Apolitical Politics: A Manifesto
Apolitical governance: maximize the common good within rights, reason impartially, follow evidence, own trade-offs, and choose robust, reversible, future-proof choices.
We hold power in trust for the public. Our duty is to choose the best-available solution for everyone—openly, rationally, and within inviolable rights. Rights are not variables in an equation; they are the constraints that make legitimate calculation possible. Within those bounds, we optimize for health, safety, opportunity, knowledge, cohesion, and trust, and we state plainly what success means before we act.
We reason impartially. Every choice must pass a role-reversal test: would we accept this rule if we did not know our income, status, region, beliefs, or party—and if our opponents held office? We judge ideas by arguments and evidence, not by who proposes them. Our justifications rely on public reasons that any reasonable citizen can assess, independent of creed or tribe.
We are loyal to evidence, not narratives. Claims stand or fall on data quality, causal identification, replications, and effect sizes. We explain how a proposal works—its mechanism, assumptions, boundary conditions, leading indicators, and the facts that would falsify it. We treat uncertainty as first-class: we analyze scenarios, price tail risks, and favor robust, low-regret choices. When options tie on expected value, we prefer reversible paths that preserve future choice and generate learning.
We practice trade-off candor. There are no free policies. We name who benefits, who pays, what we forgo, and what burdens arise in practice. We seek to raise averages while protecting basic floors of dignity (health, safety, subsistence, civic inclusion) for all, and we pair ambitious reforms with credible mitigation for those most exposed. We pursue legitimate aims by the least-restrictive means, escalating only when lighter measures demonstrably fail.
We write simple, general, non-arbitrary rules. Predictability beats bespoke carve-outs. Exceptions, when necessary, are tied to transparent criteria that serve the underlying rule rather than any faction. We keep reasoning accessible, define terms, and invite informed disagreement. Like cases are treated alike—across time, administrations, and constituencies.
We govern as stewards of the future. We will not spend tomorrow’s climate, health, solvency, skills, or institutional trust for today’s optics. We account for natural, human, financial, and institutional capitals; we maintain before we expand; we pay small costs now to avoid catastrophic costs later. Every policy is a hypothesis: we pre-specify goals, measure honestly, publish misses, adapt quickly—or repeal.
We bind ourselves to candor and accountability to truth. We disclose conflicts and limits of knowledge up front. We welcome scrutiny from independent reviewers, press, courts, and citizens—and accept their verdicts. We will never claim powers we would not accept in our opponents’ hands. This is our oath: to maximize the common good within rights, to reason impartially, to correct openly when wrong, and to keep the public interest—not our interest—as the only compass.
The Manifesto
Common good within rights — We maximize public welfare subject to inviolable rights; rights are non-negotiable constraints.
Impartiality (veil of ignorance) — We reason as if we didn’t know our place; fairness must pass the role-reversal test.
Evidence before ideology — We follow the best available evidence and update publicly as facts change.
Causal clarity, not slogans — We state mechanisms, assumptions, and falsifiers so every claim is testable.
Uncertainty & risk asymmetry — We price uncertainty, guard against tail risks, and prefer robust choices.
Trade-off candor — We name costs, counterfactuals, and who bears burdens—there are no free policies.
Distributional floors — We raise averages while protecting minimum standards for all, with credible mitigation.
Reversibility & option value — We prefer staged, reversible paths that preserve future choice.
Long-term stewardship — We safeguard natural, human, financial, and institutional capital for future generations.
Source neutrality — We judge ideas by arguments and data, not by who proposes them.
Proportionality / least-restrictive means — We meet legitimate aims with the smallest necessary intrusion on rights.
Simplicity, generality, non-arbitrariness — We favor simple, general rules and narrowly justified exceptions.
Public-reason justification — We give reasons any reasonable citizen can evaluate, grounded in shared facts and values.
Error-correction duty — We treat policies as hypotheses—measure, learn, iterate, or repeal.
Reciprocity & consistency — We never claim powers we wouldn’t accept in opponents’ hands; like cases alike.
Candor & accountability to truth — We disclose conflicts and uncertainty, welcome scrutiny, and accept its verdict.
Together, these principles aim at the “mathematically best” solution for everyone—optimizing outcomes while respecting inviolable rights and truth.
The Principles
1) Common-Good Maximization (under Rights Constraints)
Two-line definition
Choose the option with the greatest net public benefit subject to inviolable rights (dignity, due process, equal protection).
