In politics does Intent trump Outcome?

US Conservative · Aug 4, 2014

In medicine, we quickly learn that what matters is outcomes-not intent to help. Things are too important to think otherwise.

In politics-that distinction is often blurred. Programs that claim to improve education but dont. The war on poverty that failed to lower poverty. The war on drugs.

Intent often is seen as somehow benevolent and superior to whatever the actual outcomes are. Rhetoric is used as a shield to objective failure, turning questions of fact into questions of motive, etc.

What do you say?

Summerwind · Aug 4, 2014

US Conservative said:
In medicine, we quickly learn that what matters is outcomes-not intent to help. Things are too important to think otherwise.

In politics-that distinction is often blurred. Programs that claim to improve education but dont. The war on poverty that failed to lower poverty. The war on drugs.

Intent often is seen as somehow benevolent and superior to whatever the actual outcomes are. Rhetoric is used as a shield to objective failure, turning questions of fact into questions of motive, etc.

What do you say?

No, that's why policies like low taxes for the rich need to go, they were of good intent, but trickle down is now proven to not work, so we need to deal with the outcome of failure and move on to something else. This is just one topic that concept could be attributed to. MIC is another, privatizing prisons and schools, the war on drugs, the war on terror, leaving infrastructure to the states, and such would be others, I'm sure there're more.

Bob Blaylock · Aug 4, 2014

US Conservative said:
In medicine, we quickly learn that what matters is outcomes-not intent to help. Things are too important to think otherwise.

In politics-that distinction is often blurred. Programs that claim to improve education but dont [sic]. The war on poverty that failed to lower poverty. The war on drugs.

Intent often is seen as somehow benevolent and superior to whatever the actual outcomes are. Rhetoric is used as a shield to objective failure, turning questions of fact into questions of motive, etc.

What do you say?

This seems to me, these days, to be one of the defining differences between the political right and the political wrong.

Conservatism generally seems to be result-driven. Those of us on the right judge policies by the results that they produce, or at the very least, by plausible expectations of results.

The wrong seems to be driven by intent and “caring”, with no regard to results. Liberals very often put forth policies of which any rational analysis will indicate will produce adverse results, and which, in practice, do produce adverse results. Liberals judge these policies, not by the results that they produce, but by the claimed intent behind them, and how, putting forth these policies shows that they “care” about the problem that they claim to be addressing.

US Conservative · Aug 4, 2014

Bob Blaylock said:
This seems to me, these days, to be one of the defining differences between the political right and the political wrong.

Conservatism generally seems to be result-driven. Those of us on the right judge policies by the results that they produce, or at the very least, by plausible expectations of results.

The wrong seems to be driven by intent and “caring”, with no regard to results. Liberals very often put forth policies of which any rational analysis will indicate will produce adverse results, and which, in practice, do produce adverse results. Liberals judge these policies, not by the results that they produce, but by the claimed intent behind them, and how, putting forth these policies shows that they “care” about the problem that they claim to be addressing.

I think you are on to something. As an example, the department of agricultures (wtf?) Head Start program has failed by all objective measures-it helped nobody but is very expensive-and they hid the results of their OWN studies hoping to hide the fact.

I saw this, and advocated closing the program-to be replaced with more effective programs-but was then attacked as evil, etc by guess who. Its like they didn't care...or perhaps they are there not to solve problems but to advance an agenda.

X Factor · Aug 5, 2014

Totally recognize this from the Rush Limbaugh show. :mrgreen: The notion being that liberals care more about good intentions without regard to results. It sounds good and for someone with a lean such as mine, it does tickle my ears. It's way simplistic, though. Can we really say that no liberal policy, law or program hasn't succeeded? Without liberal influence, would we have public schools, roads or parks? As critical as I can be of environmentalists, can we really deny that putting a clamp on industrial air and water pollution is or has been a bad thing? As always, anything can be taken too far, and that's what I usually object to but we need to be able to acknowledge the good where it happens, without regard to party, and build on it (and also walk away from it when it's proven to be more of a burden than a help).

grip · Aug 5, 2014

US Conservative said:
In medicine, we quickly learn that what matters is outcomes-not intent to help. Things are too important to think otherwise.

In politics-that distinction is often blurred. Programs that claim to improve education but dont. The war on poverty that failed to lower poverty. The war on drugs.

Intent often is seen as somehow benevolent and superior to whatever the actual outcomes are. Rhetoric is used as a shield to objective failure, turning questions of fact into questions of motive, etc.

What do you say?

If your intent is not to help, then how can you have a good outcome?

US Conservative · Aug 5, 2014

grip said:
If your intent is not to help, then how can you have a good outcome?

If my intent wasn't to help, why would I care about the outcome? You have it backwards.

This begs the question-why support it if it doesn't work?

US Conservative · Aug 5, 2014

X Factor said:
Totally recognize this from the Rush Limbaugh show. :mrgreen: The notion being that liberals care more about good intentions without regard to results. It sounds good and for someone with a lean such as mine, it does tickle my ears. It's way simplistic, though. Can we really say that no liberal policy, law or program hasn't succeeded? Without liberal influence, would we have public schools, roads or parks? As critical as I can be of environmentalists, can we really deny that putting a clamp on industrial air and water pollution is or has been a bad thing? As always, anything can be taken too far, and that's what I usually object to but we need to be able to acknowledge the good where it happens, without regard to party, and build on it (and also walk away from it when it's proven to be more of a burden than a help).

