There’s Your Decision and Then There’s the Maze of Consequences

In politics, particularly highly partisan politics, there are the actions, positions, and policies that a politician and political parties take on an issue; and then there are the consequences which spread out from each of action, position, and policy. This should not be surprising and yet, somehow the politicians, political parties, and their supporters seem to think and expect that once they have made their choice that it is done and what they expected will now be all that there is. Of course, more often than not, reality steps in and demonstrates that you can drop the stone into the pond as you choose but you cannot stop the ripples that you create in doing so. Not only does one stone create numerous ripples, ripples that also continue to expand and move forward; but that also have their own affects along the way.

Of late there have been some issues with very high-profiles, high-stakes, and high-intensity actions, policies, and positions put into play in our politics, our society, and our democracy. We can just list a few and no one would claim that these are not epoch making or changing issues. This is not an exhaustive list, and these issues remain influential in our politics and society. Consider how potent these issues are demonstrating themselves to be in the upcoming mid-term 2022 elections:

· Overturning of Roe V. Wade

· COVID and national, state, and local policies related to it and its many sub-issues

· Inflation / Recession and the Economics that plague us all

· Immigration

· Student Loan Forgiveness

These are just some issues that will have impacts in some contest for the mid-terms and of course for the 2024 general election. And thus, there is a particular kind of intelligence test which present itself. On this issue how do the Democratic and the Republican sides stack-up, and how would you yourself do? On these issues, the questions you are to assess are not what the “right” answer is on the basic issue but what hasn’t been seen as a problem or an opportunity for one or the other side on the issue.

This rather strange intelligence test will likely reveal some facets of these issues which never occurred to you or others. If you find yourself surprised, then how confident are you that this aspect of the decision was even thought of by those who made it and those who now might regret their part in helping out.

Question 1: We know the sides each party has taken on the abortion issue. Overturning Roe will have some consequences that might not be appreciated by either side and which are inconsistent with other views held within the party. Are any of the following problematic with views of either party regarding their abortion position?

A. Crime B. Taxation C. Replacement Theory D. Individual Freedoms E. Government Over-reach

Question 2: While COVID is not the daily contentious issue that it was for the first two years of the pandemic era, there are some elements of COVID which may have repercussions to positions that have been taken. Which of the following have such under-appreciated or under-valued implications by either or both political parties? A. Vaccines B. School policies C. Masks D. Politics

Question 3: Inflation / Recession: These issues are all the rage right now because they are impacting us here and now. Or in the case of recession, we are afraid that they will be cursing our lives very soon. Are the positions held by the differing political ideologies consistent within their own belief-systems? Any consistency problems with: A. Government Over-reach B. Globalization C. National Debt

Question 4: Immigration is both a long-standing issue and a popular pre-election cycle issue. Where are our political parties and politicians on immigration and consistency? A. US economic interests B. US laws and policies based on modern era conditions C. All-or-none solutions

Question 5: Student Loan Forgiveness is the issue du jour? Not only is this issue highly charged, it is able to produce divisive reactions both across party lines as well as within party lines. The most likely reason for this potency is that no one knows what they are talking about. Meaning there is more here than meets the eye. What could trip up someone who has a strong and strident position and reaction to this policy? A. Economics of policy B. Conflicting beneficiaries C. Taxation D. Other bail-out programs

Certainly, no controversial issues here; so, getting the answers right ought to have been a breeze. Well, maybe not a breeze; perhaps a strong gust. Or, for some the questions might have been the equivalent of a class 5 tornado or hurricane. Let’s see how your hair fared through this.

