Last night I had a discussion with one of my friends where he said that the only way to objectively judge a policy is to quantify it. I said to him that this doesn't work because then it becomes a discussion of which numbers. "The GDP went up 10%, but only for the upper 10% of the U.S."
Policy issues, no matter how quantified, we came to conclude, always reduce to questions of philosophy. Consequently, reaching a deeper philosophical consensus on issues, will allow us to come up with a better mode of analysis for each issue. However, I feel that often these issues are relative based on the particular issue that we are facing. So perhaps we need to strike a middle ground between finding a larger general consensus, but a consensus that still oscillates between different view points and allows for a certain level of leeway on an issue by issue basis. Although, that would seem like the status quo. I think the difference, the important difference, is the direction of the discussion.
In our current discourse we oscillate around a central policy by attempting to rip control of the policy away from the oppositional party. Which makes it so that these changes often result in dramatic oscillations. "Back lash." A series of intensely progressive, state-interventionist policies will be followed by the destruction of government agencies and a huge amount of tax reduction. Thus we are left with something like more spending and less taxes. Less government, and more government responsibility. I think a discourse of "resolution" solves these issues because its goal is to develop a collective vision rather than having two parties fight to see which vision will win out, where in the end, both lose, and so do we.
No comments:
Post a Comment