So from my question you somehow got to the conclusion that nothing EVER done by the left has ever helped? Bringing up public schools-thats a great example-its not about quality of education, if it was there would be higher standards and support for vouchers and school choice. The lefts support is about keeping teachers unions votes. There is no other explanation.

mpg · Aug 5, 2014

Summerwind said:
No, that's why policies like low taxes for the rich need to go, they were of good intent, but trickle down is now proven to not work, so we need to deal with the outcome of failure and move on to something else. This is just one topic that concept could be attributed to. MIC is another, privatizing prisons and schools, the war on drugs, the war on terror, leaving infrastructure to the states, and such would be others, I'm sure there're more.

Taxes on the wealthy are low in the US because taxes are low in general. The US has the most progressive tax code in the OECD. That's the opposite of what "trickle down" implies. Trickle down economics has never even been proposed, much less enacted.

With low taxes, the US economy is doing great by international standards, and that includes the middle class.

mpg · Aug 5, 2014

1750Texan · Aug 5, 2014

US Conservative said:
In medicine, we quickly learn that what matters is outcomes-not intent to help. Things are too important to think otherwise.

In politics-that distinction is often blurred. Programs that claim to improve education but dont. The war on poverty that failed to lower poverty. The war on drugs.

Intent often is seen as somehow benevolent and superior to whatever the actual outcomes are. Rhetoric is used as a shield to objective failure, turning questions of fact into questions of motive, etc.

What do you say?

Ill give you an even more clear example of intent over outcome...

The GOP demagogued immigration ad nauseum and then left DC with no actual serious attempt at a solution. Intent over outcome.

grip · Aug 5, 2014

US Conservative said:
If my intent wasn't to help, why would I care about the outcome? You have it backwards.

This begs the question-why support it if it doesn't work?

Your analogy seems flawed in the sense that nobody supports what doesn't work for themselves. The question begs, do you want things to politically work for the privileged few or the majority. What works best for you and your interests may not work for society as a whole.

Kal'Stang · Aug 5, 2014

US Conservative said:
In medicine, we quickly learn that what matters is outcomes-not intent to help. Things are too important to think otherwise.

In politics-that distinction is often blurred. Programs that claim to improve education but dont. The war on poverty that failed to lower poverty. The war on drugs.

Intent often is seen as somehow benevolent and superior to whatever the actual outcomes are. Rhetoric is used as a shield to objective failure, turning questions of fact into questions of motive, etc.

What do you say?

Both are important. For example Regan's Amnesty bill. His intent was a good one. The reason he gave amnesty was in return for more secure borders. The intent was good. However his end result was a failure. Our borders are no more secure now than they were then. In fact it could be argued that they are worse.

BTW: Didn't vote in the poll. No option for me to. Not even an option for both being equal. The world is not black and white. There are many shades of grey.

Phys251 · Aug 5, 2014

Bob Blaylock said:
Conservatism generally seems to be result-driven.

I don't think you realize what you inadvertently just admitted.

99% vs 1%? Result-driven.
War on Women? Result-driven.
Military-industrial complex? Result-driven.
Over 100,000 Iraqi civilians killed in war? Result-driven.
Starving schools of public funds? Result-driven.
Exploitation of undocumented Hispanic laborers? Result-driven.
Drowning government in a bathtub? Result-driven.

As has been explained many times around here, only to meet tone-deaf reactions such as the ones this post will inevitably receive, liberal policies can work when not watered down or sabotaged by the Far Right. That is part of why most of the developed world has healthier societies than we do--they don't have a powerful faction to stand in the way of everything that would bring about social progress. Their conservatives provide level-headed analyses to rationally guide the changes, not bat**** craziness to oppose the changes.

Phys251 · Aug 5, 2014

Kal'Stang said:
Both are important. For example Regan's Amnesty bill. His intent was a good one. The reason he gave amnesty was in return for more secure borders. The intent was good. However his end result was a failure. Our borders are no more secure now than they were then. In fact it could be argued that they are worse.

BTW: Didn't vote in the poll. No option for me to. Not even an option for both being equal. The world is not black and white. There are many shades of grey.

Fifty of them?

gdgyva · Aug 5, 2014

the road to hell is paved with good intentions

no one expects their idea to fail, or to cause even more problems than it was supposed to fix

but it happens ll the time

something didnt work....we must not have spent enough on the project....increase the funding

not try to determine WHY something failed....just throw more money at it

our education system is the PERFECT example...we keep spending more and more and more on it

and look at the results....are our children better educated? are they prepared to start their life in the world?

do they have one saleable skill that will get them a better paying job than minimum wage?

"sometimes **** just aint working" as my grandad would say

time to try something new....

gdgyva · Aug 5, 2014

1750Texan said:
Ill give you an even more clear example of intent over outcome...

