Written by Cory Wolbach
As we struggle to hold on to our democracy, I find it helpful to step back and think about big picture questions. Questions about why we do what we do. Beyond even just housing. What do we want from our government and politics? How will we get there? What will or won’t we do as we fight for our community and a future where we can all live and thrive?
Off and on for years I’ve heard people argue that you can either be an idealist or a realist (or a pragmatist). “Idealism,” in this framing, is an alternative to realism/pragmatism. Typically, this is offered by self-described realists/pragmatists who are mocking idealists as childish. I think these “realists” are wrong. Idealism isn’t an alternative to realism, nor to pragmatism. I recommend being an idealist and a realist and a pragmatist. Allow me to explain. The definitions below are my own.
Idealist: Able to envision and articulate an ideal. This is the vision, the north star, the perhaps unlikely perfect target.
Realist: Able to understand how close to the ideal we might get within real-world constraints, especially within a given timeframe. This allows us to be strategic and set realistic goals which can still be ambitious. The realistic goal should still be guided by the ideal, and if we achieve a goal, we can set a new goal, even closer to the ideal.
Pragmatist: Flexible in methods and tactics to achieve the realistic goal, aiming at the ideal. One might still choose to avoid some tactics which conflict directly with one’s ideals; we can set rules of engagement in our politics (e.g. choosing not to initiate political violence).
For example, we might articulate an ideal vision of housing justice. Perhaps something like, “Everyone has a safe, stable, affordable home; nobody is homeless, nobody experiences rent-burden (spending over 30% of their income on rent), landlords never exploit or abuse their tenants, and everyone can pick what community they want to live in.”
Then we might set a realistic goal. Perhaps, something like, “Within 10 years, we will build X units of new housing, Y of which will be affordable to people who are not wealthy; we will reduce chronic homelessness to a miniscule number of people, prevent most families from becoming homeless, and we will reduce the percentage of people experiencing rent-burden by ___ amount; we will empower renters with access to legal representation and renter’s unions; and we will both end the exclusionary practices of the past and invest in communities which previously had been denied such investment.”
With that goal set, we can pragmatically consider all the political and economic resources we have (or could create) in our community, and pragmatically deploy them to achieve our realistic goals. Lobbying, protesting, writing letters, sharing stories, getting good people to run for office, voting, raising money for affordable housing, etc. When we find a tactic isn’t working, if we aren’t hitting our goals, we can change tactics.
We can apply this approach to all things in politics. Housing. Transportation. Health care. Stopping fascism. Improving our institutions.
Thinking that things could get better isn’t magical thinking. Right now, things are, by almost any measure, decidedly not very good. Making things better will require vision, thoughtful strategy, and a willingness to shift tactics. It will require hard work for years. But we have agency.
Conversely, rejecting idealism in the name of realism or pragmatism isn’t realistic at all. Thinking we don’t have agency to collectively improve our conditions is fatalism, not realism. Don’t let the cynics win.