This essay-for want of a more adequate phrase-is about a certain style of political activity: about the manner in which a political actor should engage in politics. We are not telling political actors what specific acts to undertake, or formulating some (inevitably simpleminded) manual of considerations for them to go through. Nor are we outlining a technique of politics, or telling political actors what goals they should have. We are not even concerned to tell them by what means they should pursue whatever ends they have-indeed, we argue that the distinction between means and ends cannot be sustained. We are concerned with the classic question, What is to be done? But our point is that this question is often interpreted too simply. The style of activity which is our concern involves "doings" which often go by the board and yet are vital for politics. We call this style of activity "prudence." Its modern connotation of mere caution makes this word far from ideal. But as there are no alternatives, we have chosen to refurbish it as the only word which can accommodate the implications for politics of the ensuing arguments. In arguing that all participants in politics should be prudent, we are suggesting that both political theory and political science need to become more fully aware of some more or less mundane, but deep, realities of politics.