For the past few weeks, as Barack Obama has moved to solidify his nomination among the party faithful while, at the same time, reaching out to the most crucial voting bloc of 2008--Independents and disgruntled Republicans--I've watched the Democratic Party begin to split upon its usual ideological lines, much as it did, say, in 2000 and in 2004.

At first, I tried to find one word to sum up what Obama is trying to do, as well as one word to describe the thousands of angry Democrats who have risen up in righteous indignation at what they consider to be an ideological betrayal over such issues as the recent FISA bill.

So I went to the dictionary and looked up:  PRAGMATIC.

It said, "concerned with the practical consequences of actions or beliefs."

Practical consequences.  Of actions or beliefs.

But I wanted one word to sum up what that meant, so I went to the Thesaurus online, which provided its own definition of the term:  "having or indicating an awareness of things as they really are."

THINGS AS THEY REALLY ARE.

Hmmm.  Interesting.  The Thesaurus listed such synonyms as:  "down-to-earth, hardheaded, matter-of-fact, practical, tough-minded, unromantic."

Yes, that makes sense.  A pragmatic person takes an unromantic outlook on life and deals with things as they really are.  That is not to say that a pragmatic person does not dream of things as they can be, but he or she knows that, in order to bring about change, it will have to be done incrementally.  Baby-steps, if you will.

Pragmatically.

This is because human nature recoils at the idea of dramatic change all at once.  Most people consider dramatic change to be threatening to the social order upon which they depend.  When dramatic change is threatened--as we saw in the '60s--most rank and file people react by doing such things as electing Richard Nixon president, if for no other reason than he promises to keep things as they are.

Yeah.  That about sums it up.

So then, I wanted to find a word that would describe IDEOLOGICAL.

Because it seemed to me that the opposite of pragmatic is ideological--when one puts his or her ideals above pragmatism, standing on principle, as it were, to the expense of all else, in order to make a grand point or gesture.

So I asked my online Thesaurus to provide synonyms for "ideological."

And it was stumped.

It said, "Do you mean...ILLOGICAL?"

In other words, to an online provider of synonyms for most words in the English language, the best it could do to come up with a word that meant the same thing as "ideological" was "illogical."

And this is perfect, actually, because right now, we have what may go down as the MOST ideological administration in this country's history, and there is none, believe me, that has ever been more illogical.

(Even Richard Nixon's.)

But I kept digging because hey, words are my life.  I found a word that seemed close enough to "ideological," so I decided to see what kinds of synonyms were listed for IDEALISTIC.

Yes, someone who is ideological is, by definition, idealistic.  It was, after all, highly idealistic for George W. Bush to actually think that if he basically forced democratic elections on violent third-world countries that somehow they would come up with Thomas Jefferson for a president or prime minister.  Instead, in Palestine and in Iran, to name a couple, they elected the most violent extremist candidate on the roster.

Oops!

So I looked up the definition of "Idealistic," and came up with this:  "not compatible with reality."

In other words, if you are highly idealistic in your politics, your views are most likely not compatible with reality.  Synonyms include:  "quixotic, romantic, starry-eyed, unrealistic."

Which brings me to Ralph Nader.

Ohhhhh, how soon we forget, eh?

That's the problem with revisionist history. 

Although I am not disputing that George W. Bush stole elections from both Al Gore in 2000 (Florida) and John Kerry in 2004 (Ohio), the truth is that--especially in 2000--the vote-count was razor-thin close.  Ridiculously close.  Close enough that the only way for him to really win was to steal it.

But you see, it didn't HAVE to be that close now...did it?

Because as I recall, especially in 2000, what I heard was many many disgruntled Democrats such as Michael Moore and legions of others, claim that they didn't like Al Gore's middle-of-the-roadness as they saw it.  They thought he was betraying liberal ideals.  They thought he might even be TRIANGULATING.  And they were pissed, really pissed.

So they decided to teach the Democratic party a lesson.

