Realism is a semantic and political disaster

I have a semantical issuewith the term "Realist". Realist policy is the basis for many definitions of  many other IR terms, with things like Liberalism and Institutionalism existing because they describe the ways to deal with a realist world to make it more effective. But Realism implies that this view of the world is realistic. That states are aggressive and selfish by nature. And while this may seem like a truth, saying that it realist is hardly anywhere close. Those systems exist because of how we have historically acted in the past. Extractive, military powers have been dominant because they can kill and enslave many in their ways by threats of force. But in our modern world where Liberalism and fair treatment is the predominant focus, these outdated ideals have lead us down a dark path. I feel that a better way to describe Realism is Cynicism, for that is what it is. Idealism is on the opposite spectrum, and Realism shouldn't be about Realpolitik and Machiavellism, but rather understanding when to be Cynical and when to be Idealistic. Or possbily as a way of acting Idealistic in a cynical world. These are not difficult things to do if people put the care into politics that they did interacting with others. Idealism is called idealism for a reason; acting Idealistically. So why is it so often ignored? Kant's idea of the categorical imperative (while not perfect) states that one must act in a way with which they wish the world was. We are taught this way throughout years of education, and it is constantly preached by activists, peacekeepers, teachers, religious officials, and thousands of other careers who wish to make the world a better place. Why don't be heed that call?