Political Prognostications
Living in the DC area, I keep up with happenings in politics and government news; it just comes with the territory. The latest headline concerns what to do about America's debt ceiling. As can be expected, Democrats and Republicans in Congress can't agree about how to solve the problem. Democrats want more taxes, Republicans want spending cuts. Neither really want to compromise. Each side has their reasons for backing what they want, be it special interests, political positioning or really just thinking that's the best way. In all of this though, from each side you get what seems to be an acceptable reasoning for any given argument: what I like to call political prognostications.
What I mean by this is simple; a legislator or public figure will give a reason for doing something purely on the basis of what they believe would be the result or consequence in the future. Surely this is based on logic and past results, but evidence of such is often neglected to be included in the argument. Instead, the predictions of a present action becomes more aligned with the ideologies that person is trying to push instead of favoring statistical and evidential accuracy. For example, one of the Republican arguments is that raising taxes will cost jobs by making employers pay more money, leaving less for hiring. This could compute logically, but I feel like it could just as easily go in another direction, such as those paying extra taxes need to hire more people to make more money to pay those taxes; ergo creating jobs. But instead of exploring these alternatives and options, all I hear are blanket statements that become foundations of go-nowhere arguments.
A similar example is the social security argument; some claim it won't last 5 years, other saying it will work for another 20, plus many other predictions, but all these claims are based on projections. In any case, basing policy on projections instead of what is actually happening in the present can only cause more problems later on in that projected future. Shit, half the reason I pay $4 a gallon for gas is because of projected value of oil and its supply. It certainly doesn't cost $4 a gallon to produce, it's just the going rate. By allowing policy to be based on a future timetable, current problems can be pushed down the line, even ignored until they become too complex to fix. It is unfortunate that this has become an acceptable means of not only solving current problems but it also has become a basis for making arguments on how to decide on a current issue.
Of course it would be foolish not to consider the future ramifications of current action, but decisions made should still be put in the context of the present and not just in the context of what could be in the future. If things are not working now, try something new to start getting it to work now. There are so many variables in our complex world that the conditions for that predicted future may not even exist by the time that date in the future rolls around.
This whole act of predicting the future and safeguarding against it seems futile and irresponsible. To me, it becomes more of an excuse for inaction than a reason for action and change. All I request is that the next time you hear a member of government or a politician make some sort of claim to the future, just ask yourself how he got to that conclusion and what are his motivations for making that claim. As far as I know, no one can see into the future, so I am wary of anyone who claims to know what will happen next. There is enough shit to sift through in the present, we don't need any more, especially the kind that technically doesn't even exist yet.