Yeah, I know you think the Hillary supporters came up with that one all on their own, but sorry.  We've seen it before.

Everybody knew--I mean EVERYBODY--that there was no way Ralph Nader and his "Green" party could possibly win the elections of 2000 and 2004.  Even he set as his highest goal, 5% of the total vote.

But he kept yammering on and on about how there really was no difference between the Democratic and Republican parties...Remember that?

Or are you too young?  Because if you are, please allow me to enlighten you.

His main premise was that major party politics was so corrupted by big corporations and so much alike in their basic platforms (uh-huh) that the only way to REALLY change politics was to elect a third-party candidate, a true Independent, which is what he presented himself as being.

And all these disgusted, disgruntled liberals decided hell with it...I'm tired of seeing the Democrats tack to the center.  They can't count on my vote, the corporate hacks.  I'm voting for Nader.

That'll show 'em, you said. 

I heard you.  Don't deny it.

So you taught the "centrist" Democrats a real lesson there didn't you?

Nader received almost three million votes in the 2000 election.  Estimates are that 40% of those votes would have gone to Gore.  I think that is a low-ball estimate, but to be fair, I'll go with it.

In Florida, the key state, Nader received 97,488 votes.  If only 40% of those went to Gore, that would still be 38,995 votes, which would have been enough to give Gore the state, since the final count, conducted by a nonpartisan newspaper after the Supreme Court decision, gave Bush Florida by only 537 votes.  So Gore still would have won by well over 38,000 votes in Florida--and that's not even counting the rest of the 1,160,000 votes nation-wide that represent the modest 40% of Nader's votes that would have gone to Gore had he not run. 

(More, if you think 40% is low, and I do.)

And if THAT had happened...Well, Bush couldn't have stolen the election then, because he'd've had to own the secretaries of state in a whole helluva lot more states than just Ohio and Florida...wouldn't he?

So...I've got a question for all you idealistic Nader-voters and the younger 2008 counterparts:

HOW'S THAT WORKIN' OUT FOR YA?

You made your ideological point.  You protested by voting for a man you knew could not be elected.  And we got George W. Bush, who has proceeded to destroy everything you and I ever believed in--law by law, war by war, preserved wilderness by preserved wilderness, hurricane by hurricane, Supreme Court justice by Supreme Court justice.

People who complain that they will protest-vote for McCain because their candidate didn't get the nomination, or who complain that they will no longer support Obama because he voted for or against something that, earlier, he had voted against or for, are highly idealistic--make that--illogical, because of two reasons.

ONE:  He won't be able to do ANYTHING except vote on bills in the Senate if he is not elected, period. 

And in this election, he can't get elected without the Independent vote.  McCain is the only Republican candidate with a tinker's chance in hell of getting Independent voters, and he is already Roving himself up to snatch those folks into the Republican fold.

In 2004, Bush took a 50-plus-1 majority and used it as a MANDATE to do as he pleased after four years of, well, doing as he pleased.

The results have been horrific for our country.

Already they are painting Obama as a flaming liberal so far to the left he's practically a socialist, because they know that Independents are moderates by nature...CENTRISTS, if you will.  Independents and disgruntled or moderate Republicans fear extremists on either side, and as Bush/Rove have proven time and again...as an electorate...they are easily fooled.

And TWO:  So many of our electorate is too young to know what it means to have a functioning Congress that actually works together to get things done.  There was a time when congresspeople and senators would argue bitterly on the House or Senate floor, then get together afterward and go out for drinks, where they would hammer out compromise on legislation before the body.  There were many close friendships between political rivals.

THIS is how we got landmark legislation such as the Civil Rights Act.  Don't assume that because we had a Democratic president then and a Democratic congress that it was all some sort of kubaya cakewalk, because it was not.  Conservative Dems and Republicans lined up against liberals all the time.

But what was understood was that, without compromise, THERE IS NO GOVERNMENT.

There HAS to be pragmatism in politics in order to get anything done.

