Risk-based reasoning in public policy

[JMUCKERHEIDE@delphi.com]

Bill Pitchford writes, correctly,

> We need to do more than look at the issues.
> 
> The process of discerning the truth requires that the varying points of 
> view be objectively reviewed and assimilated into a cohesive framework 
> that separates fact from fantasy, and where fact can not be determined 
> the objectivity has to be broadened to put the risks into perspective.
> 
> That perspective has to be well-reasoned and acceptable to the diverse 
> groups that will undoubtedly review the resulting policies with a demeanor 
> that will not necessarily be based on the merits of the effort.
> 
> There has to be a starting point that will evidence a common desire to 
> reach a well-reasoned public policy.  Determining what that is will likely 
> necessitate the involvement of the extreme viewpoints.  Involving those 
> viewpoints will be easier if we start with the assumption that they want 
> to find well-reasoned public policy.  

<break>
>It will be much more difficult to 
> achieve the common deisre if we start with the assumption that those who 
> hold different points of view are unreasonable and possessed of foul intent.

Note however that it will be *impossible* if we do NOT start with the
assumption that among "those who hold different points of view" are those who
"are unreasonable and possessed of foul intent". 

It is important to honestly engage all who are working with good intent. It is 
also important to distinguish those who are not. But when we do not understand 
and "talk past" those who have no intent to be honest,  to go to the court of
opinion to show that there is nothing that will satisfy them, then we can
never reach a successful result. Successful results in the face of
confrontation ARE achieved when the unreasonable are shown to be so before
those they claim to represent that they are unreasonable and possessed of foul 
intent. A true public process engages the issue before the public, not in
committees and closed efforts where political objectives enable those with
negative intent to claim they have substantial concerns and are acting in good 
faith. 

You need to be as objective about the players and motivations as about the
facts. 

When Ralph Nader took over the Union of Concerned Scientists in 1976, it was
with the message that "if you want to 'succeed' you have to reject this
objective technical analysis stuff; you have to appeal to the gut instincts
with graphic false images". The scientists and engineers who had initiated the 
ECCS questions, left. The politicians stayed. Just like the Clinton/Dole
campaign, political organizations use info for political gain, not truth or
evidence. Its true with many such political organizations who are driven by
the way they get their funds from political and public funding sources. 

> Soap-box diatribe of the day... No Disclaimers intended or implied.
> 
> Bill Pitchford

Thanks, Bill.

Regards, Jim Muckerheide
jmuckerheide@delphi.com