I am thinking of an entity or framework that at the outset identifies the goals of different policies that ALL partisans can agree are the intended goals, and then identify the metrics by which the goals are said to be achieved and be considered a success or failure.
Taking Obamacare as an example, some potential policy goals to measure:
-reduction in health care costs?
-bend the curve in healthcare costs downward? By x level by y year?
-If it did not hit the intended target, did the policy result in moving closer towards the intended goals or did it do nothing? Go in the opposite direction or some completely unexpected direction?
-Decrease the number of uninsured Americans?
-Did the policy hit its targets there? How far off was it on hitting the targets?
This might all seem pedantic and too involved in the minutia, but it seems like no one has any kind of objective lens through which to judge policy.
Goal posts shift after the fact, so perhaps it would be better to CLEARLY identify policy goals at the outset so people have some common standard of reference. Worse still, partisans will cherry pick the areas that failed or only partially worked, and ignore the areas where things succeeded.
If Kansas tax cuts are supposed to create a boost in revenue, how much? Did they achieve their goal? Did it fall short? Did it increase revenue at all?
Is there no way we can get some true accountability for policies? I mean shouldn’t everyone want this? Even with our own pet projects? I am hyper interested in a universal basic income scheme, but I want to know what works and what does not. If something is less effective about a UBI, I want to know so we can avoid the pitfalls, try to design around them, iterate to create something better, and if all those fail to improve things perhaps scrap the entire idea.
The Brookings Institute is a good place to look for a fair look at policies. Concord Coalition as well, although for a more limited set of issues, mostly having to do with policies’ effect on the deficit.
Why would you think this? Does any thing in hundreds of years of the political history suggest that the political partisans of any side are in fact inclined?
The Congressional Budget Office is how the government evaluates itself. They are ostensibly non-partisan, and they do issue very thoroughly researched reports critical of both Republican and Democratic legislation.
For instance, here’s an overview of their recent report on Obamacare. TL;DR: it has had modest successes, but not as much as hoped, and at higher costs than initially projected.
It would be nice if there were arbiters who command respect across the political spectrum. I just can’t think of anyone who’d be equally agreeable to me and Bernie Sanders.
The “objective” arbiters often suggested, like Politifact, do not pass my sniff test. Other arbiters that I DO respect would undoubtedly strike the SDMB leftists as biased.
Who do you see as being the equivalent of politifact who you do respect? Because, to me, while I’ve generally quibbled with some of their readings, they’re pretty obviously non-partisan. If you’re asking for something that both passes your “sniff test” and is also “neutral”, you might find that those two things are mutually exclusive.
I’ve posted elsewhere about how I believe Politifact’s bias manifests. In short: while any one of their ratings in isolation is absolutely defensible, they rate Republican lies harshly and Democratic lies gently, giving the benefit of the doubt to the Democrat and parsing the Republican leaning claims more strictly.
I’ve seen this argument on both sides, with evidence to back it up in both cases. Which, to me, means that they’re largely doing their job correctly.
Like I said, I’ve seen instances where their “mostly true” could be “true” or “mostly false” is just a quibble away from “false”, but I don’t see any bias in one direction or the other. The one time I found myself disagreeing with them, they seemed to put their finger on the scale (admittedly in a liberal leaning way) by the way they phrased what they were fact checking. But, they laid out their case, and so a reader could come to their own conclusion, and my conclusion was that they missed the point.
Do you have any alternatives that you consider neutral?
Your example isn’t an unfair point. I think it’s mitigated by the explanations which are fairly laid out, but the conclusion, as you point out, is not ideal. But, I don’t believe that a few isolated instances like this, which don’t appear to be systemic in one direction, undo the larger body of fair work that they have. Politifact is fighting the good fight, with good intentions, as far as I’m concerned.
The important thing to remember is that both sides do it. Does it matter how?
Say Politifact exaggerates one side’s case today, and hypes the other sides case the next. Is that non-partisan, or simply indecisive? Or do we judge by what we perceive to be “even-handedness” on a constant level? Which would, of course, differ from observer to observer. Fair lies in the eye of the beholder. (Wait a sec, got to write that down…)
And what, in the name of Og, are we to do with a burbling stream of mendacity such as Il Douche? Who will bolster a bold-faced lie with a half-truth, and counter them both the next minute? He’s not two-faced, two is not nearly enough, he would wear those out before breakfast.
I say we just muddle along as we have, we of the left will offer unvarnished candor, and Bricker will show us how his knowledge of case law negates such petty points. It will be as it always has been, round and round, whirled without end, oy vey.
This is what bugs me. We find nitpicks, which may be legitimate if rare instances of politifact not getting things exactly perfectly correct. And, then we throw up our hands and say, well, Politifact is roughly equivalent to infowars, which is nonsense. Politifact is a good source of honest information as the OP asks for. They get things right the vast majority of the time, and they show their work and their sources.
Really, just by experience I have to say that a lot of the sources most conservatives want to pass as objective do fail that test about showing their sources. And I have to add the most important item noticed in the past election and that Trump and company will make it a daily fight for:
Most of the right wing sources do not correct the record or add notes to clarify misunderstanding or errors. It is IMHO a thing that does poison a source cumulative speaking when a lot of the information remains in a state were a mistake then turns into a lie when information that is available clearly shows that an article is misleading or in error:
It is bad when right wingers rely on those sources of information that never correct misleading information. (A month has almost passed already and no correction from Breitbart whatsoever has been added) It is worse when people in government are telling us that they are relying of that trash.
I don’t think there is anyone on this earth with enough standing for most people in the US that they respect enough to consider a reasonable arbiter. Partisanship is too high.
There is no George Washington figure, No Cronkite figure. Conservatives and liberals discount each others narratives because we know its colored and infused with oceans of baggage.
I long for the sort of sci fi solution of the ark of truth,
But I can't find anything close to it. If you want to encounter the most arrogant creatures in their own knowledge of the universe, talk to a true believing libertarian / ancap type. We need to have beliefs and knowledge that gets a greater degree of respect and reverence that is backed up by real life observations and evidence. Evidence that withstands rational scrutiny, evidence that is more resilient to piercing through our very human biases and traps of the mind to shore up what we wish to be true, or worse, that makes sense to our exaggerated ape brains.
I think we are doomed, but I was hoping someone had an answer that I failed to see.
It would help if there was a visual representation and personification of the quality of outfits like politifact vs infowars.
Where each outfit could be ranked on a scale between light and darkness, the father of lies and the creator (wheel of time nomenclature).
In such a visual representation I’d imagine infowars would be depicted as a demon from the 9th circle of hell while politifact would be a low level angelic creature on the truth sale.
It might also help if there was a metric where everyone agreed on a fact, or close to the same facts, but gave different interpretations based on different perspectives/baggages.
left/right/center etc
There is actually a podcast with that name lead by Josh Barrow that has David Frum as a frequent guest.
It’s this sort of issue that led me to leave the Republican party. There are two “issues” that are facts. Evolution and climate change. How to handle these issues might be open to opinion, but the Republican party decided that despite these both being objective facts that they would choose not to believe in either one. If they are not a fact based party, then I couldn’t be a part of it anymore.