In doing politics one encounters two very different kinds of political animals. There are those who view politics as a form of business: the object is to get the best possible deal. And there are those who view politics as a form of therapy: the object is to draw attention to one's purity of ideology and commitment.

The business types sometimes lose sight of exactly what it is that they're trying to maximize in all the deal-making. When all else is forgotten, the default is to maximize one's own glory. And the ideologues sometimes forget quite how much damage they do to their own cause by not knowing when it's time to cut a deal.

Most politicians are actually at their best precisely when they act against type. For example, Michi Ratzon is a Likud MK of the business variety, who took a principled stand against Sharon and, for a fleeting moment, actually sounded like a statesman. Uzi Landau, another Likud MK but of the ideologue variety, was trailing badly in the race to head the party and decided to cut a deal with Bibi Netanyahu. A number of good friends of mine who were very active in his campaign were devastated. But the truth is that it was a brief transcendent moment for Landau in which he actually sounded like a good politician.

Here ends the symmetry. The people I hang with are almost uniformly ideologues. This is partly because of the places I hang and partly because most people who don't actually have to get anything done have the luxury of ideological purity. (Conversely, there are those types who choose politics as a career from a young age -- think Ehud Olmert or Ofer Penis-Putz -- who regard principles as a liability.) Again and again, I run into people whose sole political objective is to shrei gevald, regardless of the price. Examples abound. Today, I offer one topical example. More will follow.

The fence/wall that is going up mostly along the green line has reached my little town (MLT). The whole fence is one giant useless populist boondoggle that serves the single purpose of delineating a border in all the wrong places. This is not the place to explain everything that's wrong with it. The question is what should be done about it. Given the fact that about a million miles of fence have already been built and a trillion dollars have already been invested in it, you've got to figure that stopping it cold in its tracks is a long shot.

So Shaul Goldstein, the "mayor" of Gush Etzion, has invested a good deal of time lobbying the makhers to at least revise the route of the fence in those places where it is most damaging. For this he has been attacked by purists, who prefer: i. "issuing a clear statement against the very idea of a fence and winning public support" (this from a guy who brought down Bibi for being too soft, so that we got Barak instead; he remains convinced that the masses are behind him) and ii. "sabotaging the bulldozers and lying down in front of the tractors".

To be sure, there are circumstances in which I myself would lie down in front of the tractors. But the first line of defense has always got to be to try to cut the best deal possible because statements and sabotage don't ever bring results; they are purely therapeutic measures. Unfortunately, though, some ideologues need to first and foremost vilify anybody who actually tries to get something done. They view a deal as the least satisfying possible outcome since it offers neither the ecstasy of victory nor the kind of self-righteous soul-cleansing catharsis that only a truly unambiguous screwing over can elicit.

Tomorrow (bli neder) I'll discuss an astounding tale of misplaced priorities in Hevron.