R: Idealism is Counterproductive

The term "idealist" evokes images of courageous folk who are so committed to their beliefs and ambitions that seemingly nothing can convince them to settle for less. We may be tempted to view idealism as romantic, perhaps even noble. Pragmatism, in contrast, seems to leave a cold, bitter impression on our hearts. To what extent should we make the world conform to our ideals? How should we go about effecting desired changes? When can we be content to settle for something that is less than perfect?

To a pragmatist, idealism can often appear to be self-defeating. Not only do utopian projects like hippie co-ops and democracy-spreading disintegrate easily, but so too do more modest programs like the Temperance movement. Is it possible that idealism's defining characteristic, a zealous striving towards a more perfect world, is its own undoing? Perhaps idealism leaves too little room for considering unintended consequences, limitations on attainable knowledge, and the corruption of human nature. As James Madison famously wrote in Federalist 51, "If men were angels, no government would be necessary." Practical considerations must have a place in any plan of action. Would it be more prudent to pursue incremental change, even on pressing matters, if a more measured approach allows us to adjust course depending on how people respond to change?

 We might think of the Puritans as idealists, crossing an ocean to establish a community consistent with their convictions. But the term "idealist" might apply equally to the Ivy-League alumnus who turns down lucrative offers in favor of a much lower-paying job in a more altruistic field. What do these two examples of idealism have in common? How do they demonstrate the ways in which idealism is or is not counterproductive? Regardless of whether we are idealists or pragmatists, how do we live out all aspects of our lives in accordance with our convictions?