The battle for the soul of the Republican Party has been cast as between "conservatives" and "moderates," between "grassroots" and "the establishment," "Tea Party" and "RINOs." While we sort of know what we mean by all of that, those labels are imprecise, and often get in the way. The battle is between people who believe strategy trumps ideology, and those who believe ideals are paramount. It's between the Realists and the Idealists. If the Party is to survive, it's a battle that both sides must win.

A picture might help:




Realists value strategy, and put great stock in their own ability to make the right moves. They don't see a moral dimension to allowing the enemy also to make his moves.

Idealists believe that failing to oppose what evil does is simply capitulation - or even acceptance of the evil - by another name.

Obviously, these things are on a spectrum, not binary conditions. Even the most bright-eyed idealist has to budget resources, and even the most practical realist has an ideological bottom line.

It may be true that on different policy fronts, someone can be an idealist who is a realist on others. If some set of issues don't present an individual much interest (even if they have fully formed opinions on it), they may accept a tradeoff that someone else would consider a violation of their core beliefs.

In the accompanying chart, I struggled with whether to include the colored labels, and what they should say. I finally decided to put them in. The "Republicans" label means the Republican Establishment.

The Republican Establishment, then, is not some cabal, or a group of organizations. It is the Realists. These people are not evil, or simply power hungry, but at times they have let belief in their skill overshadow adherence to principle. They are also often conservatives, and shake their head in wonder at being labeled anything else. Since they know they're conservatives, being told they're not by the new kids in town makes them distrust everything else those new kids say.

The Democratic establishment has found it much easier to adapt to the radical demands of the hard left. Statist realists are, for some reason, harder to distinguish from the ideologically driven variety.

Realism and idealism are independent of ideology, though to be sure it's easier to be a moderate realist.

As an idealist, I can be persuaded to the use of political ju jitsu, but it never feels good, and I hate every second of it. I want nothing more than to hunt down the enemy and destroy him, metaphorically speaking of course.

Realists think of themselves as smarter, craftier, wiser than their idealist allies. They use ridicule and label idealists as deluded and unsophisticated, and not yet grown up.

Left to their own devices, the realists actually get little done. Like General McClellan, their plans stall awaiting more resources.

Realists don't see strategic moves themselves as representing moral choices. To a realist, it is not "caving" or "surrendering" to make a different offer in negotiations, for instance. It's just "what works" to get to the winning position, about which they are often just as committed as idealists.

Idealists, on the other hand, see their positions as representative of their character, and trading something bad to the opponent to get something good means to the idealist a lack of virtue.

LINK