Poll: Most consider Bush an idealist, not a realist

In the latest Newsweek Poll, most Americans think the President's actions in Iraq are influenced by his personal beliefs, not by policy realities:

Do you think President Bush's decisions about policy in Iraq and other major areas are influenced more by the facts or more by his personal beliefs, regardless of the facts?

Facts - 22%
Personal Beliefs - 67%
Unsure - 11%

Remember, this was not a typical "do you support the President or not" kind of poll.  It has to do with how Americans think our President makes decisions.

What it comes down to is idealism vs realism.  An idealist is guided by mental considerations, not by what is physically practical.  In other words -- this war, this idea about democracy in the Middle East -- might not be practical.  But at least it's all in his head.

Comments

[Josh]

I think you have to be careful here when calling someone an 'idealist' in a negative context. Don't forget, it is you, i, and our fellow progressives who are 'idealist' in the sense that we want things for our country to be different then the way they currently are. I agree completely that Pres Bush ignores facts and cares mostly about his personal beliefs, but reducing it down to a realism vs. idealism debate is counterproductive to our own cause! It is the idealism of the democrats that will save our country!

[George]

You can be an idealist AND a realist right? Either way, you must deal in facts. Bush does not.

[Josh]

i agree that practically, we americans obviously share a bit of both, depending on the type of situation. i was just trying to say that framing this poll in an idealist vs. realist framework is problematic.

... and yes, Bush most certainly does not deal in facts.

[George]

You know what, calling Bush an "idealist" gives him way too much credit. As if he is some philosopher who actually knows what he is doing. He doesn't know crap. He doesn't know jack shit about the Middle East to this day! He doesn't really seem to understand anything that he is not. So when he just behaves like a stubborn dope, calling him idealist suggests he has some sort of inner enlightenment to him. It's all just ad libbed and wrong.

[Administrator: Todd]

Maybe you guys are thinking of something different than I am. I should have done a better job elaborating in my post.

Of course, everyone is both an idealist and a realist to "some" extent. No one person is a 100% idealist or a 100% realist. But usually, for the most part, people tend to be one or the other.

Ask yourself this question: is something the correct answer because you want it to be true and because it would feel good if it were true, or is something the correct answer because it is more practical?

Josh, you said, "Don't forget, it is you, i, and our fellow progressives who are 'idealist' in the sense that we want things for our country to be different then the way they currently are."

Yes, Josh, I have no doubt that many progressives are idealists, as are some conservatives. But a realist progressive like myself would say that things should be different because the Administration runs the country in a non-practical fashion.

Let me use poverty, as an example. The Bush Administration, although presiding over a growing economy, has a pathetic record when it comes to fighting poverty. So why is that bad? As a realist, I would say that fighting poverty is important not because I "believe" in my mind that poverty is a "bad" thing, but because practically speaking we would be economically stronger if the lower class had more purchasing power. In other words, as opposed to making an emotional argument, a realist would make a more practical argument on why fighting poverty is a good thing.

I hope that made sense. lol I'm sure that after I submit this response I'll look back on it and it won't. Here goes nothing...

[Michel]

I disagree with your use of the word "idealist". I consider myself to be primarily an idealist, and in no way do I think that is a bad thing. Also, be careful and try to interpret polls only by using the words that they used. For example, you could say that Bush is more belief-driven rather than fact-driven. The very fact that both I and Josh have a comment on your wording probably indicates a poor choice of words. :)

[Michel]

A realist thinks within the real world, outside of themselves. Pro: they're much more in synch with reality, con: obstacles of the real world environment stunt their creativity.

An idealist thinks in a copy of the world within their mind. Pro: order and balance is created and ideas abound, con: that imaginary world does not always map well back into the real world when it is time to take an action.

[Administrator: Todd]

Yes, a belief-driven person is more of an idealist, by definition. A fact-driven person is more of a realist, by definition. Sorry that I was substituting words, even though they mean the same thing.

Also, political leaders don't need creativity. That's not their job. Their job is to implement real world policies -- which is exactly where Bush is deficient.

[Michel]

I think that the best presidents were idealists. In fact, I don't see how you can't be an idealist and think you can make that big an impact on the world. Lobbyists, protesters, they are more often than not idealists, and they're the most involved in politics. I don't want Bush's total disregard for reality to give idealists a bad name. He's just yet another leader who believes the ends justify the means, and you don't have to be of any specific camp to use that age-old tactic.

[Administrator: Todd]

I understand your concern about people like me saying that Bush is an idealist. I respect your opinion. We can agree to disagree.

I just happen to go straight from definition of idealism, just as I go straight from definition about the meaning of other words like 'conservative' ("the reluctance to change"). I have studied in depth about half of all U.S. presidents (which is actually pretty pathetic for someone who graduated with a poli-sci degree lol). Of those 23 or 24, I would agree that a few of them are idealists. For example, Woodrow Wilson had his inner views about perceptual peace through democracy. It was Wilson's idealism that served as a mentor to many of the neoconservative idealists today.

But most U.S. presidents weren't idealists, even though a few of them spoke like it.

Anyway, lol I don't really know what I am getting at. But I think that most executives who were successful at making an impact on the world did so because they were pragmatic, smart, strategic, and very tactically manipulative; not because they had some yearning to make things the way they should be.