And when you have pragmatism...then you have a situation where conservatives and liberals will not be happy because the bill that results is not exactly what either of them wants.

But it will be a bill.

When Newt Gingrich and Tom DeLay and their cronies came in with their so-called "Contract With America," they threw out all that.  It was idealism all the way down, with ideologues controlling the agenda AND the media message.

Over the course of the years, moderates of both parties were forced out, and we were left with GRIDLOCK.  Opponents on either side of the aisle screaming at each other and MONTHS going by with nothing getting done on ANYTHING.  Literally calling one another names on the floor.  Regarding rivals not as opponents, but as ENEMIES.

This is what happens when ideologues rule.  Rigidity.  Inflexibility.  Inability to compromise.

I've even invented a little word for it:  NADERISM.

Obama has stated repeatedly that the bills he has agreed to vote for now are not the same bills he opposed earlier.  Many of the details he did not like have been removed.  And no, he's not happy with them as they stand.  But he knows that if he takes one ideological stance after another during this campaign--lining himself up solidly with idealistic liberals hungry for their shot--he will alienate millions of voters who will worry that an Obama administration would come in and sweep away the American way of life in a dramatic change they're not comfortable with.

He promises change.  And he will deliver change.

But he can't do that if his own party drags him down.

If you prefer Naderism to pragmatism, you are being, well, unrealistic.  It is unrealistic, first of all, to expect him to even get elected in the first place, and it is highly unrealistic to assume that even with a Democratic congress and senate that he will get everything he asks for if he does so along ideological lines.

Not all Democrats are the same as every other Democrat, and plenty of them come from Red states where they're hanging on for their political lives.  They will compromise when asked--as they did on the new G.I. Bill--but when rammed up against the wall, they will bow their necks and stiff out their arms as surely as the worst conservative out there.

Baby-steps, boys and girls.  Baby-steps.

I've read so many blogposts and op-eds calling into question Obama's principles and moral stamina, accusing him of triangulating and calculating and betraying all we hold dear in order to get elected.

"We thought he was different!" they whine.

He is different.  But he is not stupid.

Chris Dodd and Russ Feingold, for example, are fine senators, and they can afford, politically, to stand on principle when it comes to the FISA bill, among other things. 

After all, they aren't running for president. 

Dodd WAS running the last time he filibustered FISA, but he's not running now, why?  He couldn't get the votes.  It is no reflection on the man; I am a big fan of his--BUT, in the pragmatic world of politics, you HAVE to do some calculations on occasion if you truly want to get elected.

You have to make some sacrifices.  You have to back down once in a while.  You have to be willing to compromise at some point.  This is the real world of politics.

Am I saying that you should never show political courage?  Of course not.  But you have to pick your battles.  You have to weigh, in your own soul, which battles mean the most to you and which you would be willing to fight even if it cost you the presidency.

Recently, political enemies have accused Obama of compromising on his promise to end the war.  He is not and he has not.  He is making a realistic assessment of the situation as it exists, but he will not back down on bringing the war to an end, period.

He will back down--for now--on FISA.  He believes that there are safeguards in the new bill to strengthen it.  Critics say they are not strong enough.  Maybe not.  But if he is elected president, then those safeguards will at least be ENFORCED.

This is the real world of politics.  There is always room for idealism and ideals, of course.  But at some point along the line, we've got to GOVERN.

Half of the country does not agree with the liberal point of view.  If we want to get anything done in this government other than curses hurled across the aisle, that has got to be taken into consideration.  THEY are going to have to compromise.  WE are going to have to compromise.  Some on both sides will never be happy, no matter what.

But the vast majority of people in this country WILL. 

And that, my friends, is a democracy.

So grow up.  Forget about protest-votes or withdrawing your support from our candidate. 

Put your real-world glasses on, and vote for the man who really will bring about change, but only if he gets elected first...and then, he'll do it bit by bit.

Pragmatically.

But he WILL do it eventually, and that is what we all want in the long run...isn't it?