Not “Both Sides” But “What Works”

It is characteristic of the current tone of our national conversation that if you pick any issues, more likely than not there isn’t much engagement and compromise, polarized as we are to vilify opposing viewpoints and echo-chamber our way to feeling more strongly about our own positions.  Yet I am sympathetic to how irritating a “both sides” perspective can come off on issues of great import: how can one possibly be moderate on an issue that warrants strong condemnation and reform? 

Perhaps you will find today’s post similarly irritating, but hear me out.  Rather than “both sides,” I’m interested in “what works.”  And I want more of that to be elevated, so that we can actually solve problems, rather than scoring political points or puffing ourselves up.

Let me give you an example, and here I am intentionally choosing a topic that I don’t know much about (although, quite frankly, you could say that about a lot of things!).  I have peripherally followed the national discourse around Universal Basic Income (UBI), and I am inherently interested in the topic but generally disappointed with how things have proceeded.

On one side, you have folks speak passionately and eloquently about what a difference-maker UBI would have on households in need, and what a profound policy shift it would represent in making sure that the most vulnerable among us are provided for.  And on another side, you have folks dismiss the idea as infeasible, indicative of a “free lunch” mentality, and ripe for ominous unintended consequences.

What I haven’t heard nearly enough of is how we can actually make this work.  Would fiscal conservatives change their tune on UBI if it was implemented in a revenue neutral manner, by simultaneously phasing out other safety net programs that it could ostensibly replace?  Would proponents of social welfare initiatives be willing to trade existing programs for UBI?  These are the sorts of questions you ask if you actually think the objective behind a program is worthwhile, and want to figure out the mechanisms for being able to successfully and sustainably implement such a program.  But I haven’t heard much chatter about this, only that it is great or that it is too expensive. 

I’m sure that in the weeds of think tanks and punditry, multiple analyses have been conducted to answer these very questions, so it’s not that no one has thought to ask or answer them.  It’s just that I find it disappointing that that content hasn’t risen to the level of national discourse, where the average person on the street could have some basis for understanding what UBI is, what it is intended to do, and how it could be implemented.  It’s an important enough topic to warrant not just cursory familiarity but substantive debate. 

I get that “both sides” is annoying.  But so is the dearth of “what works.”  Do we care more about puffing ourselves and vilifying the other side than about helping people?  Are we so naive to think we can actually solve really difficult problems all by ourselves, if only the other side would just get out of the way?  Or are we willing to put in the hard work to propose something that can actually be done and that actually moves the ball forward?  While people are arguing, the effects of poverty continue to wreak havoc on our communities.  And, to introduce other hot topics, the planet continues to warm, addiction and guns continue to literally kill people, and hate threatens to imperil entire groups of people.  What are we doing?