What Would Mike Rowe Do?

Results matter more than intent but which of the two do you think drives more of government action?

Mike Rowe is always a voice of sanity.

I saw something yesterday from some discussion in which he was engaged and his consistent clarity is a welcome experience. He was talking about how workers in traditional manufacturing, mining and the trades jobs were told to “learn to code” when it was assumed the “information economy” was going to take over.

Now AI threatens to winnow the ranks of coders.

Rowe made the point that this iteration of work will increase the value of careers like plumbers, carpenters, electricians, pipefitters, and welders because AI can’t do that kind of work and people will always need people who know how to do stuff.

If you have ever had a burst pipe or an electrical problem, you understand how immediate the importance of a plumber or electrician can be because their work is results driven. When a problem, especially an immediate one, is either fixed or isn’t is as close to reality as one can get.

I use that anecdote because it illustrates the importance of results.

Switching to our national scene, in a representative republic, there is always passionate opposition. When liberals are out of power, it is called “patriotic dissent” or “speaking truth to power.” When they are in power, opposition is “uncivil,” “hate speech,” or “creating a climate of fear.”

Given that, it is clear why agreement proves so elusive.

The fact is that Americans have argued over the role and interpretation of our own founding documents due to intent vs. result. This is a debate of intentionalism vs. textualism—primarily a debate over how the permission and processes of governance should be interpreted, but one that also explains broader political differences.

While the ideological “left” tends to focus on intent rather than results, the political “right” emphasizes outcomes and is less inclined to reward intent alone. Bill Clinton was often given a pass for poor results in social programs because he “felt our pain,” even as his policies fell short of promises—intent carried weight. George W. Bush, by contrast, was sharply criticized even where his administration claimed success in fighting terrorism, because critics believed his intent was flawed (racist, warmongering, aligned with the military-industrial complex, summarized in the phrase “Bush lied, people died,” and so on).

Barack Obama received a similar benefit of the doubt as Clinton, as his administration expanded federal involvement in both economic and regulatory spheres. Supporters often attributed positive intent to these actions and this period saw the passage of lengthy legislation that few had fully read (“We have to pass it to see what is in it.”), driven in part by confidence in legislative purpose rather than scrutiny of likely outcomes. The Attorney General at the time publicly criticized legislation as unconstitutional before fully reviewing it, assigning intent prior to analysis. The era also saw the rise of appointed “czars” and an increasing reliance on agency regulations in place of traditionally debated laws—developments that drew limited criticism from civil liberties advocates who aligned with the perceived intent behind the policies.

The political “right” opposed these developments largely on the basis of anticipated results rather than stated purpose, prioritizing substance over symbolism.

I fairness, logic can often qualify intent to such a degree reasonable deductions can be made whether something can be successful or not—but no argument can be won on intent alone. No one could truly know what resides in another person’s mind or heart or can quantify all the externalities that may or may not happen. Intent must be judged through evidence—through outcomes, much like evidence in a courtroom. Good intentions can produce deeply flawed results when translated into policy.

Obamacare is a prime example. There is nothing more seductive to a politician than the intent of giving every American healthcare—but after a decade and a half, those who used reason and logic prior to the inception of Obamacare have been proven correct—it was a policy based on pure intent, one that is now conclusively proven to have delivered none of its claimed benefits (as predicted).

If anything, the results show it made healthcare worse and more costly while expanding the role of government in one seventh of the American economy and just recently, when faced with the costly failure and reality that people would lose health insurance because massive Covid era subsidies were ending, Congress did what it always does. They argued about it for a few months and Republicans caved to join Democrats in appropriating even more money to throw into the black hole.

Most people are familiar with the acronym “WWJD”, and if not, it stands for “What Would Jesus Do?”. America needs to adopt the WWMRD acronym—What Would Mike Rowe Do?

Unfortunately, I understand why results will never carry the same weight as intent, especially in government.

If they did, about 90% of the legislation and policies would never see the light of day and politicians are not in government to deliver results, they are there do write laws, create programs and spend money.