Answer to Question 1: Overturning Roe V. Wade. There’s a host of conflicting interests and positions here. To keep it brief, we will point them out but not go into an in-depth assessment of where these inconsistencies undermine particular partisan views. Note: a ‘partisan view’ doesn’t have to be a view held by the entire population of individuals who are members of a particular political entity. A sub-population within the group(s) that are aligned with one political party can the ones who are caught in these inconsistencies, especially where they have never thought about the issue that they are so adamant about. This note applies to all the questions, and is not unique to the Pro-Life vs Pro-Choice issues. On A. Crime: there is an interesting correlation between crime-rates and abortion-rights that occurred after Roe was originally passed. It didn’t happen over-night but crime dropped 15 to 20 years after abortions were legalized. What will happen in states with abortion restrictions in 15 to 20 years? Is the position on abortions consistent with positions on crime? On B. Taxation: What is the projected tax and budget implications of anti-abortion positions? It is not at all clear that this aspect of legislation to restrict abortions has been considered and certainly not addressed by either side in the clashes over this issue. There is little in life that doesn’t have consequences and something like mandated pregnancies and births above the levels that occur today have consequences on may other societal areas which include costs to the public for many things not accounted for in abortion restriction decisions. You will however have the consequence that is usually phrased differently than: “You pay for what you get.” On C. Replacement Theory: This is one of those dimensions which applies to a sub-group of people. If you are motivated to act politically (or in other ways) because of a belief in a Replacement conspiracy theory view, then how does preventing abortions relate to that belief? Are more individuals meeting your ”acceptable” type of citizen to be born because of the restriction or are more of those who are being used to “replace” you and your group likely to be born. Depending on your view, and more importantly on the factual reality of what will really happen, it is possible that abortion restrictions will work against your interest. On D. Individual Freedoms: This is a topic that is fraught with perceptions, expectation, and biases. If the government has no right to search your mail, documents, communications, and other exchanges of information without cause because that is a personal freedom and your right to privacy. That this doesn’t extend to your decisions about yourself and your family, then why should you have expectations about discussions with your physician(s) or lawyer on other topics, or with a religious leaders, or private groups that you are a member of? What other rights can be avoided by simply defining another reason for justifying why you are protecting someone else’s rights and interests? On E. Government Over-reach: If the government can choose to intervene in this area of your life and isn’t considered an over-reach of legitimate authority, then it should be easy to justify intervening in other areas of citizens’ lives and businesses. It is the very nature of law that one precedent is used to confer authority and validity on extending the government’s reach. This seems to go against some in both political parties. What about other areas and topics? The decision overturing Roe is not isolated to just the question of a women’s right to choose. The above five topics only scratch the surface, what other consequences flow from this decision because almost any STEM-trained individual will tell you that the ‘ripples on the pond’ are just a basic aspect of the principle of “cause and effect”.

Answer to Question 2: COVID. This might seem a strange topic over which politics would be of much import and where the views of the political party’s would raise question of consistency with their political views and decisions. However, not only does politics make for strange bedfellows, it makes for strange logic on fitting different ideological views fit comfortably together for a political party. How is this revealed regarding COVID?

Regarding A. Vaccines, for reasons that pass all understanding our political parties took up the issue of vaccines as a political issue. It came in many flavors, but perhaps the strangest was some supporting the right to choose not getting vaccinated and that decision not having any consequences or restrictions. In supporting this ‘personal choice’ decision the partisan aspects around vaccines became attacks on science, technology, public healthcare, and even national security. Given the position on ‘personal choice’ on vaccines there is a question of consistency regarding the government’s right to restrict or ban a woman’s ‘personal choice’ on abortions. The divisive COVID positioning also took on how communities deal with education. Regarding B. School policies the two sides took up opposing positions on whether being vaccinated could be mandated for attending school. Once again, the struggle was over the my ‘personal choice’ and parental rights versus any other consideration that goes hand-in-hand with school attendance and policies. The decision to not vaccinate did not factor in the rights of the teachers or staff required to open schools. It did not take into account the risks to other students or their families that coincide with a mixed group of vaccinated and unvaccinated. Now, both sides are at fault to a degree here because not one school system anywhere in the nation had anyone propose a rather simple solution to the dispute. It would seem the partisan issue was more important than the education of our children. This may be a harsh criticism of school boards, authorities, and government groups as it may be that they just could not figure out some rather simple solutions. Then there was C. Masks. This was an even greater partisan issue. One can only wonder at the competence of our politicians who could not come up with any number of workable solutions to the many fronts on which the Masking policies were fought over. On this issue, both sides would have a difficult time in justifying a favorable score on any intelligence assessment. Lastly, there is D. Politics. The policies and issues that arose over COVID were many. If you were in a COVID medically induced coma you may not have much appreciation of this situation. But if you were able to breath, it was a daily, ever-present argument between partisan groups. One of the odd things is that given the impact that COVID has on different populations, the partisan policies would seem to be at odds with the very positions that one side took versus the other side. This can be illustrated in as simple a way possible with differential death rates based upon factors that no one would expect of groups, political parties, or politicians if they were thinking intelligently based upon a STEM-oriented understanding. Fewer people die per-capita if they are vaccinated than if they are not vaccinated. Thus there’s an implication. If your position is to support people resisting efforts to get vaccinated and deciding to not get vaccinated, then among your partisan group of supporters the percentage of supporters dying is higher. These are your voters; so, you are helping decrease your voter pools. Factor in any age-related differential effect of COVID on death-rates, and one can predict another implication that would advantage one party over the other.

