A Short Defense of Realism in Policymaking

Quick: are you an optimistic person?
You might have been able to find an answer quickly, but what exactly does that mean? For many people, optimism is expressed as at least one of the following:

"I expect things to turn out well"
"I hope for the best"
"Things will go how they are meant to be"

The problem is these statements are dissociative from one another and are not necessarily mutually inclusive. For instance, I take issue, even offense, with being placed in either camp because it makes certain assumptions about your behavior, assumptions which can be disproved in either category.

This is vital in whatever you do, but particularly relevant to the field of policy---and therefore why I reject both camps. If we are really only capable of being pessimistic or optimistic people, then how does that affect how we view, respond to, and shape society? Do optimists not respond to poverty, only relying on sheer hope and higher power to raise the destitute from their awful conditions? What about pessimists? Since we'll probably all be nuked someday anyway, why don't we just press the button and fire missiles at all our enemies now?

These are dramatic examples, but they illustrate the sheer poor logic of trying to explain or pigeonhole individuals in this manner, and why I tend to come into conflict with either camp. The pessimists I've come across accuse me of being too liberal, too hopeful: I have too much faith in the future and the ability of well thought-out solutions to have positive impact on negative situations. For instance, I support welfare programs that assist poor families buy necessities. "WHY?" claim my more negative counterparts. "They'll just live off the system!"

Meanwhile, the optimists I interact with will accuse me consistently of pessimism---sometime to their own delight. The strongest instance of this is when I have pointed out the sheer number of issues which I believe we're performing poorly--economics, taxes, health care, environment, immigration, foreign policy--I am accused of focusing too much on the negative. In the words of Eleanor Roosevelt, "damned if you do, damned if you don't".

This is why I fundamentally disapprove of either label. As someone who believes in policymaking, I believe it is irrational to hold to either ideology---I eschew ideology in general, in fact. Tending and responding to the needs of society requires a degree of impartiality and an as-close-as-possible to objective analysis of the conditions as possible. Furthermore, while a leader has to believe in his own ability to improve the state of his people, he must also be prepared for his own failures or worsening of the situation---or risk being crushed by the consequences if he is caught unawares. It would be irresponsible to be given the reins to a society and act in any other way. If you disagree with me, feel free to comment but I happen to believe this is the proper manner to carry oneself when you are in the field of policymaking.