In politics, I have two different sets of ideas. They overlap on a few issues, but for the most part they are radically different. One way of thinking reflects what I actually want to achieve (egalitarianism and an end to exploitation), while the other reflects what seems practicable (an efficient if coldly mechanistic society). To the best of my knowledge, they are mutually exclusive on every level. Feeling trapped between the fantastically improbable and the unpalatable (hence the avatar of the ever-pessimistic Thomas Hobbes), I am in need of advice. I am above average in intelligence and, while it is hard to believe at this point, I could actually be a valuable member of the site, but I am not one yet because of my confusing political meanderings. So, while I don't blame anyone who is tired of these threads of mine, I think that if I got some good advice at this point I might become more tolerable. Thank you very much.

You're not alone in that. Rather than letting ideals or even realism box you in, you should let your politics be an extension of your personality and character. Let them change with you. Do not change with your politics. There is a time for ideals and a time to look at reality. Unless one of them is deeply bound in your personality.

This is an overgeneralization, but basically you saw my idealism (with some needless authoritarianism added) before the site crashed and my realism after it recovered. I am idealistic by nature, but with the level of cynicism out there today that doesn't win over very many people. Basically, my natural inclination is to be a tolerant egalitarian, but I see such an inclination as being the most impractical of all mindsets- hence my confusion.

If you have any moral code at all you are an Ideologue.

I am a pragmatist only when it does not violate my morals. Since my morals take precedence, I am an Ideologue. As are most people.

__________________
My Political Blog (Most recent update Oct 3rd) - Which Flame Warrior are you?

I have a feeling though, S-S, that you wouldn't like my "ideologue" set of views. Think back to my "liberal populist" days and remove the authoritarian streak and you essentially have a summary of what I want done in society.

You are not a politician right now, Force. It doesn't matter if we disagree with your ideology. Even if you were a politician, people respect one who puts his or her morals ahead of realism. Though sometimes it is good to have some idea about what is realistic too.
What I do:
I'm ideological as far as the vision of the world I want to see and realistic insofar as looking for ways to acheive it.
Simply attempting to be agreeable to all is not realistic. Compromise you will have to do in life. But you never have to compromise what is in your head or your heart. And since none of us can be truly realistic, it is important to let what is in your mind and soul out for others to see.

Well, since the consensus seems to be that I should state what I really believe should be done in society, I will do so once my old threads descend a bit in the forums. I'll stay mainly in the off-topic and political science forums until then.

Irrelevant. All that is required to fit the definition of an ideologue is having a moral code.

__________________
My Political Blog (Most recent update Oct 3rd) - Which Flame Warrior are you?

I thank you both for the advice.

By the way, JavaBlack, I'm beginning to suspect that you can predict the future- or perhaps it's just you're uncanny sense of motivations. I just took that ontheissues.org quiz, answering with my real views, and I scored as a centrist, just as you predicted about a week ago.