It's common to hear that people want to take the middle ground or rather the so-called pragmatic approach when it comes to any pressing concerns, especially those which involve ethical dilemmas.
We see this manifest particularly in politics, where the name of the game is to engage your fellow politicians and constituents for some kind of compromise. When those in Washington complain about the lack of bipartisanship, they have to mention how the only way either side can further their agendas is to go along and make a deal; in essence, take the pragmatic way forward in order to make sure you have some sort of relevancy(power) in the future. Supporters of candidates and those who generally participate in the electoral process will also quickly realize that the only way they can be ever hopeful is to cave in.
I hear the idea of pragmatism brought up whenever conflicting ideologies are presented and a person has to decide which direction to go; and making sure they don't try to seem what in their mind is absolutist or even worse dogmatic.
Many freedom lovers who oppose State power, eventually become aware that it's not opportunistic for themselves if they don't take the pragmatic route. A lot of anarchist/libertarian types found that by joining blossoming movements like the "art right" and Trump for president, they could establish more influence compared to just staying principled. Perhaps in that sense they were right.
Nevertheless, this whole understanding of pragmatism assumes that utilizing State power to diminish State power has ever worked anywhere, which I find no record for in the long run. Being pragmatic means being solely concerned with the practical application of things, although in the arena of politics we see the imposter term being used substituting it's plain definition.