If a “best” option breaches those floors, it is inadmissible—no trade can buy a rights violation.
Longer definition
Apolitical decision-making treats policy choice like an optimization bounded by hard moral constraints. The aim is to maximize total welfare—health, safety, prosperity, knowledge, trust—while lexically prioritizing rights so they are never priced away. The “best” solution is therefore the one that, after excluding rights-violating options, delivers the highest expected public value across time and groups, including spillovers and second-order effects. This framing forbids sacrificing a minority’s basic protections for aggregate gain and keeps “mathematical” calculus humane and legitimate.
What it consists of
Define the objective: measurable social outcomes + non-measurable civic goods (trust, cohesion).
Enumerate constraints: rights floors, legal limits, ecological boundaries, fiscal sustainability.
Count all effects: direct, indirect, distributional, dynamic (learning, innovation), and intergenerational.
Include opportunity cost: what becomes impossible if we choose this.
Compare admissible options on expected net public value (benefits – harms) after mitigation.
Prefer options that also improve institutional trust.
One example
Air quality policy: A city considers (A) targeted industrial scrubbers, (B) blanket mobility bans, (C) building-level filtration and ventilation in schools/hospitals. Options that impose disproportionate restrictions on movement without narrow necessity fail the rights constraint. Among admissible options, life-years gained, productivity effects, and long-term health are tallied. If (C) yields the highest expected public value while respecting rights, it is chosen—even if (B) could look “tougher.”
2) Impartiality by Design (“Veil of Ignorance”)
Two-line definition
Reason as if you did not know your income, region, health, or party.
Accept only rules you would accept if roles were reversed.
Longer definition
Impartiality demands that identity never tilts judgment. The veil-of-ignorance stance forces symmetric reasoning: if you might be the least advantaged, the urban or rural resident, the taxpayer or beneficiary, your decision must still be defensible. This shuts down special pleading (“for my side”) and filters out proposals that look good only from one vantage point. It is a disciplined empathy that converts fairness from sentiment into a consistency requirement.
What it consists of
Role-swap test: Would I endorse this if I were the most affected minority?
Identity-blindness: Judge arguments without weighing who speaks for them.
Symmetry: No exceptions granted to allies that would be denied to opponents.
Distribution scan: Check burdens and benefits across deciles, regions, cohorts.
Floor first: Before maximizing averages, ensure no group is pushed below a basic standard.
One example
Designing family benefits: a non-refundable tax deduction helps higher earners most. A veil-of-ignorance stance favors a universal, refundable credit that preserves a basic standard regardless of income bracket. The principle selects the formulation you would accept not knowing whether you would be low- or high-income next year.
3) Evidence First, Ideology Second
Two-line definition
Weight claims by evidence quality—methods, replications, effect sizes—rather than by ideological fit.
When better evidence arrives, update publicly.
Longer definition
An apolitical mindset treats beliefs as provisional and tethered to reality-checks. It distinguishes values (ends) from facts (means to ends) and submits means-claims to rigorous scrutiny: credible causal identification, transparent data, reproducible results, and openness to disconfirmation. Loyalty is owed to truth, not to narratives. Updating is not weakness; it is fidelity to the public interest.
What it consists of
Evidence ladder: prioritize meta-analyses, natural/field experiments, quasi-experimental designs; de-prioritize anecdotes.
Transparency: publish datasets, assumptions, and limitations.
Disconfirmation: actively seek results that could show you are wrong.
External validity check: will effects travel across contexts/time?
Conflict hygiene: declare interests; separate analysis from advocacy.
Living view: commit to periodic literature scans and explicit updates.
One example
Employment policy: older studies suggest a risk that raising a wage floor reduces jobs; newer quasi-experimental evidence shows small or no job losses in many contexts with gains for low-income workers. An evidence-first stance announces the prior, shows the new findings, updates the estimate of likely effects, and adjusts the policy target accordingly.
4) Causal Clarity over Slogans
Two-line definition
Name the mechanism: how exactly does X lead to Y?
State assumptions, boundary conditions, and what would falsify the claim.
Longer definition
Slogans smuggle in unsupported causality. Apolitical reasoning demands explicit chains: inputs → behavioral/technical channels → intermediate outcomes → final outcomes. It distinguishes correlation from cause, identifies potential confounders, and predicts leading indicators you should see if the mechanism is real. By committing to a causal story, you make the claim testable and errors correctable.
