I'm not sure about that, Greg.

With domestic policy, both the right and the left have their own ideals - for example, desiring 'small government' or excellent public services - and both wings have to be pragmatic about what can be achieved in practice.

With foreign policy, the idealist approach is to support regimes which have democracy and a good level of human rights. Pragmatism is the approach of aiming for stability and supporting the regimes that seem to provide this or those that are 'the enemy of your enemies', irrespective of their politics or human rights. Thus the neo-cons tend towards idealism (and they were leftists now considered rightists), while the pragmatic approach is the more traditional one typified by Henry Kissinger and his school of thought.

The point is that all sides - left, right, idealists, pragmatists - support policies that they believe are for the good. The views that 'the left cares for others; the right care only for themselves' or 'idealists/pragmatists = good/bad' are vastly oversimplified and are the realms of tabloid journalism, populist politicians (who tend amazingly to come to their senses after retirement) and naive loonies of all persuasions.

Steve