Eric Holder, and James Johnson. Without knowing much of Ms. Kennedy beyond the public persona, we can put her on the side of "idealist." As for Holder's vetting ability, it includes the Mark Rich Pardon for Bill Clinton, so lets put one in pragmatism column. The tie breaker? James Johnson. Johnson is the former head of Fannie Mae, and in that role was the recipient of a sweetheart "mortgage" from disgraced lender Countrywide Finance, a major sources of America's mortgage crisis. Johnson was forced out of Fannie Mae by regulators for violating accounting rules and he agreed to settle charges. Clearly, he falls into the pragmatist column (and we are being kind here). So Senator Obama actions speak much louder then Gary Hart's words. Why is it that Obama's acolytes can't seem to see the disconnect between words and actions? Is this some sort of mass hysteria that has taken over even those that have had years of experience in discerning truth from political posturing. What does this say about Mr. Hart's judgement?

[NotMcCain]

I agree. I would have loved to have supported the first woman favored to win the White House. But after 7 years in the senate, I saw nothing idealistic or brave in Hillary Clinton's record.

It wasn't just her Iraq war authorization vote. It was the way that she could talk about the war with such detachment. She could speak about the dead and wounded without seeming to feel a shred of PERSONAL responsibility and remorse, without anger about the lies.

Even once she supposedly r opposed the war,she was never a "go-to" senator to lead about it. She still talked in this campaign about Bush bringing, "the gift of democracy to Iraq".

Time and time again, she praised Bush even as he conducted an unjust war, lied repeatedly, and eviscerated the Constitution.

I never saw her go out IN FRONT of popular opinion, take an UNpopular viewpoint and try to lead people. She always seemed parsing her words and votes with an eye to the 2008 election (Terri Schiavo and flag burning amendments being among the low points).

Even her issue--health care--is not really a PRESIDENTIAL matter--better to stay in the senate. (She could keep working toward the "gas tax holiday" and Puerto Rican citizenship rights, too).

Idealism--courageous leadership toward ideals and goals she believed in--would have gone a long way with me. Others may have seen this in her campaign, but I wanted to--looked over and over for it--and didn't.

[Waterbug]

From my perspective, Senators Clinton and Murray"s work pushing Plan B through was critical and groundbreaking: http://clinton.senate.gov/news/statements/details.cfm?id=260409&&, http://www.webmd.com/news/20060824/morning-after-pill-over-counter

I am all for unity and Obama in 08. I"m thrilled about the end of the Bush era and am so thankful that Senator Obama is willing to take on this work " there"s so much to be done. Let"s move forward and get Obama elected.

[Waterbug]

Somehow, Mr. "Monkey Business" prescribing what it takes for a woman to be President feels inappropriate.

Considering your history, can you understand how your "standards" for the first woman President might ring of condescension and cluelessness? Perhaps you might think about letting someone else be the torch bearer of this particular message?

[ylpatriot]

Gee Gary, now wouldnt it have been nice you would expect the same qualifications of men running for President in 2008 . Neither McCain nor Obama fit your critieria....but you would like to see the first woman president to have such high standards... uh huh smells of more man bias eh ? and please please do not even begin to tell me obama nor mccain have those qualities.. Its a who least can we afford to vote for ... Frankly, i cannot vote for the "should the political scernery get tough, I will join the Muslins" obama character ? NO WAY

[cog1000]

Huffpo, unless the title's word, "perserverance," is some kind of play on persevere and serve, pls CORRECT the spelling error. Thanks.

Otherwise, interesting post. Thank god for the idealists of the world.

[unionave]

This developed in to a race between the sentimentalist and the realistic . Today age and experience means more of the same D.C. lobby and big corporate controlled government and we can see where that has gotten us . The lobbyist and big corps pay large amounts of money for influence and the experienced have enjoyed the income . Just before the Indiana and Penn primaries they realized HRC was fighting a losing battle so they brought out their old deck of cards and filled the air with hints and suggestions that aroused the sentimentalist . While HRC was campaigning WJC with Mark and the congressman from N.Y. , C.R. , were lobbying for Columbia and making other deals . The realist knew this is why we are in trouble and did not vote for HRC .