Reply #6: this seems like just semantics to me

[welshTerrier2]

i consider myself an ideologue ...

my approach is to start with my own ideological biases. if the "facts" run against my position, i.e. if in a given situation my abstract beliefs are not pragmatic, then i grudgingly yield to the facts. the trick is getting the balance right.

too often, i think we confuse political "pragmatism" with a failure to promote our REAL BELIEFS. so, for example, if we believe that gays should have absolutely equal rights, we should clearly state that allowing gay marriage is the right thing to do. that does not mean, however, that we demand it be implemented immediately. that might not be politically feasible. i think today's Democratic Party is suffering from way too much "pragmatism" and not enough ideology. if you prefer to call it philosophy, that works for me.

i see no reason to say that having an ideology means your are blind and pig-headed and unaccepting of the facts that arise. my definition of ideology means that your values reflect what you see as an ideal. hence, ideology. believing in an ideal does not mean that you are not "pragmatic". you may be pragmatic; you might not be. the two are unrelated.