• Menu
  • Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

Before Header

  • About Us
  • Lexicon
  • Contact Us
  • Our Store
  • ↑
  • ↓
  • ←
  • →

Balloon Juice

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

It’s a doggy dog world.

Republicans choose power over democracy, every day.

Republicans want to make it harder to vote and easier for them to cheat.

Somebody needs to explain to DeSantis that nobody needs to do anything to make him look bad.

So it was an October Surprise A Day, like an Advent calendar but for crime.

Ron DeSantis, the grand wizard, oops, governor of FL.

Jack Smith: “Why did you start campaigning in the middle of my investigation?!”

Thanks to your bullshit, we are now under siege.

You come for women, you’re gonna get your ass kicked.

Relentless negativity is not a sign that you are more realistic.

Please don’t feed the bears.

There are a lot more evil idiots than evil geniuses.

Stop using mental illness to avoid talking about armed white supremacy.

White supremacy is terrorism.

Let us savor the impending downfall of lawless scoundrels who richly deserve the trouble barreling their way.

Take hopelessness and turn it into resilience.

Bark louder, little dog.

Republicans don’t lie to be believed, they lie to be repeated.

Shallow, uninformed, and lacking identity

I’m just a talker, trying to find a channel!

He seems like a smart guy, but JFC, what a dick!

Perhaps you mistook them for somebody who gives a damn.

Sadly, there is no cure for stupid.

People are complicated. Love is not.

Mobile Menu

  • Four Directions Montana
  • Donate with Venmo, Zelle & PayPal
  • Site Feedback
  • War in Ukraine
  • Submit Photos to On the Road
  • Politics
  • On The Road
  • Open Threads
  • Topics
  • COVID-19 Coronavirus
  • Authors
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Lexicon
  • Our Store
  • Politics
  • Open Threads
  • 2024 Elections
  • Garden Chats
  • On The Road
  • Targeted Fundraising!
You are here: Home / Anderson On Health Insurance / Analysis and advocacy

Analysis and advocacy

by David Anderson|  November 30, 20157:20 pm| 30 Comments

This post is in: Anderson On Health Insurance, All we want is life beyond the thunderdome, Show Me On the Doll Where Rahm Touched You

FacebookTweetEmail

There are many things in the New York Times article on the transformation of Illinois under Rauner and the new Gilded Age finance barons that piss me off.  But one of them really stands out as it offends me as a wonk:

His goal, Mr. Arnold wrote, was “to counterbalance these entrenched forces, on the right and the left, by providing policy solutions rooted in objectivity and solid analysis.”

There is no such thing as an objective solution.

There can be objective analysis in which an analyst discloses their model for review, adjusts the model to account for previous failures, makes explicit all of the assumptions embedded within a model, performs rigorous sensitivity testing of the parameters of the model, and then disclose results no matter what.  That type of analysis can be as close to objective as possible.  It is also likely to be wrong in the details of the outcome but it can be objective or at least as close to objective as we faulty humans can be.

This type of modeling and analysis allows a meteorologist to say it is highly likely to rain tomorrow.

However once an objective or more accurately, a fair attempt to be an objective, analysis leads to recommendations the recommendations are not objective.  If the objective forecast is that it will rain tomorrow, the recommendation that everyone bring an umbrella to the bus stop has massive value assumptions built into it.

It values dryness, it values professional presentation, it values appearances, it values personal comfort over the comfort of others on the bus who now may seek to avoid a wet folded umbrella siting on the seat next to the guy who could have stayed just as dried if he waited three minutes to leave the house and run to the bus stop half a block away.

Any recommendation, even one supported by reams of objective research, is a moral question of what “ought” to be instead of what is or what is likely to be.  “Oughts” are fundamentally political questions.

Should the US government increase the tax on alcohol by 10%?  Objective policy analysis could fairly predict that a higher tax on alcohol will lead to fewer car crashes, fewer arrests for domestic violence and other bodily injury crimes, fewer teen drinkers, lower short term health expenditures and potentially higher long term health care costs and a thousand other benefits.  It will also find that jobs at major breweries will decline as sales will decline and jobs at bars and restaurants will also decline.  Now the policy recommendation to support a 10% increase tax on alcohol is a value argument that the benefits massively outweigh the costs while opposition could be grounded in either an argument that the concentrated costs of job loss are too real and too much for the dispersed benefits OR in a value of keeping taxes as low as possible OR in a value system that prioritizes a government incapable of interfering in private choices OR half a dozen other plausible value propositions.