The GOP demagogued immigration ad nauseum and then left DC with no actual serious attempt at a solution. Intent over outcome.

please expound on what you want the GOP to do about immigration

the only thing the president has said he wants is more money, and more money, and more money.....it's like a 45 stuck on a scratch (the youngsters may not get that reference)

ooooh....and he wants a plan to amnesty.....

is that what you are referring to?

DA60 · Aug 5, 2014

In politics does Intent trump Outcome?

Huh?

In politics, self-serving greed trumps all.

US Conservative · Aug 5, 2014

mpg said:
Taxes on the wealthy are low in the US because taxes are low in general. The US has the most progressive tax code in the OECD. That's the opposite of what "trickle down" implies. Trickle down economics has never even been proposed, much less enacted.

With low taxes, the US economy is doing great by international standards, and that includes the middle class.

Even the term is loaded, of course by leftists.

TurtleDude · Aug 5, 2014

US Conservative said:
In medicine, we quickly learn that what matters is outcomes-not intent to help. Things are too important to think otherwise.

In politics-that distinction is often blurred. Programs that claim to improve education but dont. The war on poverty that failed to lower poverty. The war on drugs.

Intent often is seen as somehow benevolent and superior to whatever the actual outcomes are. Rhetoric is used as a shield to objective failure, turning questions of fact into questions of motive, etc.

What do you say?

suck, anonymous polls do much

Yoda

US Conservative · Aug 5, 2014

1750Texan said:
Ill give you an even more clear example of intent over outcome...

The GOP demagogued immigration ad nauseum and then left DC with no actual serious attempt at a solution. Intent over outcome.

Ah no, you are confused and dont make the analogy. Immigration is not and was not an issue, its an attempt by the left to import votes-and we knew it was coming years ago.

Immigration is a good thing-legal immigration-not the importation of undocumented democrats.

US Conservative · Aug 5, 2014

1750Texan said:
Ill give you an even more clear example of intent over outcome...

The GOP demagogued immigration ad nauseum and then left DC with no actual serious attempt at a solution. Intent over outcome.

Ah no, you are confused and dont make the analogy. Immigration is not and was not an issue, its an attempt by the left to import votes-and we knew it was coming years ago.

Immigration is a good thing-legal immigration-not the importation of undocumented democrats.

US Conservative · Aug 5, 2014

grip said:
Your analogy seems flawed in the sense that nobody supports what doesn't work for themselves. The question begs, do you want things to politically work for the privileged few or the majority. What works best for you and your interests may not work for society as a whole.

What you are suggesting is that my desire for objective success means I want things to work for a "privileged few". Silly on its face-I want things to work for everyone, note that this does not mean supporting failure because of good intentions.

US Conservative · Aug 5, 2014

Kal'Stang said:
Both are important. For example Regan's Amnesty bill. His intent was a good one. The reason he gave amnesty was in return for more secure borders. The intent was good. However his end result was a failure. Our borders are no more secure now than they were then. In fact it could be argued that they are worse.

BTW: Didn't vote in the poll. No option for me to. Not even an option for both being equal. The world is not black and white. There are many shades of grey.

In intent was good, but the outcome was creating a future incentive for similar illegal behavior (evidence that amnesty does not work) and yes-we have no southern border.

In my poll questions, I seek to find the issues as seen by different political ideologies. If I had to include a million other choices the poll would be less useful for this purpose, and could never be complete. Equivocal isn't useful here, nor is naming ever possible political ideology. If you are telling me you are somehow EXACTLY in the center, thats remarkable but also a red herring. Hopefully you understand my view, it is/was not intended as a slight.

US Conservative · Aug 5, 2014

Phys251 said:
I don't think you realize what you inadvertently just admitted.

99% vs 1%? Result-driven.
War on Women? Result-driven.
Military-industrial complex? Result-driven.
Over 100,000 Iraqi civilians killed in war? Result-driven.
Starving schools of public funds? Result-driven.
Exploitation of undocumented Hispanic laborers? Result-driven.
Drowning government in a bathtub? Result-driven.

As has been explained many times around here, only to meet tone-deaf reactions such as the ones this post will inevitably receive, liberal policies can work when not watered down or sabotaged by the Far Right. That is part of why most of the developed world has healthier societies than we do--they don't have a powerful faction to stand in the way of everything that would bring about social progress. Their conservatives provide level-headed analyses to rationally guide the changes, not bat**** craziness to oppose the changes.

You make my point of the op and my sig "The American left-turning questions of fact into questions of motive."

So for NOT going along with policies/actions that they not only fundamentally disagree with, but in many cases have previously objectively failed to live up to the promises-conservatives are "bat**** crazy".

As nuanced as it is logical.

In politics does Intent trump Outcome?

In politics does Intent trump Outcome?

Im a right leaning American, yes.

Im a left leaning American, yes.

Im not American, yes.

Im a right leaning American, no.

Im a left leaning American, no.

Im not American, no.

Hot Flash Mama

Electrician

Anti-Socialist

Slow 🅖 Hand

Slow 🅖 Hand

Purge evil with Justice

Purge evil with Justice

warrior of the wetlands