Social media has turned policy discussion into a battle ground of competing opinions, often driven by emotional appeals or cherry-picked logic. While these arguments can be persuasive, they frequently lack a holistic view, ignoring broader implications and systemic impacts. This dynamic has entrenched political divisiveness, leaving little room for consensus. A shared framework for evaluating policy—grounded in purpose, equity, and sustainability—can bridge this divide.
- Evaluate for purpose: policy and institutions we created for specific purposes yet our political system has become so convoluted that we have diluted policy and organization with “shadow missions,” “riders,” and “pork barrel spending.” Ultimately, we have lost the discipline to evaluate things against their fundamental purpose – look at the inflation reduction act, an act economists agree does nothing to help inflation, yet both official and the public let it be enacted. The problem is only getting worse; the “Citizens Against Governmental Waste” organization identified 8,222 earmarks in fiscal year 2024, 11.2 percent more than the 7,396 in 2023. If this is what it takes in today’s political environment, so be it, but in debate we must not lose the narrative of how well something fulfills its core purpose.
- Evaluate for completeness: All too often America introduces new policy or expands existing beyond the initial scope prior to fulfilling the core mission. While the intent is positive, the unintended consequence is a diluted ability to achieve the core mission or inequitable treatment. To quote Neil Howe, “Institutions struggling to fulfill their core function are taking on vast new tasks at which they have zero chance of success: The Pentagon now attends to climate change, the Fed to racial equity, the CDC to parenting toddlers. Other agencies are, perversely, are prohibited from fulfilling their core mission.” Mathematics may have an approach to evaluate policy for completeness and fairness in the form of Conjoint analysis, an approach which assesses value by choosing between two things rather than just rating interest. Similarly, if Americans debated the choice between a policy and it’s opportunity cost or the original purpose and the change entire debates could be reframed in a less divisive way. A few examples: Should we grant illegal immigrants citizenship prior to giving citizenship to the individuals who are literally abiding by rules and paying taxes while on a wait list (more on this in the Principle “Enforce the laws or change them”? Should America fund aid to foreign nations prior to servicing our own individuals who were left homeless following Hurricane Helene. Elevating the trade-off discussion will put things into perspective and offer a prioritization framework. Being realistic, it is a 100% probability someone will make the argument: “we can/must do both. ”This is a fallacy. Life is about prioritization and we need to force trade off discussions to ensure we achieve the desired result. Oprah said it best: “You can have it all, just not all at once,” This evaluation criteria will make sure we prioritize the things most important to our nation and the promises to our citizens.
- Evaluate for sustainability: The Constitution couldn’t be clearer; our primary purpose as a country is to is “Form a more perfect union for ourselves and our posterity.” This doesn’t mean we have to be isolationists but it does mean we cannot enact policy that compromises or excessively handicaps the US economy and influence. Policies like the Green New Deal that pursue progress at an bankrupting cost of $50to $100 trillion dollars are unrealistic and distracting (as reference the total US debt is ~$36 trillion as of 2025). So how do we determine if some thing is sustainable? I would propose we use the “categorical imperative” – a philosophy that says things are right [sustainable] if it would be okay for everyone to do the same thing in a similar situation or do it into perpetuity. If the action would lead to a negative or unfair outcome if everyone did it, then it’s not sustainable. We should evaluate policy with this same lens
- Can America spend more than we collect into perpetuity(national debt)?
- Can America continue to accept disparate treatment from allies?
While these three evaluation criteria will not inevitably solve all problems, if adopted, it will give a basic framework the start an objective discussion vs. an emotional one.
