Politics is about resolving conflict. When the right answer is not clear, it’s useful to apply some sort of test (something like a philosophical razor). I call this one the “do nothing” test.
Let’s say the US congress is debating a new bill, and the political parties just can’t seem to agree on a path forward. This happens very often (by design). Some people will feel despair and hopelessness whenever this gridlock occurs. How will we ever make progress this way? Another group will undoubtedly see this as a victory. A bad bill was stopped from becoming law. As an outsider, how can you decide who is right? It’s not easy to tell, especially when the actual text of the bill is not available or easy to digest.
Here is one thing you can do. Take a step back and, simply, ask yourself: what if we do nothing? If the answer is “nothing bad” or “not much”, you should strongly consider the possibility that inaction is an acceptable choice.
One clear example of this test is the recently-passed American Rescue Plan. You can ask, what would happen if we did nothing? Would we be worse off? If so, how much worse? Would we regret not doing anything? Would we (as a country) defeat the pandemic anyway? Would more or less people be adversely affected? I won’t answer these questions, mostly because I don’t know the answers. But, if the answer is that we would thrive anyways, then doing nothing is an acceptable (maybe even preferable) outcome).
Of course, what-if questions are not easy to answer either. We cannot really know what the future holds. But we have the benefit of knowing the status quo.
Another thing I like about this test (which should be the case for all good tests) is that it can be applied to just about any proposed policy, regardless of what political party is in power. Admittedly, this test may often favor a conservative outcome. At least, a conservative approach will often translate to stability. At worst, big changes will be hard fought and will only happen when there is overwhelming consensus.
Ivan Cortes 