Just keep that in mind whenever you see someone make a claim that their policy recommendation is an objective recommendation.  They are bullshitting you, and most likely bullshitting themselves.

 

 

FacebookTweetEmail
Previous Post: « Monday Evening Open Thread: Thank the Gods for Mockery
Next Post: Open Thread: “Whisper Campaigns and Zipper Problems” »

Reader Interactions

30Comments

  1. 1.

    WereBear

    November 30, 2015 at 7:24 pm

    We can do analyses that show Abstinence Education increase rates of teen pregnancy, but we liberals think sex education is about reducing unwanted pregnancies.

    Christian fundamentalists think teens deserve unwanted pregnancies, and not pushing abstinence makes them hypocrites.

    Different goals.

  2. 2.

    dedc79

    November 30, 2015 at 7:27 pm

    They are bullshitting you, and most likely bullshitting themselves.

    Eh, I don’t know about that second part. Some of them have surely convinced themselves that they have uncovered some objective truth, but many know they are full of it.

  3. 3.

    Mathguy

    November 30, 2015 at 7:35 pm

    Your post hits on something that has driven me crazy for years. The worst manifestation of “objective analysis” is our jackass MSM’s Bothsiderism, the misbegotten spawn of Broder and his ilk.

  4. 4.

    jackmac

    November 30, 2015 at 7:39 pm

    Illinois hasn’t been transformed yet but the radical agenda and big bucks available for like-minded candidates in next year’s elections may result in short-term upheaval here. Know this, however. No multiples of millions of dollars from his own deep pockets and his one percenter cronies will re-elect him. He’s a one-termer.

  5. 5.

    Richard Mayhew

    November 30, 2015 at 7:40 pm

    @Mathguy: this post is what a good graduate level intro to policy analysis Prof beats into her students heads for three months or until they grok it.

  6. 6.

    Mnemosyne (iPhone)

    November 30, 2015 at 7:42 pm

    @Mathguy:

    I think that’s usually knee-jerk contrarianism presented as “fact.” As in, Sure, 99 percent of climate scientists say that global warming is real, but what if the 1 percent who disagree are right? Is the Earth round or flat — views differ!

  7. 7.

    Richard Mayhew

    November 30, 2015 at 7:42 pm

    @dedc79: most of them from my limited exposure buy their own beliefs… Upton Sinclair plus cognitive dissonance minimizing

  8. 8.

    LWA

    November 30, 2015 at 7:45 pm

    B-But what if the math demands it?

  9. 9.

    Omnes Omnibus

    November 30, 2015 at 7:49 pm

    In addition, every report requires leaving some facts out. The decisions about which facts are in and which are not is also a move away from objectivity. Greater value is assigned to some facts. Also, the same thing applies to where in the report the facts are mentioned. First sentence of the first paragraph or in a footnote in Appendix Y makes a difference.

  10. 10.

    srv

    November 30, 2015 at 8:04 pm

    Objectively, we should just keep doing the Saudi’s bidding:

    With Wall Street shops like Goldman Sachs (GS) and government officials in Venezuela signaling oil could go to the mid-$20 per barrel range next year, analysts at places like RBC Capital Markets have been warning that chronically low oil prices plunging towards seven-year lows means increasing social chaos in countries on the edge—including those battling ISIS.

    Five countries are high on the radar screen for societal risks from low oil prices, which RBC Capital Markets has labeled the “Fragile Five.” They are Algeria, Iraq, Libya, Nigeria, and Venezuela. ISIS operatives are believed to be in most of these countries.

    They seemed to have missed a few countires.

  11. 11.

    Baud

    November 30, 2015 at 8:05 pm

    His goal, Mr. Arnold wrote, was “to counterbalance these entrenched forces, on the right and the left, by providing policy solutions rooted in objectivity and solid analysis.”

    I’m missing the criticism. He didn’t say “objective solutions.” He said “policy solutions.”

    The real criticism is that he’s lying in saying his solutions won’t be right-wing, but that’s a whole different issue.

  12. 12.

    Pogonip

    November 30, 2015 at 8:07 pm

    Educational and thoughtful as always. Viva Richard!

    I hope for an open topic because sometimes a freezing fog has just gotta rant righteously. But Richard’s elegantly reasoned article ain’t the best place for flamethrowing fury.

