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.
WereBear
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.
dedc79
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.
Mathguy
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.
jackmac
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.
Richard Mayhew
@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.
Mnemosyne (iPhone)
@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!
Richard Mayhew
@dedc79: most of them from my limited exposure buy their own beliefs… Upton Sinclair plus cognitive dissonance minimizing
LWA
B-But what if the math demands it?
Omnes Omnibus
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.
srv
Objectively, we should just keep doing the Saudi’s bidding:
They seemed to have missed a few countires.
Baud
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.
Pogonip
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.
srv
Objectively, you liberals should love the cuckservative:
And he doesn’t even need a teleprompter.
JPL
@Pogonip: Me too!
JPL
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.
rikyrah
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!
Litlebritdifrnt
Okay so how can a police officer come up with $150K cash for a bond?
Richard Mayhew
@Litlebritdifrnt: Union contingency fund is my guess, second guess is a Free Republic advertised Go Fund Me Page
Mike J
@efgoldman: A bail bondsman is going to charge 10% for putting up the bond, so $15k in this case.
Mnemosyne (iPhone)
@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.)
Litlebritdifrnt
@Mike J: The bond was 1.5 mil $150K cash
rikyrah
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
Lurking Canadian
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.
JustRuss
@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.
Baud
@JustRuss:
Seems different in kind to me, but don’t care enough to debate the point.
Adam L Silverman
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.
Edward G. Talbot
Amen brother Mayhew. Objectivity is a false God generally invoked by those seeking to defend their subjective opinions.
Patrick ii
@JustRuss:
When they say “policy solutions rooted in objectiviity” I think they mean rooted in objectivism. Confusing the two is common on the right.
JustRuss
@Patrick ii: OK, that would actually make sense. Sort of.
patrick II
@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.