Policy P(erfect) and Policy G(ood) both address a problem. Policy P is objectively much better than Policy G. Unfortunately, while Policy P is technically feasible, it is politically untenable. You can imagine whatever reason you want for this. Maybe there’s a NIMBY problem.
So, the President leads an effort and Congress passes Policy G. Can you properly argue that Policy G is bad just because Policy P exists?
My contention is that no, you cannot. The possibility of Policy P does not demonstrate that Policy G is a bad idea. To show that, you have to show that Policy G is worse than the status quo, or that Policy P was not actually politically untenable. At most, the existence of Policy P serves as a criticism of the hold-out faction, a criticism of the political system in general, or a criticism of the political skills of those attempting to persuade the hold-out faction. But it does not constitute a valid argument that Policy G is bad.
ETA: I realized I was implicitly assuming that the untenability of P was not the fault of the sponsors of G. Am I right that this is the critical factor?
If Policy P is not an option in the real world, then there’s no point in even discussing it as if it were.
If Policy P can’t even be articulated by those who are actually opposed to the philosophy behind Policy G, but would rather simply stall it than argue why, then the only discussion it merits is derision.
Sure. I mean to discuss the case where Policy P is an articulated alternative, it just isn’t politically feasible. I’m thinking things like building ten new Yucca mountains or instituting a gas tax.
Yes, but I wanted to be very specific in setting up the scenario in which the perfect is only unattainable for political reasons. I’m wondering if the aphorism is still true under that circumstance.
It can be perfect in the sense that it is the best option, politics aside. That is the definition of perfect I’m using. If you prefer, you can call it Smerfect if you don’t like my non-standard use. The only thing that matters is that the policy is objectively better than G except for its political infeasibility.
Ok, try this: Policy P is a policy that both sides in the SDMB debate over Policy G agree is a preferable alternative to Policy G if it were politically tenable.
As for your proposed rephrasing, if there were some broad agreement that a particular policy were superior, how could it still be politically untenable?
You’re going in circles here, Richard. For a policy to be politically untenable, it would have to be seen as superior by only a small minority. Then what would be the basis for calling it superior? But if it’s broadly agreed to be superior, even by only a large minority, then it’s politically tenable.
If you’re just trying to trap the laissez-faire contingent on this board into admitting a logical inconsistency in the Clunkers thread, that may be as enjoyable as masturbation but it means nothing more. As the old saying goes, “We are all Keynesians now”. Well, most of us.
Are the two policies mutually exclusive? Is Policy ‘P’ a subset of Policy ‘G’, (which is pretty common in policitcs.) For example, what if policy ‘P’ is ‘bury the nuclear waste in Nevada’, which isn’t politically tenable, but policy ‘G’ is ‘Bury the nuclear waste in Nevada, and give every resident $1million cash’. In this case, I would argue that the existence of ‘P’ could imply that ‘G’ is a bad policy.
Under my definition, the only two parties that need to agree about the superiority of Policy P are the ones arguing about Policy G.
It is perfectly possible, and indeed happens all the time on these boards, that both sides of an argument agree that some alternative is better to the policy being discussed. What I’m asking is whether that constitutes a criticism of the policy being discussed. I don’t think it’s that complicated.
I’m going to let some other posters chime in before another post for fear of deterring people from posting after our lengthy back-and-forth.
I considered this when writing the OP, but I’m not sure it matters. If policy P is politically untenable, it doesn’t matter if Policy G directly prevents it from being passed unless you think something will change to make Policy P tenable.
In your example, if the costs and benefits of bury-and-pay outweigh the status quo, I think that makes it a good policy. If bury-and-not-pay is never going to pass, it doesn’t affect whether bury-and-pay is a good idea.
Again, this turns on the assumption that the better policy will never be politically possible. Maybe in the real world we never know that for sure. But that raises an interesting question: how sure do we need to be about the untenability of the better policy before passing a lesser alternative?
The mere existence of ‘G’ could make ‘P’ untenable, though. If the two bills come up for debate in Congress, the existence of one with a payout for my constituents would stiffen my resolve to vote against the other one, making it untenable. If the payout option was never on the table, I might be convinced to vote for ‘P’. (For the greater good, and all that. )
Right, good point. As I tried to add in my edit to the OP, I was assuming that it was neither G nor G’s backers that made P untenable.
It seems to me that in many cases, most of the supporters of G would actually prefer P, but G is the compromise measure. So in the usual case, this isn’t an issue.
I think he means “superior by the people advocating the position”. So, should pro-life people be unhappy because a law banning partial birth abortion (the “good”) doesn’t include a ban on all abortion (the “perfect”)? Should gay marriage advocates support a bill that allows gay civil unions (the “good”) even if it doesn’t allow gay marriage (“the perfect”)? Should supporters of Universal Health Care be upset if the finished bill expands health care coverage (the “good”) but doesn’t provide universal care (the “perfect”)?
)