Which of these two statements about foreign policy do you agree with more?

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

I think this is quite interesting in that it kind of cuts across idealogical grounds. Obviously most people would choose a compromise in practice, but I'm just curious to see what people think is a better aim.

Statement 1:

I support Realpolitik - the main purpose of foreign policy should be the pragmatic advance of the nation's interests and aims, rather than on explicit ideological grounds. Allies should be chosen for reasons of strategy rather than their sociopolitical/economic stances.

Examples: Dom Mintoff of Malta, Henry Kissinger, Ottoman von Bismarck, Lee Kuan Yew.

Statement 2:

I support a foreign policy based on ideals. My nation, even if it is not in explicit economic interest, should act in accordance with a certain ideological ideal. To that end, it should ally with those coinciding with this ideal, oppose those who deviate from it and avoid double standards where possible

Example: George W Bush, most neocons, liberal interventionists, and Trotskyites,

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Yelnoc. I think it comes down to a utilitarian vs deontology all perspective to foreign policy. Of course Bismarck et al. had an idealogical aim, but the steps to achieve that aim was up in the air. Similarly Nixonian policy wanted to isolate the Soviets, but not through some idealogical opposition to communist parties (see:China) but through the "pragmatic" desire to increase the US's global power to further the ultimate aim. I think that's a direct contrast to Reaganesque policy, where the enemy was not just a rival but "evil" and Bush-era machinations about 'axis of evil'.