The US is a land of hope and opportunity and we often seek to go big and move fast, but as humans, we are biologically wired to bite off more than we can chew. As Tali Sharot said in her Optimism bias thesis and follow-on TED talk “Humans exhibit a surprising bias… we overestimate the likelihood of positive events, and underestimate the likelihood of negative events.” Although this can serve as a positive, self-fulfilling influence when outcomes are tied to a single individual, when external factors play a larger role (like in government and politics) “unrealistic optimism can lead to risky behavior, to financial collapse, and to faulty planning.”
As a nation, we are now 3+ generations disconnected from first-hand exposure to key events like the failures of socialism or communism, the great depression, and World War II which reinforce many of the core tenants and tradeoffs behind US policy. Combined with a recent tailwind of growth and prosperity, an unrealistic belief that we can have it all has emerged. This belief has driven national polarization between those who want additional action and those who are afraid of the consequences of drastic and untested policy. (As a related side note, 3 generations is also recognized as the general timeframe it takes for generational wealth to disappear due to a similar loss of perspective).
Grounding policy in reality will help reunite the country by easing concerns of unintended, harmful consequences. Three concepts should be used a sanity check for all policy:
- Respect history: As Winston Churchill once repeated “Those who ignore the past are doomed to repeat it.” Very few concepts are as good in reality as they are in theory and very few ideas are truly new. From socialism to stacking the Supreme Court (see how it turned out in Venezuela), history provides a vast resource of lessons and “watch outs” that can help us avoid the pitfalls of our predecessors. If a similar policy has been tried before, we must pause and ask ourselves: what led to the outcome in history, how is the current approach different than the previous, and why will our result be different or the same?
- Get expert, bipartisan opinions: As we will prove in the principle “Spend within means,” it is possible to get a consensus from a bipartisan panel of experts, it just often isn’t accepted as results don’t reinforce partisan politics or create contentious policy for the party in office. This is our country and our children’s future, as citizens we must start demanding analysis of bipartisan experts so we maximize our chances of achieving the intended result of a policy vs. having great intent that falls short due to a lack of reality as has frequently happened with situations like corn subsidies which have driven an overreliance on corn products and related health impacts.
- Accept tradeoffs: Perfect cannot be the enemy of great. As nation, we must be clear about our priorities and accept tradeoffs that don’t cross ethical or moral lines. Education is perfect example: US education has remained largely stagnant while other nations are gaining ground yet, we have let bureaucracy and union agendas prevent reform and protect ineffective teachers. Progress isn’t always clean and there will often be collateral damage but as a country we must make tough fact-based decisions in line with our priorities or all outcomes will be marginalized. It is important to note, accepting tradeoffs requires full honesty and transparency. More than one perspective/agenda must be heard to include a discussion of the background, acknowledgement of alternatives, and discussions of risks across both sides of a discussion or debate.
As voting citizens, when we hear about new or contentious policy proposals, demand bi-partisan economist/historian evaluation and make sure you understand the objective we are looking to accomplish (Principle: Provide a scoreboard). When there is still uncertainty about the feasibility or validity of a policy, demand politicians prove it out on a smaller scale first (states and communities are perfect proving grounds prior to going all in nationally - Principle: Decentralize).
