Realists vs True Believers in politics

I've often contrasted the idealists and the pragmatists in our political process, having one foot in each camp myself and often shifting from one to the other, depending on the issues.   

I've suggested before that much of the disappointment his supporters feel in President Obama comes from the fact that we wanted him to be able to govern as the idealist he was in the campaign -- only to find out that pragmatism gets you further in Washington.

Listen to Matthew Yglesias who wrote an essay for online VOX on this subject, but using True Believers and Realists instead of Idealists and Pragmatists.

"In politics, you have your realists and you have your true believers.

"To say that Obama 'didn't mean it' when he said [in 2008] he believed marriage is between a man and a woman is a little too simplistic.  The point is that Obama was a realist. He wasn't prepared to take any political risks on behalf of the cause of marriage equality.  At the same time, he was clearly committed to taking a pro-equality stance where politically viable.  And he set about appointing federal judges who share the generally LGBTQ-friendly worldview of the elite Democratic Party.  If the Supreme Court rules this week to make marriage equality the law of the land, [as it did] it will be because Obama was in office to fill two vacancies — an office he might not have held had he taken a bolder stance.

"Realists do what they have to do to get through the day (or the week or the month or the year), and then do what they can to deliver for their core supporters. It can work quite well, even when it aggravates activists.

"True believers are different. They push the boundaries in inconvenient ways. They are indispensable for creating real political change, but they can also be dangerous and unpredictable. And it's probably not a coincidence that they rarely end up sitting in the Oval Office. It's simply too risky. . .

"[Scott] Walker has true believer written all over him. . . .  [Jeb] Bush, by contrast, is making bullshit . . . a centerpiece of his campaign with his laughable 4 percent growth commitment.   Like many politicians, he has a long track record of changing his positions and his message as circumstances change. . . .

". . . . The Bushes, in other words, are establishment guys. They stand for the Republican Party's conservative values, but most of all they stand for doing what it takes to win and to deliver for the establishment of which they are integral members.

"To many, this contrast makes Walker look appealing. There are voters out there who want a true believer. And that is what makes Walker such a tantalizing figure — he's a true believer, but unlike a Ted Cruz he's not throwing bombs from the back benches. He's a real governor of a real state — a bluish state, at that — who could very possibly win a presidential election.

"But there are also people out there who are looking for a cynic. And many of those people happen to be the people in a position to cut the six- and seven-figure checks that the modern Super PAC desires."

*   *   *

I mostly agree -- but I do want to point out that Jeb Bush has a history of behaving like a True Believer on occasion -- most notably in the Terri Shiavo case, where he actually used his position as governor to defy a lawful court decision; and then used his position as brother of the president to get congress to pass a law (later declared unconstitutional) to circumvent the Florida court's decision.   In the long run, he lost the ideological war on this, but he paid his dues to the right wing as a true believer.

That doesn't change the basic points that Iglesias is making.    But I wouldn't be so ready to put Jeb Bush completely in the category of realist.

Ralph

[Added note:   The International Business Times ran an article just yesterday questioning the sincerity of Jeb Bush's denunciation of lobbyists in his opening campaign announcement.   While he now claims that he fought relentlessly against the lobbying culture when he was governor of Florida, the IBT says otherwise.   According to them, The Southern Strategy Group, a major lobbying firm, had frequent meetings with Bush on behalf of their clients.  A lobbyist at their firm helped write two of Bush's major speeches, and in some instances Bush sought out direct input from them while drafting legislation that their clients had a financial interest in.]