I'm much more 'results oriented' than 'belief oriented'. I BELIEVE that RESULTS are more important than intentions, no matter how 'nice' or politically correct the intentions may be - and there's not a time when good intentions ever excuse bad results.
Over the last three decades, I've seen plenty of examples of 'correct' thinking providing results that were (to put it delicately) sub-optimal. The pace has, sadly, significantly accellerated in the last five years or so. And I've also seen a substitution of wishful thinking for consideration of the "Law of Unintended Consequences" when drafting legislation or programs.
Consider, for example, our current energy crisis. California, for all the best intentions, has resisted construction of power plants. Certainly pollution is a concern - but there are technolgies in place that'll mitigate the garbage that comes out of a smokestack, even to stringent California levels. And if that should fail - there's nuclear power. However, the public feeling against THAT particular form of electrical generation is nowhere near what it used to be - though you couldn't tell that from the politicians in California.
I guess being 'green' takes second place to actually flipping the switch and having the lights come on, or not having electrical bills that suck money out of your checking account like a high-volume bilge pump.
We live in a time where (like it or not, to use the President's phrase) we are exceedingly dependent on a functional infrastructure to maintain our prosperity - and there's people who (for the best of intentions) would like to see that infrastructure simply go away. Electricity is generated by power plants. Power plants pump CO2 into the atmosphere, which is warming the earth, therefore we have to generate electricity through some other means - but that there's nothing that'll provide the needed quantity of reliable electrical power economically means nothing to them. The intentions are all that matters - the results of those intentions are essentially unimportant.
Obama had this great idea to reduce greenhouse gas emissions through the Cash4Clunkers program. Hey, who WOULDN'T like a $4000 rebate for trading in a junker on a new car? Well, the unintended consequences of THAT little stunt were impressive. Each $4000 rebate cost a total of $24,000 to provide. Hundreds of thousands of usable cars were turned into junk. Auto dealerships went from feasting under the rebate into a famine when it ended.
Hey, I'm all for ideas that start out as "Wouldn't it be nice if we could..." - but flowcharting any of those out as:
1. Define problem.
2. Throw money at it.
3. Then a miracle occurs.
4. Everyone lives happily ever after.
Misses some VERY fundamental steps. NOTHING that's done politically will ever have ONLY the results you desire - there will ALWAYS be effects, and the wise politician knows this and will seek a course of action that will avoid the worst and mitigate the rest of the unintended consequences.
Unfortunately, we're kind of low on wise politicians any more.
What we have are politicians who believe that the proper attitudes completely excuse any bad results coming from the implementation of those beliefs. That taking a functional system, (the health system) and completely revamping it so government has control will have no unintended side effects.
1. We take over the system.
2. We take the money that people are using now to pay for their care.
3. Then a miracle occurs.
4. Everyone's care costs less.
5. Everyone is happy.
I'm starting to have a real problem with politicians who are dependent on #3. It's obviously a design flaw, and I believe they should be recalled and replaced as soon as possible.
However, wise politicians seem to be in short supply right now. Check back in November - we might have gotten a shipment in by then...
I hope.
If not - well, look to Detroit. And California. Ideas were more important than reality, and you can see the effect for yourself.
J.