Granted that everything is viewed subjectively - more or less, (and being objective is not the same as being realistic) but realism is largely a matter of belief in the material, the provable, the real physical (as opposed to the surreal, metaphysical) world.
Its often thought that being a realist is opposed somehow to being an optimist (realists = pessimist) and I don't think that is right either. Look, if you walked up to me tomorrow and told me I had my A List crew, in my home theater and tried to tell me that the show would be some sort of disaster I would say "No." Its not that I'm some sort of cockeyed optimist. I'm not. Its that I know and trust those people (myself included) to pull off what needs to be done, and do it right. Its not optimism, its a realistic assessment that the people I have (including myself) are a) the best at what they do, b) have done it more than just about anyone else I could get, c) have skills for avoiding problems before they become problems, d) are not easy to faze.
In the process of doing thousands of shows with these guys (and a few girls) I've never seen them fail, so the only assessment is that they are good at what they do. Being good at what they do, if not the best, and being highly skilled with massive amounts of training at that specific site, the only realistic assessment is that of optimism.
Likewise, any person thinking that changing one person here or there (even at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave) is going to change everything is not being realistic.
Beyond that, there are a big dog pile of things that call themselves 'realism' - in art, in ethics, in philosophy, and in politics. You need to define exactly what you are talking about.
