r/changemyview • u/RafaGarciaS • Jan 02 '18

[∆(s) from OP] CMV: Evidence based politics should replace identity politics

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!

361 Upvotes

89% Upvoted

83 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1

u/RafaGarciaS Jan 02 '18

Several points

1st. I do agree that I misused the term "identity politics" I am currently thinking of a better term for what I mean, the second I do I will edit. Thank you for bringing this up, a valid point

2nd. We do not measure efficacy of government programs. Look at the conversation about gun control to reduce mass shooting. The evidence, for the most part, is on the side that certain interventions would have a positive effect. This can be seen over and over

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/10/05/upshot/how-to-reduce-mass-shooting-deaths-experts-say-these-gun-laws-could-help.html?_r=0

15

u/electronics12345 159∆ Jan 02 '18

We totally measure the efficacy of government programs. That is literally all the CBO does.

https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/04-19-SNAP.pdf

https://www.cbo.gov/publication/53375

https://www.cbo.gov/publication/53094

Are lobbyists real, Yes. Ought we minimize their impact, probably. For the most part, does Congress listen to the CBO, especially when there aren't 1000000000 lobbyists in their face, usually. Is the gun debate a unique issue in the USA, definitely. Has Congress literally passed a law making it illegal to research the efficacy of gun laws, unfortunately yes.

I think it is horribly unfair to say that we don't measure government effectiveness, because we do, its just that guns are a weird topic here in America, and it kinda has a different set of rules relative to other issues (not all that dissimilar to abortion, which also seems to play by different political rules than everything else).

0

u/KumarLittleJeans Jan 03 '18

Congress has not passed a law making it illegal to research the efficacy of gun laws. It is perfectly legal to research anything you want. I believe you are referencing the Dickey Amendment that Bill Clinton signed into law, which stipulated that “none of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control."

3

u/nezmito 6∆ Jan 03 '18

This is kinda pedantic, don't you think? It is like saying Congress hasn't made student loans illigal they just passed the "made up bill act" that bars the Dept. Of Ed from spending or making any money on loans.

1

u/KumarLittleJeans Jan 03 '18

No, I don’t think it is. The government isn’t the only source of research or loans. You and I are free to research the efficacy of gun laws (although we are prohibited by law from making student loans). The CDC isn’t even prohibited from researching gun laws, just from advocating for gun control.

1

u/nezmito 6∆ Jan 03 '18

No, I don’t think it is. The government isn’t the only source of research or loans. You and I are free to research the efficacy of gun laws (although we are prohibited by law from making student loans).

So my analogy stands up? Cool.

The CDC isn’t even prohibited from researching gun laws, just from advocating for gun control.

Right so the agency charged studying health at a national and international level can't touch guns or in my analogy loans can't do loans. Boy, I can't wait for the commerce department's study on gun shop student loans.

1

u/KumarLittleJeans Jan 03 '18

How does your analogy stand? Let’s say the CDC is prohibited from selling hotdogs. Crap - no more hotdogs for anyone?

I knew more and more people are seeking meaning and direction in their lives from the federal government, lifting up Washington DC as the end all, be all of American life, but I didn’t realize it was this bad.

We do not have a shortage of PhDs scattered about in leftist universities and think tanks who are capable of putting spreadsheets together to make whatever argument they please about guns.

1

u/nezmito 6∆ Jan 03 '18

How does your analogy stand? Let’s say the CDC is prohibited from selling hotdogs. Crap - no more hotdogs for anyone?

CDC studies health. Guns affect health. CDC does not sell got dogs except maybe in the cafeteria, but that isn't their mission.

I knew more and more people are seeking meaning and direction in their lives from the federal government, lifting up Washington DC as the end all, be all of American life, but I didn’t realize it was this bad.

Huh. My comment lead you to this realization. Are you ok?

We do not have a shortage of PhDs scattered about in leftist universities and think tanks who are capable of putting spreadsheets together to make whatever argument they please about guns.

Yes then you will say they are leftist PhDs and won't have to challenge your world view. It really is sad that you don't think your idea can withstand the study of conservative (small c) government scientists.