Answer to Question 3: Inflation / Recession. Much like COVID, the plague of inflation disrupting life in the US (and the world) is a political dividing line; and the prospects of a recession is like the partisan disputes over COVID policies from the beginning, including whether it was real or not and here already or not. How the parties are responding to inflation is both typical and simultaneously conflicted. As we can always expect (part of the typical part) there is the blame game. Any bad economic problem is always the “other guy’s” fault for politicians. Every action taken is just another opportunity to point the finger about why it won’t work, didn’t go far enough, went to far, or will just make things worse. Yes, politics.

There are claims of A. Government Over-reach being used given the government authority or power over areas of the economy, businesses, society, or personal lives that are cast along political lines. Oddly, when things aren’t going well in the economy the ideological leanings can quickly be shed for demands that “the government fix the problem” without any regard for whether that would be “over-reach”. Consistency in ideology and economics is not a hard criterion, when economic winds shift the political sails will tack to whatever side is required so as to not lose ground against the public headwinds. The shifts on B. Globalization are a remarkable example of who takes credit for good time and who is at fault for the not so good times. At any given time, we can find politicians of either stripe touting how important “international/foreign trade” is to our economy and how destructive “globalization” is to the American workers. For politicians a simple trick is to use one term “trade” when advocating for some policy and “globalization” when pointing out the harm done by some other policy. Consistency is not required in politics if it doesn’t fit the narrative of the moment. One of the most obvious inconsistencies in politics and their respective ideological views is seen in how politicians talk about the C. National Debt. When “We” are spending more there is always an important and necessary national interest that must be supported. When “They” are spending more it is a complete disregard for the nation’s interests and burden being place upon the backs of the tax-payers. Thus any spending during an inflationary period will be either necessary or harmful depending upon which side is in power at that time.

Answer to Question 4: Immigration. For decades now, immigration has been a highly partisan issue. Of course while usually portrayed as one issue with one solution, immigration is far more complex than anything politicians can deal with; meaning the issue has more than one facet. The changing underlying issue against which immigration is debated (the concept of ‘debate’ is used very loosely here) evolves with the times and whatever emotional touch-points of the times engender anger. Immigration has been among other things an economic problem harming American workers, it been a drug problem, a national security risk, a crime problem, a public health concern, and an invasion. But is consistency a stance that has withstood these shifting sands? What about on A. US economic interests? There are areas of the US economy which not just benefit from immigration, but which rely upon it. This spectrum of US interests around immigration ranging from needs for it and requirements to manage it do not make for an easy environment for political consistency. And of course, politicians do not find presenting a complex issue to their supporters easy, politicians choose to go with what works to energize not what works to serve the national needs. One problem, B. US laws and policies, is that politicians will not or cannot deal with an issue according to the needs of today and the realities of today. Both political sides agree that current US immigration policy is broken. Our laws and policies do not reflect the conditions of the modern era. But the divisive issues of immigration do serve the political campaigns of our politicians. There is nothing like a topic that can be used to evoke emotions to raise money and supporters. Why solve such a cash-cow? They’re politicians not complete idiots. Consider how politicians approach the immigration issue on a C. All-or-none solution basis. Is demanding a complete, end-to-end, all-in-one public policy approach for immigration a smart demand, or even a rational expectation? No. But even this non-negotiating position isn’t consistent with what would be required by our political parties. Both sides would have to find unique and separate solutions to various dimensions of US Immigration policy, because not every condition or circumstance fits under one inane “either-or” view of politics. The immigration issue illustrates the inherent failures that ideological politics delivers and shows that our politicians haven’t learned that well-established principle that in politics ‘compromise’ is the art of what’s possible.

