It has been obvious to me for some time that people who self-identify as idealists are inclined to take the intent for the act. That is, from their perspective, what they intend or want to happen is as good as done. The reason they can think this way is because they exist in an environment that's supportive. That is, other people implement their intentions, much as the teat surrenders nutrition to the infant. If they conclude from this experience that all that's required in life is for them to have a thought, then that's simplistic, but not unreasonable. After all, I've just figured it out.
That the idea comes first has been posited, I think, since Plato. I suspect we haven't quite understood the implication because there is also the equation of the ideal with perfection, making the real less than perfect and getting us fixated on "improving" the real (religiously speaking, on "salvation") and thereby distracting us from what is. So, the idealist ignores reality and the rest of us try to make it better. And everybody overlooks that the guy with the ideas is really batty.
ExxonMobil, the company that spouts the "all it takes is the idea" ads, is a good example. The idea they had, that extracting natural gas from rock fissures by pumping a mixture of unknown toxins into the ground to mingle in fresh water aquifers would deliver a hundred years of energy, is really bad. Because toxins kill and, even underground, lifelessness is bad. After all, the gas being extracted is being produced by organisms. Of course, the idea guy probably didn't think about that because process is not what idealists are able to perceive.
"All it takes is the idea" is an interesting formulation. That an "it" does anything is novel in itself. That it "takes" brings new meaning to "take" and explains how Willard, the idea man, comes to perceive himself as a "maker." His entire universe, everything around him, exists to take his direction and he makes it do things. Willard, the mover and shaker, differs little from Dubya, the decider. Idea men.
I suppose it is only logical that "I think, therefor I am," gets extrapolated to "and you do what you're told." That's what sustains the supremacy of the intellect. Not self-direction, but universal control. And it works, as long as the universe goes along.
For a practical example, we have the Tea Party kerfuffle over the national monetary system. The Tea Party had an idea. For once, Democrats said "that's a batty idea" and refused to go along. Would we had said that about bombing the cradle of civilization to smithereens.
People who have ideas ought to be challenged to demonstrate them themselves. Perhaps we could start with politicians who support executing miscreants.
Anyway, I was prompted to this line of thought by the perception that some people, perhaps the same people who take the intent for the act, seem incapable of holding a symbol distinct from the thing symbolized. Many economists, for example, seem quite convinced that the currency they employ to account for goods and services is identical to goods, services and transactions being accounted for. They don't seem to get that the idea and the real differ in that the real is both tangible and has physical characteristics that are measurable, even if only by a handshake.
Maybe it's a matter of relying on only one source of information, vision, and leaving out all the material interactions recorded by the ears, taste buds, olefactory receptors and skin. Certainly, that was what was wrong with Plato's captives in the cave. The allegory would have us believe that sight was/is their only source of enlightenment and then only if they are led into the light. Talk about wishful thinking. But, listen to R. Ted Cruz and you'll hear the same thing.
Mistaking the intent for the act and the symbol for the fact may just be the result of some sensory deficits. Things left out.