Is Politics Pizza or Bananas?

The question is irrespective of how "bananas" it is today.

“Bananas are delicious,” is a divisive but legitimate statement. You either agree or disagree with it without qualification.

“Pizzas are delicious,” is a divisive and illegitimate statement. You cannot really agree or disagree with it per se.

With regard to pizza, the thinking must be framed as, “Pizzas can be delicious.” To label it delicious is to force a simple, binary answer to a complex, multifaceted question.

Basically you either like bananas or you do not. When it comes to pizza, you probably like some types of pizza while disliking others. Very rarely would someone simply not like pizza. Also very rare would be the person who likes all pizza in all its many varieties. So, in thinking about if pizzas are delicious, we have to have a deeper conversation about what kinds of pizza we are talking about.

Now let's apply this framework to politics and public policy. True, only a psychopath would think that politics is delicious. Still, most decisions and issues in politics are of the variety “pizzas can be delicious” rather than “bananas are delicious.” Hence, politics (political outcomes) can be delicious (desirable).

Here is what I mean. Suppose you are rightfully concerned about something like environmental (negative) externalities—pollution in the air, etc. Being concerned about it does not in any way imply that the government can step in to solve the issue, but it probably does imply that government should play a role. The question is what role should it play?

Some potential ways to address the problem of pollution would be:

• Government plays a somewhat passive role defining and enforcing property rights including providing a forum to adjudicate property claims (i.e., courts).

• Government goes beyond the passive role to proscriptively define and enforce regulations on what pollution is allowed and how it is addressed.

Just because one thinks government should play an active, expansive role does not mean one would agree with every conceivable restriction or think government is infallible. Likewise, just because one believes government should play a passive, minimal role in the problems of pollution does not mean one is not concerned about pollution or that this would always be the most effective approach.

The political outcome for addressing pollution can be delicious—sticking with the term from the analogy. It can be desirable but there is no reason to expect it to be regardless of one’s framework.

We can apply this to all manner of public policy: national defense, policing, subsidies, restrictions, vice prohibitions, workplace safety, civil rights, welfare, zoning, et al.

The devil is always in the details. To say, “Government is playing a role; therefore, I like it,” is nonsensical. Yet, too often we bring our priors and assumptions unconsciously to the positions we take.

“I support [national defense, our troops, etc.]” is some combination of trite and incoherent. So too would be, “I think we should regulate [‘dangerous’ drugs, pollution, workplace safety, speech, etc.].”

Even those who espouse the belief that taxation is theft do not necessarily believe that taxation is therefore bad or illegitimate in all circumstances.

We get sidetracked and talk past one another by beginning political discussions in a bananas-are-delicious framework.