Partisan political parties are dumb

 

1. They promote their one-size-fits-all doctrine instead of weighing the costs and benefits for each issue separately.
2. They excuse the same behavior as the other party, but somehow it is evil when the other side does it.
3. They justify corruption to win philosophical battles that are often meaningless
1. We can point to successful and failing examples of big and small governments, and so the size of the government can't be the only question that matters.
2. Corruption matters
3. Freedom matter
4. Whoever is in charge must respect the dignity and freedom of those out of power
1. Having a loyal opposition that supports our country and doesn't want to burn the the whole thing down when they don't have as much power as they wish must matter.
5. We need to respect the the legitimacy of the other side when they win.
1. We can't try to burn the whole thing down when we lose.
6. We must avoid authoritarians on both extremes
7. We have to be able to find ways to do two things at once. 
8. We must be able to find ways to reward hard work and not reward those that are evil or lazy while also strengthening our safety net.
1. Insisting on only one is making us stupid because we both want the same thing, and we both need to do it efficiently without too many costs. 
4. Their partisan battles distract us from real problems and obvious solutions
1. We can't make wise decisions when one side doesn't acknowledge any costs of the policy, and the other side won't admit any benefits.
5. Our partisan battles are keeping us from being efficient and effective
1. Our partisan battles cause us to promote incompetent people on our side, that prove their loyalty to our dogma, but do not show any competence at getting things done.

Partisan political parties make us dumb

1. They make us unconsciously biased (confirmation bias).
2. Their one-sided advertising and propaganda causes us to
1. Use a team approach to problem-solving
2. emotionally cheer-lead for our team,
3. think anecdotally, and to
4. use reason to win for our side, not identify the best solution
5. kill the necessary devil's advocate
6. kill lady justice that is shown with a blindfold to remove bias, and a scale to weigh pros AND cons, and costs AND benefits 

 

They promote the spirit of revenge, division, and hero worship
They cause us to fight against those we disagree with, instead of trying to address their concerns.
They cause leaders to win by

1. Loudly defending partisan dogma, instead of quietly making any sense.
2. Being mean and attacking the other side, instead of being great and bringing us together.
3. Ignorantly pretending our solutions will go away if the partisan approach is applied, instead of wisely following data and evidence, and weighing costs and benefits.
4. Showing anger and hatred instead of decency and respect.

 

A political party using evidence-based policy forums could win against Republicans or Democrats

a) What unstated assumptions must one accept to agree with this belief?

1. People who learn about evidence-based policy are supportive of it. 
1. Agree:
1. Evidence-based policy relies on scientifically tested facts, which can be more convincing than opinions or anecdotal evidence. 
2. It promotes transparency and accountability, as decisions are based on demonstrable evidence rather than personal biases or political interests. 
3. It encourages continuous learning and improvement, as policies are regularly evaluated and updated based on new evidence.
2. There are enough independents in some locations, or enough Republicans and Democrats can be swayed from their traditional party affiliations in order to allow us to win. 
1. Agree:
1. A growing number of voters are disillusioned with the two-party system and are open to alternatives. 
2. The success of independent candidates in some locations indicates that it is possible to win outside of the two major parties. 
3. As societal issues become more complex, more voters are looking for nuanced and evidence-based approaches to policy, rather than partisan ideologies.
3. Evidence-based policy forums could be made to be effective enough to produce better policies than the Republican and Democratic parties.
1. By drawing on a wide range of research and expertise, evidence-based policy forums can generate a broader and more innovative range of policy options. 
2. The focus on evidence over ideology can result in more pragmatic and effective solutions to societal problems.

What unstated assumptions must one accept to disagree with this belief

1. Too many people will always vote based on party loyalty to ever allow an evidence-based political party to win.
1. Disagree:
1. Recent trends show an increase in independent voters and declining party affiliation, indicating a potential openness to new political alternatives. Furthermore, increasing dissatisfaction with the current political climate might prompt voters to seek alternatives outside their traditional party preferences.
2. Those who want to keep the current system will say: "Evidence-based policy forums can not be designed to yield policies that align with the core values of a country's citizens."
1. Disagree:
1. Evidence-based policy isn't at odds with a votor's values. In fact, it is a tool to identify the policies that most effective at accomplishing the things they say they want. By using data and research to inform decisions, evidence-based policy can provide practical, effective solutions that fulfill core values like justice, equality, and prosperity.
3. The party system is too entrenched to allow for a new party to win over substantial numbers of Republicans or Democrats.
1. Disagree:
1. The current dominance of the two-party system doesn't mean it's unchangeable. History shows that political shifts can and do occur, often in response to societal changes. With the right message and strategy, a new political party that offers a compelling, evidence-based approach could resonate with voters dissatisfied with the status quo.

b) Alternative Ways of Saying the Same Thing:

1. A political party employing fact-based policy-making could appeal to Republicans or Democrats.
2. Republicans or Democrats could be won over by a political party that prioritizes evidence-driven policy development.

c) Objective Criteria for Assessing the Validity of this Belief:

1. The number of independent voters, plus the number of Republicans or Democrats who express willingness to switch party affiliation based on policy, in a given location. 
2. The success rate of people who try to explain the benefits of a specific well function in evidence-based policy forums (build it and they will come).
3. The popularity of policies resulting from evidence-based policy forums among Republicans and Democrats.

d) Most Common Shared Interests or Values to Encourage Dialogue and Understanding:

1. A desire for effective and rational policy-making.
2. A belief in the importance of evidence in decision-making.
3. A mutual interest in the success and betterment of the nation.

e) Most Significant Differences in Interests or Obstacles to Navigate:

1. Differences in core values and principles between Republicans and Democrats.
2. Party loyalty and the potential reluctance to switch affiliations.
3. Skepticism about the effectiveness of evidence-based policy forums.

f) Strategies to Encourage Open Dialogue, Mutual Respect, and a Shared Commitment to Truth:

1. Build a well-functioning web forum that does a good job of identifying the best policies. 
2. Find politicians willing to tie their votes to the outcome of online debate forums. This could be a hard connection where they are fully bound to the scores given to each argument and the math provided by specific counting algorithms, or a loose promise to show which arguments they accept or reject and show that the pro scores of the policy they accept have more points
3. Make social media posts that highlight the importance of evidence in policy-making.
4. Edit the evidence-based policy Wikipedia page. 
5. Promote the understanding that changing political affiliations based on policy does not equate to betraying one's core values.
6. Encourage people to trust that their core values would win an open, honest, well-organized fight. 
7. Encourage an environment where party loyalty is respected, but so too is the openness to new ideas and approaches.