We’ve all been there. The crowded bar after work or university. Students and young professionals all huddled around a table clutching their favourite beers and assorted refreshments. The conversation ranges from such imperative daily topics as Paris Hilton’s ADD problems to the best place to buy a rice-cooker. Then it turns, as it always does, to politics. “Bush is the devil!”, you hear your colleague exclaim, “he’s a tool for multi-conglomerate corporations!” the table enthusiastically echoes. And there you sit, the realist. Comforting your beverage you make mention that perhaps Bush isn’t a monster? Maybe the fact that he has donated more foreign aid to Africa in dollar terms than any of his predecessors, or that the American capitalist spirit is, gasp, a ‘good’ thing might act in his favour? Of course this is followed by a few seconds of silence, as your friends realise that you quite possibly are the devil incarnate.

Why do we get such terrible looks?

Of course, I’m not referring ‘realism’ in any particularly international context. Likewise I’m not purely waving the conservative flag. Rather I’m thinking of the individual who accepts within themselves the circumstances of our world, of our lives and don’t make any pretense that every problem necessarily has a solution. Think of the guy in your workplace or social gathering who doesn’t blow his trumpet every time his or her counterparts begin Bush-hatin’ or fawning over Palestinian terrorist organisations.

I’m of the opinion that realism on the surface doesn’t possess nearly as much appeal as that of the bleeding-heart lefty. At university, the girls don’t generally fall at the feet of the realist and his carefully-constructed arguments based on historical proof and empirical accountability. Even saying that is boring. Instead, folks love the passionate vitriol of mass-empathy, revolution of the world. The people surging against the ‘man’ in one big powerful wave. Nobody has to work ever again. We can all live in peace and harmony, drinking unicorn giggles while we poke our former bourgeois overlords in the eye.

It’s appealing, to my mind, on two broad aspects. First and foremost, it’s easier. What would you rather do? Read Hobbes’ giant volumes on depressing political and social development, or sit in a drum circle and rage against the forces that conspire against you and your fellow trendoids? Realism is less-appealing because it’s difficult. Really difficult. Intellectually it requires a lot of reading and historical knowledge to be able to defend formed opinions. Likewise it requires a personal leap from the emotional to the rational. I dislike war and suffering as much as the next person, but it’s the ability to admit that these things happen, yet still forge forward an intellectual path to utilising what political and historical information we have at hand to carve out an incrementally better world. There’s no huge revolution with a big party (pun unintended) at the end of the road. There’s no sudden and inevitable gushing freedom of thought and individuality whilst still being part of the collective. Realism is an uphill struggle. It’s a campaign of persistent advocacy for making do with what we have, and doggedly sticking to the course. For socialists there’s a bright happy rainbow at the end of the road. For liberals there’s the felling of ‘the Man’ or the elimination of a great Sauron-esque evil. For Realists… there is nothing but the knowledge that a slow development of ideas and actualities will be manifest.

On a more simplistic level, realism doesn’t quite have the symbology and fashion down as other less-conservative groups may employ. The Hammer and Sickle, Lenin caps, dreadlocks, beads, drums, Jimi Hendrix and friends. Realists have none of the cool clothes and fashionable stationery at their disposal. How does one, after all, make Reagan look sexy? Never mind that Che was a sadistic murderous renegade even by Castro’s standards. His face looks good on a shirt, so it’s okay.

Put simply, chicks dig the long-haired castle-hugging sensitive soul who denounces Bush and the ‘evil empire’ with cries of revolution and rapid, decisive change. End world hunger! End world conflict! Why can’t we all get along? Good questions if you’re looking to play the ‘passionate intellectual’ card, but utterly useless in the political realm.

So perhaps next time I’m out with friends talking politics over a beer or non-fat chai latte, I may just spout some passionate monologue about the evil of organised politics and CIA conspiracies to employ Facebook as part of the Homeland Security quest for American Domination. If the company so deems it, I could then follow with some embittered cry against the plight of the poor Palestinian suicide bombers who do what they do because we’re all just misunderstood inside. Or something suitably nauseating. If it tugs heart strings and brings a tear to the eye, it’s sexy! I’ll be able to show my passionate side whilst still giving off the impression that I’m informed. After all, nobody wants to hear about Reagan’s economic successes. He was the American President, maaan, he must be toppled with grass roots movements!

But perhaps the left have cottoned on to something here. At the end of the day, realism must be doing something wrong if it’s not pulling in the ladies, right?