    You know, maybe Cole could have a random drawing daily in which the winning commenter could launch the (amateur division) Rant of the Day. (Excessively profane I-hate-you-all ranting is best left to pros like Cole). Wouldn’t you like to launch the Rant of the Day on any topic you need to rant about?

    Tunch would want it that way.

    I miss Tunch. I never MET Tunch. Never did he prickle my legs while purring on my lap, puke in my shoe, or yell “Wake up! I’m hungry!” in my face at oh-dark-thirty. But I miss him just as much as if he had done all those things and tracked litter all over the rug besides.

  13. 13.

    srv

    November 30, 2015 at 8:19 pm

    Objectively, you liberals should love the cuckservative:

    Prompted by Pastor Warren Hunsberger saying his favorite movie is also The Princess Bride, Cruz broke into about minute’s recitation of lines from the 1987 film starring Cary Elwes.

    Specifically, Cruz recited lines from a scene with Miracle Max, played by Billy Crystal. In the scene, Max attempts to revive Elwes’ character Westley and find out what he is searching for in life. Cruz’s rendition of the scene ended with an argument Max has with his wife, Valerie.

    Cruz has been known to break out into impressions before, including The Princess Bride. For instance, when making fun of terminology used by President Obama, he has recited the Inigo Montoya line, “You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means.”

    And he doesn’t even need a teleprompter.

  14. 14.

    JPL

    November 30, 2015 at 8:19 pm

    @Pogonip: Me too!

  15. 15.

    JPL

    November 30, 2015 at 8:22 pm

    In the olden days, we valued laborers and the result was pensions, so they could live out their life after working hard for decades. Now we only value those dependent on the stock market. Something is wrong.
    I still value the laborers of the world and I hope that you do too. I might add that if Rauner choked on a croissant wrapped wiener while sipping on a cocktail this xmas, that would be okay.

  16. 16.

    rikyrah

    November 30, 2015 at 8:29 pm

    My Chicago Folks:

    Remember…

    THE SNOW BAN BEGINS TOMORROW MORNING AT 3 AM.

    Don’t get caught in the trick bag and wake up to have your car towed.

    Don’t give Rahm anymore of your money!

  17. 17.

    Litlebritdifrnt

    November 30, 2015 at 8:31 pm

    Okay so how can a police officer come up with $150K cash for a bond?

  18. 18.

    Richard Mayhew

    November 30, 2015 at 8:35 pm

    @Litlebritdifrnt: Union contingency fund is my guess, second guess is a Free Republic advertised Go Fund Me Page

  19. 19.

    Mike J

    November 30, 2015 at 8:47 pm

    @efgoldman: A bail bondsman is going to charge 10% for putting up the bond, so $15k in this case.

  20. 20.

    Mnemosyne (iPhone)

    November 30, 2015 at 8:50 pm

    @Pogonip:

    I have a feeling that Party Cat will amuse you.

    (There are 6 episodes, but that’s the best one. It goes in kind of a weird direction.)

  21. 21.

    Litlebritdifrnt

    November 30, 2015 at 8:53 pm

    @Mike J: The bond was 1.5 mil $150K cash

  22. 22.

    rikyrah

    November 30, 2015 at 8:55 pm

    This Poet Has Some Pretty Dope Parting Words For President Obama
    November 29, 2015 – 12:02 pm

    Dear President Obama,
    “N***a you ain’t s**t!”
    That’s how some people feel, but for us, it’s the opposite.

    Those are the opening lines of a poem dedicated to the impending exit of the 44th President of the United States. Brooklyn poet, hip-hop artist and activist Moise Morancy took to Facebook last week to share parting words for President Obama, filled with admiration for the legacy our current POTUS will undoubtedly leave behind. Morancy’s dedication serves a dope send-off, noting that Obama’s time in office has inspired him and a legion of other young black people to strive for their dreams:

    http://www.vibe.com/2015/11/president-obama-poem-moise-morancy/

    https://youtu.be/z-e3ph1H7r4

  23. 23.

    Lurking Canadian

    November 30, 2015 at 8:57 pm

    At one point in the 1990s, I remember reading (I think in Time magazine) Alan Greenspan described as a “non-ideological pragmatist”. Yes. Greenspan. Who once sat and studied at the knee of Ayn Rand.

    That’s what passes for “objective policy making” in the village.

