Statesmen or Prophets?

Would you rather have statesmen or prophets in charge of foreign policy?  Consider this assertion by Henry Kissinger, in his book Diplomacy (A Touchstone book), regarding the differences between Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson:

But, then, he [Roosevelt] was the warrior-statesman; Wilson was the prophet-priest.  Statesmen, even warriors, focus on the world in which they live; to prophets, the "real" world is the one they want to bring into being. (p.47)

 In other words, are we better off following the realpolitik course that emphasizes power, material considerations and an "every nation for itself" world view or should we pursue an idealized international order that brings out the best in humanity?

On the one hand, there will always be evil, selfish and unreasonable people who refuse to "play by the rules".  Today, we label many of these people terrorists.

On the other, as John Winthrop, Governor of the Massachusetts Bay Colony wrote in 1630, "For we must consider that we shall be as a City upon a hill. The eyes of all people are upon us."  America stands for something better, and demands it of its citizens at home and the world at large.

However, ideals don't stop people from dying, and a case can be made that strength makes peace.  Strength without compassion, though, breeds fear, resentment and hate.  Is there a middle ground we can hold that is alert to the worst in people while simultaneously demonstrating the best?