Do political discussions have any relationship to what actually occurs in government and the decisions made by policymakers? Perhaps most importantly, do activists, politicians and citizens care if public political discussions have any relation to the important details of social problems and the actual results of policy outcomes?

Despite the intensity of debates in the public arena, there are numerous recent examples where politicians and activists dismiss evidence that shows their preferred policy doesn’t achieve the promised goal they claim to care about. In those instances, the performative act of taking a position on a policy is a surrogate for the more personal motivation to be seen as a good person.

There are many who sincerely care about public policy outcomes. They want to protect wildlife. They want to reduce poverty. They want to educate children, or reduce crime, or help others live a successful and fulfilled life. That internal motivation can help us face the unpleasant reality that public policy rarely works the way we want, and that solving societal problems is really difficult.

The sad truth is that beyond that internal accountability, there are few incentives for policymakers to admit a policy is failing, especially publicly. The causes of poverty, for example, are complex and unless we pay a direct price for the failure of policies to reduce poverty, it is easy to claim that our chosen approach is working. It is everyone else that is screwing up.

When the cost of public policy or real-world results are abstract, people are more likely to prioritize the tangible benefits of feeling righteous and choose political positions that send the clearest signal about that righteousness. Public discussions degenerate to virtue signaling - on the left and right - and the result will be more divisiveness. Such debates emphasize clear messages over policies that deliver results. As H.L. Mencken noted, “For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong.”

The fight over Obamacare provides a case study of how the desire to be righteous can conflict with the real-world implications of public policy. I ran a healthcare charity at the time and witnessed this first-hand.

Some of the most ardent supporters of Obamacare were young people who claimed the policy would make healthcare less expensive for everyone. The irony was that the law was structured specifically to increase costs for young people – making them pay more so that seniors would pay less. The result was that young people, who have relatively low salaries and savings, were paying more to subsidize seniors who had a lifetime of savings and assets.

So, why would 20-somethings support a law specifically designed to take advantage of them? There are a couple of reasons that come to mind.

The first is that health care is complex and young people didn’t understand what “community rating” is or how it would affect them. People in their 60s have spent a lifetime dealing with healthcare and doctors and are more likely to pay attention to such details than young people who feel invulnerable.

The second factor is that being for Obamacare was the “right” thing to do. Everyone wants healthcare to be more accessible and affordable. Thus, for some, supporting Obamacare was not about the details of the policy. It was a signal about being, as President Obama liked to say, on the “right side of history.” It was a signal that you were a righteous person.

Such decisions are easier when the rewards of righteousness are tangible, and the costs of the failed policy are abstract and intangible. It is extremely difficult for young people, who were paying the price of the law, to discern the cost. Left with uncertain costs and a palpable sense that they were doing the right thing, it isn’t surprising that many supported the law that did the opposite of what they claimed.

The support for increasing tariffs offers a corollary on the right.

Tariffs are taxes and increase costs for both foreign and domestic products. And yet, some argue that Americans don’t pay for them or will claim that increases in the cost of goods are unrelated to the tariffs, or will say that even if tariffs increase costs, it is a good thing because it makes America stronger in the long run. Given the complexity of the market, the tangible sense of patriotism felt by some tariff supporters is hard to counteract with the claim that they are being hurt by tariffs that are paid by someone else and filter their way to consumers.

When personal feelings about patriotism or being on the “right side of history” become mixed into policy discussions, political positions become more firmly fixed because admitting error means not only that I was wrong, but that my sense of righteousness was also unearned. By raising the stakes of being wrong, it also increases the incentives to find reasons our beliefs are still correct, even in the face of contrary evidence.

Not only are policy discussions more divisive, they become more rigid.

This dynamic becomes supercharged on social media where signaling is at a maximum and accountability is virtually zero. The more politicians attempt to appease these online voices, the more they become influenced by people whose connection to effective policies is tenuous at best. Politicians offer bills they know have no chance of being adopted or solving problems, but send strong political signals.

Given those realities, how can those of us who care about good public policy make sure we don’t fall prey to those same perverse incentives? How can we make sure our work creates incentives for people to choose effective outcomes rather than the reward of feeling like you are part of a righteous cause?

One way to break this cycle of incentives and focus on solving difficult problems is to make them tangible to the people responsible for action and those who benefit. They receive direct feedback, which not only gives them the information they need to adjust their approach, but also the incentive to face reality and counteract the desire to prioritize feeling righteous over directly facing the hard reality solving problems. It is difficult to claim victory when the evidence of failure stares you in the face.

The words of philosopher Karl Popper offer a guide. Answering the question of how societies can avoid being seduced by grand political solutions, he encourages people to “Work for the elimination of concrete evils rather than for the realization of abstract goods. Do not aim at establishing happiness by political means. Rather aim at the elimination of concrete miseries. Or, in more practical terms: fight for the elimination of poverty by direct means ... Or fight against epidemics and disease by erecting hospitals and schools of medicine. Fight illiteracy as you fight criminality. But do all this by direct means.”

This is why local and market-based approaches are superior to bureaucratic and centralized policy at addressing many of the societal concerns we face. Direct solutions, created by innovators and individuals who confront problems through trial and error, responding to successes and failures, are the most likely source of real solutions. Only entrepreneurs working in markets or philanthropic actors on the ground have the agility and speed necessary to make those changes to confront problems that arise.

Last year, I wrote about the Quinault tribe’s successful effort to take control of forestry on reservation lands from the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), whose oversight from Washington D.C. had resulted in financial mismanagement and environmental damage. The concerns of tribal members, who paid the biggest price for that mismanagement, were too abstract for BIA managers who were concerned with tribal lands across the country.

Innovation is an important part of this, but so too are ideas. Popper concludes by encouraging people to “Choose what you consider the most urgent evil of the society in which you live and try patiently to convince people that we can get rid of it."

“Patiently” may be the most important word in that sentence. It takes time for people who aren’t experts – either politicians or the public – to hear arguments, assimilate them, and then assess the truth. Even then, the impulse to avoid changing your mind is strong and without the risk of looking foolish or being harmed personally by bad policy, it will be impossible to convince some people.

However, if public policy remains entirely at the level of public debate, with all decisions being made by politicians and bureaucracies whose connection to the real-world results of their policies is abstract, then it will continue to degenerate into a battle of signaling about righteousness and support for one political faction.