Politicians should pursue common ground and reasonable consensus rather than elusive ideals.
Demoncratic systems seem to advocate and encourge policians, in its very nature, to pursue common ground and reasonable concensus. After all, following the majority's decision is now the underlying principle that we now perceive to be the best way to keep justice and improve social welfare. Nevertheless, pursuing concensus can incur high cost. And on the other hand, policians who pursue elusive ideals can be correct sometimes.
Generally speaking, the political systems, demoncratic system in particular, tend perfer neutral ground and consensus. It is easy to gain this conclusion from our empirical experiences: the best way that politicians can get a proposal passed is through pursuing common ground and reasonable concensus; in the prisidental election, both parties are leaning towards quite the same proposals, differenciating themselves mainly in styles and retorics, rather than ideals. And this point can be best illustrated by the pricinple of congrunity in the United Nations and WTO. Politicians talked, argued and discussed, round after round of laborous conferences, and in the end, only those who pursue common ground and reasonale consensus are likely to get their proposals past.
Nevertheless, advocating this kind of idea is not without its disadvantages. Firstly, the concensus or the netrual ground reached are not necessarily the best possible outcome, and in fact, they are usually not. More interest parties involved, more complex is the case. Just as the Nash equabrilium tells us, compromises and concensus wouldn't necessarily produce the best possible outcome. Secondly, the cost associated with arriving concensus is quite high. One could just look WTO for an example, it can take years for politicians to reach a common ground.
On the other hand, while pursuing elusive ideals is not encouraged or not popular in today's world, it it not without its advantages. Sometimes, politicians' elusive ideals can serve to be enlightening forces. We call it "elusive" because this kind of ideal could be beyond the understanding of the majority of people. But this doesn't necessarily mean it is not correct. Rather, history provides us with ample of examples when those elusive ideals turn out to be effective ones. When Deng Xiaoping first mentioned the "opening up policy" in China, many people, even politicians themselves didnt quite understand and get it. Now, as it turns out, China benefited enormously from this policy.
In the final analysis, though reaching and pursuing common ground is the most popular and practical method that politician use nowadays, it is not without its shortcomings. And sometimes, elusive ideals could turn out to be useful.