Everything in life starts out with some sort of an idea. Many great thinkers, over multiple generations, have made statements that credit the initial moment of any worthwhile activity is first in its formulation as an idea.
An idea begins as a kernel, a thought or notion, that compels a process of interrogation and development. The thought or notion may be as a response to a experience in the physical world or it may be entirely of the mind. In this way, we can peer into an individual’s soul by the pronouncement of their ideas. The pitch and tone of their ideas illuminate a worldview and that individual’s capacity that determine the quality of the type of vision they have for themselves and their world.
Since the ancients the concept that ‘nothing comes from nothing’ has been well understood and continues to be a powerful articulation that whatever we need or want for ourselves and for our community and our broader society will never come from nothing. Rather, it comes from an idea and a vision that develops and brings together those who can share the characteristics of that particular vision. As such, there is no justification for non commitment or sitting neutrally on issues that we recognise as important to the integrity of the society we seek to evolve into.
Consequences and outcomes of any idea allow opportunity to examine, not only the initial superficial response that they may elicit, but to fully consider the direction of self and society posited. All major trends had an initial point of emergence that extended to a broader group. It is in the momentum of ideas on a fuller scale that the true worth of the idea can be evaluated.
The ideas that filter through various political machines can be examined by applying this approach. We can scrutinise the direction and perceived outcomes of each political idea to evaluate its potential unfolding on a larger framework within our society.
The larger political ideas often tend towards certain binary opposites. Evaluating these fundamental direction enable the process of evaluating government policy. One direction is to enable an egalitarian society, or not. This is seen where all people are equally enabled through education and healthcare, for example. The opposite being that not all people are equally enabled, which in historical terms, tends to mean that the more well off in society are given precedence for support while the less well off are left exposed to continued abandonment of their person hood by society.
Additionally, there is the choice to objectively assess information regarding policy. This is where independent research and expertise are used to equip governments to generate policy that is factually driven and expertly applied. Politicians are not broadly equipped to engage with the realities of each significant area of policy analysis. To neglect or reject this approach is to be persuaded by subjective opinions, not grounded in objective discernment and understanding, and not scrutised by those known to be the best independent advisers in their fields of expertise. Of course, there is the obvious issue of climate change here, but there are many other areas where governments seem to be completely out of touch from broad sways of acknowledged research, the implementation of which is possible to accomplish great outcomes for all of society in education, social policy, healthcare, employment and much more.
The ability to choose an inclusive approach to policy, grounded by the best available information though research and expert opinion, are surely the cornerstones by which any government should engage and by which be held to account.