What it consists of
Mechanism map: channels, actors, incentives, constraints.
Necessary conditions: what must be true for the link to work.
Competing hypotheses: alternative pathways that could explain the same data.
Predictions: observable short-run signals (if mechanism holds, we should see …).
Failure modes: how the mechanism can break (bottlenecks, substitution, evasion).
Falsifiers: conditions or data patterns that would disprove the claim.
One example
Youth crime reduction: “more patrols reduce crime” is a slogan. A causal story could be: patrols raise perceived detection probability (channel), which deters opportunistic offenses (mechanism), visible within weeks in hotspot incidents (leading indicator), unless displacement to adjacent areas occurs (failure mode). The articulation forces measurement and alternative explanations (e.g., lighting, after-school programs).
5) Uncertainty Accounting and Risk Asymmetry
Two-line definition
Treat uncertainty as a first-class input; not all errors are symmetric.
Prefer options that are robust to being wrong and avoid ruin.
Longer definition
Real decisions face ambiguous evidence, fat tails, and irreversibilities. Apolitical judgment acknowledges ranges, not point certainties, and compares options on downside protection as well as expected value. When potential harms are catastrophic or irreversible, precaution and margin-of-safety matter more than small average gains. Robustness, reversibility, and graceful failure are virtues of choices made for everyone.
What it consists of
Uncertainty taxonomy: known/unknown unknowns; model and data error.
Scenario ranges: evaluate across plausible highs/lows, not a single forecast.
Sensitivity analysis: identify parameters that swing the result.
Tail-risk guardrails: avoid strategies with small probability, massive harm.
Reversibility: favor designs that can be paused or rolled back quickly.
Adaptive triggers: pre-set rules for tightening/loosening based on signals.
One example
Public digital ID rollout: centralization offers convenience (expected gains) but creates tail-risk of mass breach. An uncertainty-aware stance chooses a privacy-preserving architecture and phased activation with kill-switches—sacrificing a little average speed to eliminate catastrophic downside for millions.
6) Trade-off Candor
Two-line definition
Say who pays and what you forgo; there are no free policies.
If you cannot name the costs and counterfactuals, you are not deciding apolitically.
Longer definition
Every choice allocates scarce resources—money, time, attention, freedom to act—and shifts risk between groups and across generations. Apolitical reasoning refuses feel-good euphemisms and insists on a ledger: fiscal costs, compliance burdens, displacement effects, rights intrusions (if any), implementation complexity, and the opportunity cost of the next-best use. Stating trade-offs is a commitment to reality and to those who bear it.
What it consists of
Comprehensive cost map: budgetary, administrative, private-sector, civic.
Burden ledger: who bears costs, when, and with what intensity.
Benefit timing: immediate vs. deferred gains; uncertainty around delivery.
Rights impact note: any restriction, its necessity, and less-restrictive alternatives.
Counterfactual: what we can’t do if we do this.
Mitigation plan: how burdens on vulnerable groups will be cushioned.
One example
National transport upgrade: a flagship high-speed line inspires pride but serves two corridors; an alternative network of regional upgrades serves many corridors sooner. Trade-off candor spells out capital outlays, per-euro travel-time savings, beneficiaries by region/income, carbon effects, and what projects are displaced. The public sees, in plain terms, why a many-corridor upgrade may be the apolitical choice even if it is less spectacular.
7) Distributional Fairness with Floors
Two-line definition
Maximize overall welfare while securing basic floors (health, safety, subsistence, civic inclusion) for all.
No policy is “best” if it pushes anyone below those minimums without credible mitigation.
Longer definition
Apolitical reasoning recognizes that averages can hide harm. Distribution matters: policies should raise the tide and prevent unacceptable dips for vulnerable groups. The correct calculus is “maximize subject to floors,” not “maximize and hope.” Floors protect legitimacy, social cohesion, and human dignity, and they prevent the political capture that follows when groups are chronically left behind.
What it consists of
Define floors: explicit minima (e.g., access to essential care, nutrition, shelter, basic digital access).
Map incidence: quantify who pays/benefits by income, region, cohort, and vulnerability.
Prioritize Pareto/Kaldor–Hicks with mitigation: compensate losers when feasible.
Monitor slippage: early-warning indicators for groups nearing/below floors.
Design for lift: target complements (skills, access) that help vulnerable groups benefit.
