I was reading Louis’ and Shaun P’s comments on my last Palin’s mantra entry and was surprised to see Shaun quoting my old BP colleague Dayn Perry in a political context:

I believe its often possible for the government to provide those services at a lower, more efficient cost, than the private sector, because the government can’t shift those costs away AND because the government isn’t doing that stuff to profit. Is that always going to work? Of course not. But the trick is to balance the two. Let the private sector do what it does best - make a profit - at things that aren’t important, that not everyone needs to survive and thrive. Let the public sector do that stuff…

Its like Dayn Perry’s old line: “My answer is the same it would be if someone asked me: ‘Beer or tacos?’ Both, you fool. Why construct an either-or scenario where none need exist?” Applies exactly the same here. Yet I see no one in any position of power on the “right” advocating such a philosophy - and I certainly don’t see it from the Tea Partiers either.

Dayn wrote the quoted bit back in 2003 when the wholly artificial stats vs. scouts debate inspired by Moneyball was raging. I say “artificial” because even when every other baseball pundit was asking “should organizations be ruled by statistics or their scouts? (and how terrible if the former),” the answer, as Dayn so wonderfully put it, was always obviously, clearly both. You make your decisions based on the MOST information you can acquire, not ruling out a particular thread of knowledge just because you aren’t comfortable with it or it’s not fun to drink a beer with (which, actually, it can be).

For years I’ve been saying that the sabermetric concept of the replacement level was applicable to politics (as well as just about everything else). Thanks to Shaun P, I realize we have another saber-principle to import to our understanding of politics and government: beer and tacos. Don’t say “either/or” unless you’re forced to. That, in turn, is a solid mnemonic for something I’ve also been saying for years: when you elevate ideology above pragmatism, you’ve abdicated your responsibility to think. Judge things by what they are, not whether you approve of them or not on some arbitrary or received level.

By the way, Dayn has a book on Reggie Jackson out in early May, so he’s been keeping busy.

This entry was posted on Wednesday, March 31st, 2010 at 10:41 pm and is filed under The Political Mindscape. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.