Argument from Efficacy

I’ve noticed a trend in political discourse over the last, say, 15 years. The tendency is to frame every proposition in terms of what I’m calling the Argument from Efficacy. No one seems to refer to first principles, or any principles at all, anymore. Things are always “if we do x then y will happen,” or “my opponent says y but what will really happen is z so we need to do v to get y.” While I’m all for planning by consequence, things seem to have devolved into a twisted mutant hybrid of economic modeling and Bethamite moral calculus. The thing that made Reagan such an effective figure was saying “I propose to do this because it is the right thing,” rather than “I have a plan that will produce x and y.” Arguments from rules-of-thumb, or maybe something like Mill’s rule-based utilitarianism, are both easier to communicate and easier to remember. Also, while it seems intuitive that greater specificity goes along with greater candor, it’s worth remembering: In the lives of a great many people, the first thing someone trying to take advantage of them does is to give them lots and lots of complicated data.

While seeming to grow throughout the system, the national Democratic Party seems to have the largest problem with this idea. They seem to be the fondest of saying “my scheme will produce this result for these 27 reasons,” and thus making themselves appear both confusing and not to be trusted. Of course, a debate with real clash is difficult with anyone using an argument from efficacy. Things tend to degenerate into “yes it will” and “no it won’t” attempts to predict the future, which is off-putting to the entire electorate. It also makes a meaningful vote hard to register. It is any surprise that the 2000 presidential election produced almost the same results as flipping a coin?

The whole representative thing would probably function a lot better if the discussions centered on value comparisons, and more of a first-principles idea of should and should not, rather than trying to juggle complex inputs and outputs for economic engineering. An over-simplification? Probably, but in a two-party (or even four-party) system, is there really a better way?

-Publius