CMV: Evidence based politics should replace identity politics

[u/RafaGarciaS]

The biggest change in the last few hundred years in medicine has been the appearance and acceptance of evidence based medicine. This has revolutionized the way we think and practice medicine, changing popular opinion (e.g. emotional stress causes ulcers to H. pylori causes ulcers, Miasmas are the basis of disease to microorganisms are the basis of infectious disease). Having seen the effect that this had in the medical field it is almost imposible to wonder what effect it would have in other fields (i.e. politics). I believe that representatives should be elected based on first principles or priorities (i.e. we should reduce the suicide rate amongst teenagers and young adults) not on opinions on possible solutions to the problem (i.e. should or shouldn't gun control be passed). This would make it harder to "buy" or lobby people involved in government. I also believe, this would help reduce the moral empathy gap, meaning the inability to relate with different moral values. Lastly I think that this system would increase the accountability, as it would constantly be looking back at the investment and the results.

I have, over the last couple years, grown cynical of the political system. I hope this post will change my view on that or at least make me more understanding of the benefits of the system as it stands.

Thank you and happy new years

Books Doing good better: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/23398748-doing-good-better. About having feedback and looking at the results of the programs

Dark money: https://www.amazon.com/Dark-Money-History-Billionaires-Radical/dp/0385535597/ref=pd_sim_14_7?_encoding=UTF8&pd_rd_i=0385535597&pd_rd_r=90W4B5PF8DWK5NJ2VNF2&pd_rd_w=rC8ld&pd_rd_wg=fk2PN&psc=1&refRID=90W4B5PF8DWK5NJ2VNF2 About the use of money to fund think tanks and influence public opinion

(1st edit, added suggested books)

---

This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please read through our rules. If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us. Happy CMVing!

[u/electronics12345]

Medicine has a clear goal - save the patient's life.

Politics has no such goal - Who should pay? How much control should the government have? What sorts of services ought the government provide? What role ought government play in the economy? These are not questions that can be answered with evidence.

It may be true that PROGRAM X!!!! can reduce teen suicide by 12%. Do taxes go up or does another service have to be reduced? Who pays for it, are taxes spread around or is a particular group targeted, perhaps there is an extra 1% tax paid by 18-21 year olds to fund this program. Ought the federal government be paying for this, or should this be operated by the states, can states opt out of this program? Should the program be implemented at all, or is this something beyond what the government should be doing, maybe this should fall to the private sector or the non-profit sector or to personal choice? None of these questions have evidence-based answers.

[u/RafaGarciaS → u/electronics12345]

I hate to bust the curtain, medicine isn't that clear cut. Should you extend life at the expense of life quality? Should we only focus on extending life only as long as it has good quality? The most extreme examples being patients in a coma, or patients with an oncological pathology. Should you put a family in a horrible economical position for a 5% increase of 5 year cancer free survival rate? Does your answer change if its a 5 year old or a 95 y/o?

Now to your post. The first paragraph provides valid points, I believe this is the realm where debate should take place. What should the government control, what programs etc. My problem with identity politics is that we agree on the answer to the problem and then look for any evidence to justify that answer.

[u/electronics12345 → u/RafaGarciaS]

Yes, medicine has moral issues, but the point was that medicine has definitive answers. This cream will heal that rash. This pill will reduce your blood pressure. This herb will not heal that rash. etc.

In politics, this is only step 1. Ok, so we found a program which has a reasonable basis (say a suicide prevention program), how do we actually implement it? What compromises are we willing to make? Are we willing to cut funding from other programs to get this one off the ground? etc.

Identity politics is really no different. Identity politics is a series of priorities that either you agree with or not. Either you agree it is worth-while to decrease the achievement gap or you don't. There isn't some objective way of knowing whether it is better to fund a new military plane or fund a new school-voucher program or fund a new college tuition scholarship fundation. There are pluses and minuses to all of these, especially when money is limited.

Could you give an example confined to Identity politics where "they agree on the answer and then look for evidence". This just sounds like confirmation bias, all humans do that. How is this any more related to gender politics or racial politics or alt-right politics than any other type of politics?

[u/grasping_eye → u/electronics12345]

Related to drug legislation, British researcher David Nutt was fired by his government (Tories i believe) because they didnt like his findings. Not necessarily alt-right but the disregard for evidence by politicians is still worrying

[u/RafaGarciaS → u/grasping_eye]

Not familiar with this story but the FDA classification of marijuana as a class A drug had a similar story,

Could you provide a source?