Answer to Question 5: Student Loan-Forgiveness. One of the most recent issues to arise with political outrage is Pres. Biden’s Student Loan-Forgiveness policy. While not strictly a partisan-oriented divisive issue, there are elements of partisan opportunity seeking swirling around the issue. Setting aside the question of is the Loan-Forgiveness policy “fair” or not, how consistent is the policy along ideological principles?

On the A. Economics of the policy front, the assessment is that this is economically bad because it adds to the public debt. Of course, it was already part of the public debt, just in another way. Nonetheless, there is the ‘fairness’ question. But here to, the immediate emotional reaction is simple: “Someone else got something I did not.” So, it’s unfair. If however, the big-picture is considered and considered in the longer-term view, what are all the economic factors and variables that have to be weighed against each other to determine if the business case is a net loss, a net gain, or a break-even? This is where both parties typically fail to do their homework and to assess the question about their ideological principles. I am not sure of the overall answer, but I am confident that neither parties’ leaders have a clue of what the pros and cons are and what is in the nation’s best interests. If we look at the B. Conflicting beneficiaries there is an interesting twist since members of both parties have individuals that will receive the cancellation of the funds. There is also the financial entities which will benefit from their involvement in the loan programs who will benefit. They made money off of issuing the loans, and in some instances promoting and encouraging students to take out loans without regard for the earning potential of the degrees that the loans funded. If we relooked at the individuals who received this loan-forgiveness in 10 or more years would the value of their contribution to the US economy be higher? Removing the burden of debt incurred does provide those individuals to use their income to support other parts of the US economy. Is that more or less beneficial than repaying the loan which is hindering their ability to participate in the consumer economy which benefits the nation overall. There are also C. Taxation consequence which aren’t factored into the emotional reaction of the ‘unfairness’ ranting. Are the costs to tax-payers which isn’t seen as unfair though it benefited wealthy companies and individuals who were guaranteed profits at the tax-payers expense fair? On another front, the tax-payers benefited from those individuals who received degrees and earnings that contributed more to government through their higher earnings. The tax payers also benefited from increased taxes that businesses received from the spending of program recipients. To the extend that tax-payers will benefit from improved economic earnings opportunities that the debt relief can promote be unfair? The point here is that what is unfair if you look at one point in time and compare only one factor does that represent what the true cost / benefit analysis is? If remedies for negative unexpected consequences from the Student Loan programs are deemed as unfair, what about D. Other bail-out programs that the US / tax-payers have funded? The government has stepped in many times because of financial problems to various groups in the country. We have even seen before the public rise up in their anger over the “unfairness” that they perceive. If we bail-out the banks, the airlines, the automotive companies, the farmers, American families and businesses during COVID, and many other groups and entities which have been threatened by economic difficulties; why is forgiving loans to students any less warranted? The general rule is that there are negative consequences to the US economy that will worsen if we do not act collectively, and the nation and the public will benefit by supporting actions that will help sustain the economy. This is why the emotional reaction will usually make individuals feel cheated since the benefit can easily be identified for those who directly receive the financial assistance but the overall benefits can be obscure, invisible and delayed by time and chains of ‘cause and effect’ that are not seen benefiting everyone.

Where Does This Leave Us?

Not surprisingly, politicians and political parties are not consistent with their positions and efforts on issues and their own political ideologies or reactions to those issues. The main difficulty is that they filter every issue or question through a lens of what gets the biggest response from their party’s members. Little to no analysis or problem-solving of the issues or problems which need sound and well-reasoned solutions and strategies to accomplish something are demonstrated as occurring. This may account for why government efforts are so ineffective, those in leadership positions are to busy working to retain their office to be able to devote much time and effort to understanding the issues that they are supposed to be addressing for the public’s benefit.

One the five issues in this test, our politicians and political parties are unlikely to score favorably on.