One example
Energy transition: carbon pricing maximizes net welfare but burdens low-income households. An apolitical design couples pricing with automatic rebates and building-efficiency support so no household falls below a heating/lighting affordability floor.
8) Reversibility and Option Value
Two-line definition
Prefer actions you can test, learn from, and reverse at low cost.
When options tie on expected value, pick the one that preserves future choice.
Longer definition
Information arrives over time. Decisions that embed irreversibilities (legal, financial, ecological, institutional) can lock in errors. Apolitical judgment values staged rollout, modularity, and sunset clauses that keep the system maneuverable. Option value—the worth of waiting for more information—belongs in the calculus alongside benefits and costs.
What it consists of
Phasing: pilots, feature flags, staged funding gates.
Modularity: decouple components so you can swap or upgrade parts.
Sunset & review: built-in expiry with evidence-based renewal.
Real options lens: value learning; avoid premature commitments.
Kill-switches: predefined criteria and authority to halt or rollback.
One example
National ID vs. federated credentials: both target secure access to services. A federated, standards-based approach with opt-in pilots preserves option value and reversibility, avoiding a hard-to-reverse centralized database mistake.
9) Long-Term Stewardship
Two-line definition
Price the future fairly—do not spend tomorrow’s health, climate, trust, or solvency for today’s optics.
Protect natural, human, financial, and institutional capitals from concealed depletion.
Longer definition
Apolitical politics rejects short-termism. Some harms compound quietly (biodiversity loss, debt overhang, skill erosion, institutional distrust). Stewardship means aligning choices with intergenerational fairness and resilience, incorporating decay and compounding into the objective function, and resisting policies that “look good now, cost more later.”
What it consists of
Capital accounting: track stocks of natural/human/financial/institutional capital.
Intergenerational discounting: justify discount rates; stress-test results.
Resilience premiums: pay modest costs now to avoid catastrophic later losses.
Maintenance first: fund upkeep before expansion; avoid deferred-maintenance traps.
No externalization: internalize environmental and social costs where created.
One example
Budget choices: rather than cutting bridge maintenance to fund a headline project, allocate to upkeep (prevent collapses) and workforce training—smaller headlines, vastly higher lifetime value.
10) Source Neutrality (No Special Pleading)
Two-line definition
Judge ideas by arguments and evidence, not by who proposes them.
Neither friends nor foes receive epistemic discounts or premiums.
Longer definition
Apolitical thinking severs loyalty chains. It de-biases by separating messenger from message and subjecting all claims to the same standards. It resists halo effects (ally = good idea) and horns effects (opponent = bad idea). This discipline widens the policy frontier by allowing “good ideas from anywhere” to compete on merit.
What it consists of
Blind review where possible: evaluate proposals without identity cues.
Uniform standards: same evidence bar and critique intensity for all.
Decouple coalitions: do not bundle unrelated positions for tribal reasons.
Steelman rule: present the strongest version of opposing arguments.
Audit trail: record reasons for acceptance/rejection independent of source.
One example
Urban transport: a rival party proposes bus-priority corridors backed by strong data. Source neutrality endorses and improves it rather than reflexively opposing; credit is shared, outcomes improve.
11) Proportionality & Least-Restrictive Means
Two-line definition
Pursue legitimate aims with the smallest intrusion on rights and ordinary life.
Escalate only when lighter measures demonstrably fail.
Longer definition
Ends do not erase means. Apolitical choices calibrate the burden to the threat, preserving civil liberties and normal activity when feasible. Proportionality is a structured test: necessity, suitability, minimal impairment, and overall balance. It reduces overreach, preserves trust, and protects the legitimacy needed to govern well.
What it consists of
Necessity test: is action required to meet a legitimate aim?
Suitability test: is there a rational connection to the aim?
Minimal-impairment test: is there a less-intrusive alternative?
Balancing test: do expected benefits outweigh rights intrusions?
Time-bounds: narrow scope, clear end conditions, periodic review.
One example
Public health: instead of blanket closures, use targeted risk controls (ventilation standards, occupancy limits, surge testing) with transparent thresholds; escalate only if metrics warrant.
12) Simplicity, Generality, Non-Arbitrariness
Two-line definition
Prefer simple, general rules that apply predictably across cases.
Avoid bespoke exceptions crafted for constituencies; if justified, state the rule they serve.
Longer definition
Complexity and carve-outs invite capture, error, and unfairness. Simple, general rules reduce discretion costs, improve compliance, and make outcomes auditable. When exceptions are needed (e.g., disability accommodations), tie them to transparent criteria anchored in the underlying rule, not to influence or access.
