I’m an idealist. I don’t believe the ends justify the means, and I am a big fan of concepts like “doing the right thing,” “personal responsibility,” and “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”
I’m also a pragmatist. I think this is partly personality, partly profession, and a good deal of being married to Daniel. 
Normally these two personality traits co-exist reasonably peacefully. They temper each other and keep me from going too overboard in either direction.
But then political questions come up, and suddenly I’m the host of a little mini-war of the mind and heart.
There are a few issues that my idealist-half cares deeply about, and then a wide range of issues that my pragmatic-half insists on worrying about.
The problem is that the idealist issues are really not likely to actually matter in practice. For instance, abortion: I am absolutely pro-life, and consider the issue of abortion to be a huge spiritual battle, but when it comes down to it, electing a pro-life candidate is highly unlikely to change any of the legislation.
And that’s where the dilemma comes in: is it worth ignoring all of the pragmatic issues in favor of one unlikely-to-change-anything commitment, because it’s “the right thing to do”? Or should I embrace the pragmatism and focus on “doing what we can, where we can”?
I took some “find your ideal candidate” tests this morning and apparently, I’m really a Bob Barr supporter. Of course, no one’s ever heard of Bob Barr, and that might prove a bit of a complication for him. My pragmatic site absolutely forbids me to vote for the man, given that it would accomplish nothing, but idealism says, “The two-party system is a crock, and you should vote for the candidate who is best, regardless of his chances.”
I think the pragmatic side will win that one.
But my question is, should it? Where would we be if pragmatism was always put first? One of our household heroes, William Wilberforce, was ridiculously idealistic, and that’s a good part of the reason the slave trade was abolished. It took almost 50 years, though!
I think the abortion issue today has some significant correlations to the slave trade in Wilberforce’s time. It’s one of those things that most people would agree isn’t really an ideal solution, but people are generally happy to live with for reasons of convenience. I think in historical retrospect, though, more enlightened future generations will be astounded, just as most of us are today when considering slavery. I also think in both cases there is substantial behind-the-scenes spiritual influence.
But the point of this isn’t to convince you that abortion is wrong. My pragmatic side assures me that trying to argue that belief isn’t going to work anyway.
The point is: given that I hold these beliefs about abortion, is it my duty to vote accordingly, even with the realistic expectation that no candidate will be able to change things? Or is it my duty to look at all the issues, even though I don’t feel that most of them are nearly as important, and balance them all to figure out my support?
Daniel thinks I should become a politician.
Tags: abortion, bob barr, candidate tests, doing the right thing, ends justify the means, goodness, happiness, idealist, personal responsibility, personality traits, political questions, pragmatic issues, pragmatic side, pragmatism, pragmatist, pursuit of happiness, spiritual battle, william wilberforce
Good points…I have some of the same conflicts. (and I’ve never heard of Bob Barr either) I tend to side more with the idealistic view. In many cases our state representatives can make a difference in moral issues such as abortion (parental notification, banning partial birth abortion, etc.). In the presidential election, the sitting president selects Supreme Court Justices and that’s where the changes will be won or lost. Unfortunately, many times it comes down to choosing a candidate based on many differing issues– in many cases having to choose the lesser of two evils. Wherever possible I’m siding with the “do the right thing” vote (as long as the candidate has a chance!)
Hi,
I came to your site from kiva.org and was entranced to see you are a donorschoose.org supporter, too.
Your insight into the contradictions between pragmatism and principle are keen. Our difference is that I really believe in the infinite depravity of man and that the governments are instituted of God to limit some of that depravity. I believe that, as Christians, we are called to cooperate when conscience doesn’t call us otherwise and to support their godly functions as outlined in the New Testament, not to seek to throw off government entirely.
I’m actually familiar with Bob Barr and believe that libertarians are naive to the point of dangerous. They believe in freedom for the individual, but, if the country/state/town doesn’t make the rules people play by, then each individual either plays according to his/her own rules or–and this is what libertarians don’t seem to see–an inordinate amount of time (civil court time) must be spent adjudicating rights. Is it, in fact, my right to build a large building on my property if it shades my neighbor’s vegetable garden or solar panels? The ground is mine; but are the sunlight and air that pass over my ground mine? Suppose I build a copper smelter or establish a factory style pig farm?
Libertarians will not ban abortions or even work, as the new Democratic platform, the 95-10 Plan, reduce by 95% the number of abortions within 10 years by improving availability of contraception and the circumstances pregnant women face. Did you know that 60% of abortions are performed on women with at least one child at home? What about that child’s life makes the thought of having another undesirable? Would abolishing welfare, food stamps, the WIC program, the requirement that hospitals provide care to the indigent, laws prohibiting discriminating against pregnant women and parents make it more or less likely for women to choose abortion?
Thank you!
I am homeschooled, compete in Lincoln-Douglas debate, and the topic this year is “When in conflict, Idealism should be valued over Pragmatism.” It is amazingly hard to find examples of this, so thank you! Please vote though, it does make a difference in the country. I’m very thankful you are pro-life but please vote! the politicians we elect decide what is to be legal and what won’t. it may not seem to make a difference. When you think about it if murder was legal would less or more people kill? abortion is the same thing. electing pro-life candadates will change things. yes it won’t elliminate it completly, because voting is only a small part, the rest happens in conversation, speaking out, and praying. if you want I’m writing a six page double spaced speech about abortion, I can email it to you. Thanks again!