@Secret - If you're in 1770s, "Founding Fathers" alignment. If your're in 2010s, "extreme naivete" alignment. (there's no "pragmatic" alignment per se)
Aren't some angles/positions mutually exclusive @Secret? I don't see how one could possible unify the positions of strict immigration controls and a more relaxed position.
@MartinTournoij That is true for that particular point, like the refugee issue in Australia, you either let them in or not. But for many issues, like energy, you can e.g. get one party to focus on renewables in one state, and another party to focus on fossils such that it does not interevene with a renewable project. That is, it should in theory possible to prevent the agendas of two opposite parties to clash if they don't demand e.g. whole country coal or whole country renewables
Another thought I had in mind is I don't see there is a contradiction in e.g. helping socialist to build worker councils, so that over time it evolves the economy towards the socialism direction, and helping free market people to make markets more transparent. Because if one model is superior than the other, then when both are fully optimised and allow to interact in the society, then only one could win out and become mainstream?
