Trying to understand the entirety of the government is an impossible task for the average person. Even people who do this for a living often struggle with it. Even if the average person slightly increases their degree of knowledge, compared to an expert they will still be hopelessly lost.
To account for this, I recommend focusing on one or two areas and getting to know them pretty well rather than the whole picture. You should evaluate politicians not based on their degree of agreement with you, but based on their degree of understanding of policy. US Senators will often argue against a litmus test for Supreme Court nominees, and yet that is exactly what we do to politicans who are running for office. Political office is the only kind of job where I've seen this done. To get the best policy, we need the most knowledgeable policy makers; not the people who agree with your opinion (which is likely insufficiently informed).
One great thing to evaluate them on is general scientific principles. When they talk, do you get the sense that they understand introductory statistics and the distinction between good data and bad data? This can sometimes be difficult as politicans have to carefully choose their words for a broad audience. Did he say that because he believes it or because he thinks it's what he needs to say?
Asking the public to micromanage policy is a fool's errand, and is a primary cause of bad policy. |