What it consists of
K-rules, not K-stories: rules that fit many cases with minimal tailoring.
Predictability: clear terms, stable application, few hidden valves.
Explainable exceptions: criteria, purpose, and reviewability.
De-biasing through form: default forms/checklists over ad hoc judgments.
Cost of complexity: evaluate administrative and error costs explicitly.
One example
Business licensing: replace a web of sector-specific carve-outs with a tiered, risk-based licensing regime (low/medium/high risk) with uniform requirements per tier and transparent upgrade paths.
13) Public-Reason Justification
Two-line definition
Offer reasons that any reasonable citizen can evaluate without sharing your creed or tribe.
Argue from common grounds: facts, shared constitutional values, and public purposes.
Longer definition
In plural societies, legitimacy requires justification that does not rely on sectarian premises. Public reason anchors debate in accessible standards—evidence, general welfare, rights language—so decisions can be contested and accepted across differences. It disciplines rhetoric and reduces polarization by focusing on shared evaluative currency.
What it consists of
Accessible language: avoid insider jargon; define terms and stakes.
Shared values frame: link proposals to widely endorsed ends (safety, dignity, prosperity).
Transparency about trade-offs: invite informed disagreement.
Reason-giving norm: treat questions as legitimate, not hostile.
Appeal channels: specify how citizens can contest and be heard.
One example
Land-use reform: justify upzoning in terms of affordability, climate, and fairness for future residents, with transparent modeling—rather than partisan slogans—so skeptics can engage on shared terms.
14) Error-Correction as Duty
Two-line definition
Treat every policy as a hypothesis; measure, learn, and correct.
Refusing to change course is political vanity, not public service.
Longer definition
Apolitical governance builds feedback loops. It defines success metrics in advance, collects outcome data, publishes misses, and iterates. Correction is not an admission of weakness—it’s institutional competence. Systems with visible error-correction maintain trust and converge faster on what actually works.
What it consists of
Pre-specification: goals, metrics, expected timelines before launch.
Monitoring plan: data sources, cadence, responsible owners.
Open reporting: public dashboards, independent audits.
Iteration protocol: thresholds for tweak/pivot/stop.
Learning archive: document what failed and why to avoid repeats.
One example
Education reform: a new tutoring initiative underperforms in rural areas. Publish the gap, analyze causes (connectivity, scheduling), adjust delivery (offline materials, flexible hours), and re-measure.
15) Reciprocity & Consistency Tests
Two-line definition
Universalize your move: back only rules and powers you’d accept if your opponents held them.
If it fails the role-reversal test, it’s partisan, not apolitical.
Longer definition
Reciprocity prevents short-term wins that damage long-term governance. By stress-testing actions against future control by rivals, you filter out opportunistic rule-bending and protect institutional integrity. Consistency over time beats tactical advantage now.
What it consists of
Opponent-in-charge simulation: would this still look legitimate?
Time symmetry: will I endorse this precedent in five years?
Equal application: like cases treated alike, regardless of beneficiary.
Guardrails before gains: build safeguards first, then use the tool.
Documented rationale: reasons framed to survive role reversal.
One example
Investigatory powers: before expanding surveillance to fight a pressing threat, design narrow scopes, warrants, and independent oversight you would trust if adversaries led the government.
16) Candor, Conflicts, and Accountability to Truth
Two-line definition
Disclose conflicts, uncertainties, and limits of knowledge up front.
Invite independent scrutiny—and accept its verdict.
Longer definition
Candor is the apolitical antidote to spin. It acknowledges ambiguity, names trade-offs, and lays bare interests that could bias judgment. By institutionalizing disclosure and independent review, you align incentives with truth rather than with appearances, sustaining trust even when outcomes are imperfect.
What it consists of
Conflict registers: real-time disclosure of financial/relational interests.
Uncertainty statements: what we know, don’t know, and what would change our minds.
Full-truth communications: avoid selective framing; share adverse evidence.
Independent review: empower auditors, courts, media, and civil society to check claims.
Consequences: corrective actions when candor norms are breached.
One example
Drug reimbursement decision: publish the clinical evidence, cost-effectiveness range, uncertainty intervals, and any expert conflicts. Invite external appraisal; if errors are found, adjust coverage and explain the correction publicly.
 | A guest post by
|