Skip to main content

Idealism Without Realism Becomes Obstructionism

I somewhat admire pure idealists. They fight for what's right, are filled with a burning passion to do just that, and never settle for less than what is their ideal vision on an issue. Having said that, I am also somewhat frustrated with pure idealists. While their drive and passion to fight for what's right is admirable, they often times seem to impede progress due to a lack of willingness to compromise.

At my core, I'm an idealist. When I was in college, I could probably have been labeled a pure idealist. However, as I started living the post-college life and better understanding how government works (or doesn't work), I came to realize that, while idealism may be admirable in a certain context, without at least a touch of realism added to the mix, we're often times left with obstructionism.

When it comes to the end goal, pure idealists have the right idea and it's wise to initially fight for that end goal. However, if and when that end goal appears out of reach at the current time, it's in no way helpful to maintain an all-or-nothing mentality and prevent any progress as a result, no matter how slight it might be. While the Affordable Care Act may not be what self-described liberals and progressives initially fought for, it's a step in the right direction toward the end goal of universal healthcare. We can't lose sight of that.

Women didn't earn the right to vote overnight. Blacks didn't end slavery with a snap of their fingers. Gay and lesbian couples weren't allowed to legally marry by telling each other and Supreme Court Justices, "Okay, this is what's going to happen. We're going to make this legal now or never." No matter how much we may wish such a quick process would take place, that's not how things work in reality. Due to that, we can't keep seeing slight progressions as failures, but more as baby-steps to our ideal vision.

I think this is one reason why idealistic Democrats tend to be less reliable on election day. While conservative Republicans tend to be of the mindset, "No change is the best change," idealistic Democrats often times say to themselves, "Not enough change occurred to warrant me voting again." We can't keep looking at things from a black-and-white, all-or-nothing lens. Steps forward are just that, and allowing politicians into office whom will likely attempt to revert said progress is obstructionist to idealism. So let's all take a deep breath and continue to fight for our ideals, but with a realistic lens, so we don't impede progress to said ideals.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Boycotting jukeboxes because of TouchTunes

I love music and enjoy hitting the bar(s) over the weekend, so naturally, when the mood strikes me, I've never been coy about playing some songs on the jukebox. This past Thursday, a friend of mine turned 50, so several friends of her's, including myself, all met up to celebrate the occasion. At around 9:30, a friend of mine and I both chipped in $5 to play some songs on the jukebox. Four hours and 231 skips later, we gave up on hearing the songs we had selected, and went home knowing we had just wasted $5. This wasn't the first time such a thing had happened to me (and many others), and due to that, I'll be boycotting jukeboxes. Why? The scam known as TouchTunes. You see, here's how the plot typically breaks down. A person (or group of people) downloads the TouchTunes app on his/her phone, consumes one too many adult beverages, and due to this, has less care for spending extra money to hear the songs of their choosing right NOW. That's the thing with TouchTun...

Face guarding is legal in college football and the NFL

I just wanted to remind fans and announcers especially, that face guarding is legal in both college football and the NFL. It all comes down to contact. So long as a defender doesn't make contact with an intended receiver, he doesn't have to turn around to play the ball. I can't tell you how many times every week I hear announcers talk about face guarding being a penalty. It's not. I even heard one announcer yesterday state, "If the defender doesn't turn around and play the ball, the ref will call pass interference every time." That's simply not true. Courtesy of referee Bill LeMonnier, he says this with regard to the rule at the college level (answered on 8/12/13): "NCAA rules on pass interference require the face guarding to have contact to be a foul. No contact, no foul by NCAA rules." In the NFL rule book, this is written:  "Actions that constitute defensive pass interference include but are not limited to: (a) Contact by a ...