Seems to me that given the limitations of a representative republic, this should be a primary attribute of politicians...but especially those in leadership positions. It's not. I understand why it isn't. Voters don't tend to admire it.

Often, a politician would campaign and talk a big game for their left or right ideals and govern pragmatically. Hell, if Bill Clinton's record as president were examined closely today, one might conclude he was a right wing populist. Even Hilary, one you examine her voting record as a senator, was more pragmatic than her rhetoric would suggest. I think GW Bush had a streak of pragmatism to him.

In todays political climate, there simply is very little room for a thoughtful politician, open to various ideas and willing to explore those. Instead we have political theatre...often of the most absurd kind....and if you are of the right, and you deviate from the path or try and find some common ground, your own side brings the thunder, for being a traitor. and the other side, who you are trying to work with....will never bend to meet you somewhere in between. Same for the left.

The system was designed by the founders with the idea that politicians...particularly the leadership...had to be pragmatic at least sometimes, in order to govern. In the absense of pragmatism, you get more and more entrenchment...and an acceptance that effective governance can only be achieved with a right wing authoritarian, or a left wing, powerful state.

We really need ranked choice voting so that the disproportionate amount of power being held by the fringes at the ends of the left and right on the political spectrum, can be spread back out some, to those of us who don't want to wield the a sickle and hammer or who don't want to weld the church and state together.