Paul Krugman’s op-ed today reminds us that “idealism” must include “realism”. The problem is: neither the former nor the latter can be described in a way that both progressives (idealists) and conservatives (realists) can agree on. To a progressive, Medicare for All is not in any way idealistic. It is, in fact, simply the most efficient and least costly way to deliver health care to an entire population. But to the conservative realist, it is a nonstarter as long as there is the slightest chance the “other side” would get any credit. A living wage is not only “ideal” but only the right thing to do. Conservatives will fight it all the way which makes it realistically difficult to achieve. Inequality is a curse that idealists are most hopeful can be some-what mitigated by a more progressive tax code. Realistic conservatives are perfectly happy the way things have been since the Reagan/Bush tax cuts, which are, by the way, the cause of both the increase in the national debt and the shameful inequality that has grown steadily worse since Reagan. If there is to be a choice between idealist and realist in this election, make it idealist. The scourge of conservative Reaganism has had its “realistic” hold on America long enough.