Directionalist versus Destinationist

Which are you?

Is it better to reach for progress allowing for coming up short of full achievement of one’s political-economic goals, or should we always strive for complete victory never settling for less? A directionalist doesn’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good allowing progress even if he would want more. A destinationist doesn’t compromise on his principles never agreeing to a change if it is something that he would still object to as a starting position.

In other words a directionalist settles for better while a destinationist settles only for the best.

Consider these examples where there is a directionalism/destinationism question posed from two opposing sides of an issue:

1A - If you are strictly pro life (all abortion is murder and should be outlawed), would you compromise (at least as a first step) to prohibit abortion after quickening except for cases of rape knowing that this is the most realistic progress on the issue available and that it would be settled for the time being—no plausible reason to believe a more restrictive policy would be available for years to come? What if more progress for your side could possibly but unlikely be achieved with this as a first step? What if more progress was possible but unlikely if this as a first step is not undertaken?

1B - If you are strictly pro choice (abortion should always be legal), would you allow the same compromise of abortion prohibited after quickening knowing in this hypothetical that the alternative (a complete ban on abortion) is a possible outcome? What about in cases in particular states where abortion has been completely banned and you ultimately seek complete abortion rights?

2A - If you believe in the complete separation of school and state (the government should not fund nor regulate children's education), would you allow for vouchers (funding students to attend the school of their and their parents' choice) knowing the state would still play a somewhat minimal role in determining what qualified as a fundable school and therefore would still have a role in financing the arrangement?

2B - If you believe in a strictly government-run public school system, would you allow the same so as to improve the worst school options available to the poor conceding this improvement is reasonably possible? Suppose school is completely separated from government. Would you support this compromise position of voucher funding?

3A - Similar to the set up as in #2, but replace school with healthcare funding for the poor (Medicaid) or the elderly (Medicare). If you are ultimately against government being the funding source for medical needs for these groups, would you be willing to compromise with a voucher program that gives money to the consumer along with minimal stipulations for how it can be used (e.g., some must be used to buy medical insurance)?

3B - If you support government provision of medical funding for these groups to the extreme of single-provider, universal care, would you compromise to allow the voucher plan (allow recipients to control the money directly rather than pay providers)? What if Medicaid and Medicare are suddenly completely ended? Would you then allow for this compromise to allow some method of funding even though it falls short of your socialized medicine ideal?

We could do this all day with a never-ending variety of issues (e.g., illicit drug legalization/prohibition, gun rights/control, organ markets/donation, LGBT adoption rights/restrictions, etc.).

So where do you fall? Do you value more highly allowing for progress or do you stand firmly in defiance of compromise when it comes to principle?

It is easy to dismiss destinationists as unrealistic idealists who let dreams prevent progress. It is also easy to dismiss directionalists as deficient defenders who yield rather than fully commit to the cause.

We can criticize directionalists that they prevent possible victories by letting small gains substitute for true success. And destinationists can be criticized for dereliction to the cause by surrendering to a worse world while hiding behind a “never surrender” dogma.

All of these are overly simplistic and unfair. It is never so clear cut what the best approach should be.

I seek to be a good-faith directionalist who never loses sight of the ultimate goal. The counterpart I hope for is a destinationist who can envision multiple destinations.

As a directionalist, my biggest concern is that I am always settling for second-best worlds (if not lesser) and locking in those outcomes (the local-maximum problem). I think a destinationist should be chiefly concerned that they enable rather than fight against a world they would not defend.