Americans see pragmatic politicians as similar to themselves, eager to cooperate and be part of the global liberal order. Hanson argued that instead of simply decreeing ideology as bad and pragmatism as good, we should try to see the two as complementary. Without an ideology to define a long-run political vision, it is often difficult to be politically pragmatic. Political pragmatism without a state ideology may often be equivalent to opportunism. According to the speaker, most of us have culture, not ideology.
Most people know what political community they belong to solely in implicit and inconsistent terms.
Cultural responses to the problem of political membership are more common, but they fail to give concrete answers to questions of where the boundaries and membership lie on the macropolitical level. In periods of crisis when the boundaries of a political community are difficult to define, ideologists may have power they would not ordinarily have. However, it is risky to establish the boundaries and member-ship of a political community that does not yet have them. Hanson noted that in turbulent times, pragmatism is often inconsistent. A perfectly pragmatic politician will repeatedly change positions.