  24. 24.

    JustRuss

    November 30, 2015 at 9:03 pm

    @Baud: You’re nit picking. “Policy solutions rooted in objectivity” is essentially the same as “objective solutions”. If you want to explain how they differ, have at it.

  25. 25.

    Baud

    November 30, 2015 at 9:32 pm

    @JustRuss:

    Seems different in kind to me, but don’t care enough to debate the point.

  26. 26.

    Adam L Silverman

    November 30, 2015 at 10:23 pm

    I think what you’re really looking for, terminology and concept wise, isn’t objectivity, but rather intersubjectivity. The latter, which I had drummed into me while doing my doctorate, is what we should be striving for in the social sciences and when doing policy analysis. The idea is to recognize that we all have biases, recognize the researcher’s/analyst’s biases in regards to the topic at hand, and by doing so avoid weighting the outcome/recommendations.

  27. 27.

    Edward G. Talbot

    November 30, 2015 at 10:49 pm

    Amen brother Mayhew. Objectivity is a false God generally invoked by those seeking to defend their subjective opinions.

  28. 28.

    Patrick ii

    November 30, 2015 at 10:53 pm

    @JustRuss:

    When they say “policy solutions rooted in objectiviity” I think they mean rooted in objectivism. Confusing the two is common on the right.

  29. 29.

    JustRuss

    November 30, 2015 at 11:31 pm

    @Patrick ii: OK, that would actually make sense. Sort of.

  30. 30.

    patrick II

    November 30, 2015 at 11:47 pm

    @JustRuss:

    You know Ayn Rand and her philosophy of Objectivism (“rational” individualism), right? When you hear the big money men on the right talk about objective social programs, this is what they often mean. And as Mr. Mayhew points out, being “objective” when setting social goals is illusory.

Comments are closed.

Primary Sidebar

Recent Comments

  • Misterpuff on Wednesday Morning Open Thread: The GOP Insists There Will Be Blood Impeachment (Apr 17, 2024 @ 1:00pm)
  • UncleEbeneezer on Wednesday Morning Open Thread: The GOP Insists There Will Be Blood Impeachment (Apr 17, 2024 @ 1:00pm)
  • Nora on Arizona In The Crosshairs (Apr 17, 2024 @ 12:56pm)
  • schrodingers_cat on Wednesday Morning Open Thread: The GOP Insists There Will Be Blood Impeachment (Apr 17, 2024 @ 12:56pm)
  • PAM Dirac on Arizona In The Crosshairs (Apr 17, 2024 @ 12:55pm)

🎈Keep Balloon Juice Ad Free

Become a Balloon Juice Patreon
Donate with Venmo, Zelle or PayPal

Balloon Juice Posts

View by Topic
View by Author
View by Month & Year
View by Past Author

Balloon Juice Meetups!

All Meetups
Talk of Meetups – Meetup Planning
Proposed BJ meetups list from frosty

Fundraising 2023-24

Wis*Dems Supreme Court + SD-8
Virginia House Races
Four Directions – Montana
Worker Power AZ
Four Directions – Arizona
Four Directions – Nevada

Featuring

Medium Cool
Artists in Our Midst
Authors in Our Midst
Positive Climate News
War in Ukraine
Cole’s “Stories from the Road”
Classified Documents Primer

Calling All Jackals

Site Feedback
Nominate a Rotating Tag
Submit Photos to On the Road
Balloon Juice Mailing List Signup
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Links)
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Posts)

Fix Nyms with Apostrophes

Balloon Juice for Ukraine

Donate

Twitter / Spoutible

Balloon Juice (Spoutible)
WaterGirl (Spoutible)
TaMara (Spoutible)
John Cole
DougJ (aka NYT Pitchbot)
Betty Cracker
Tom Levenson
David Anderson
Major Major Major Major
ActualCitizensUnited

Political Action 2024

Postcard Writing Information

Balloon Juice for Four Directions AZ

Donate

Balloon Juice for Four Directions NV

Donate

Site Footer

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

  • Facebook
  • RSS
  • Twitter
  • YouTube
  • Comment Policy
  • Our Authors
  • Blogroll
  • Our Artists
  • Privacy Policy

Copyright © 2024 Dev Balloon Juice · All Rights Reserved · Powered by BizBudding Inc

Share this ArticleLike this article? Email it to a friend!

Email sent!