Moderates in that sense of pragmatism fall under the rubric of "centrists," for me. I agree there's a spectrum of policy positions, but I'm talking here about a philosophy that motivates a coherent, idealistic approach to politics. Pragmatic centrists are like diplomats who lay aside ideology or philosophy for the Machiavellian purpose of achieving a specific objective. They want to solve problems with compromises, and philosophical ideals would only hamper their negotiations.

This is like the difference between an ideological judge and a pragmatic, problem-solving judge. The conservatives on the American Supreme Court are notorious for being ideological, so in a sense they're more like politicians than judges, if we think of judges as being mainly diplomatic problem-solvers and thus as centrist, unbiased moderates.

So I think of these diplomats, centrists, and Machiavellian pragmatists as belonging to a third group, aside from liberal and conservative ideologues.

The question would be whether pragmatists have a distinctive philosophy or coherent set of ideals.