Optics matter, in reality.

When we deal with politics, we have an understandable tendency to focus on whether or not we believe the current goings-on are good in themselves. We ask, ‘Was that police shooting justified?’ or ‘Is this proffered bill in line with morals?’ or ‘Will this get rid of more immigrants, faster?’ All these questions have their place. Judging policies, actions, and laws according to right and wrong, according to what issues they address, is a necessary part of understanding the political world. If it stands alone, however, it quickly becomes myopic and weak.

Politics is a complex affair. As a result, every policy and action and law has more than just its direct effects. If I ban blue toothpicks in my state, that has a direct impact on use of blue toothpicks (at least if the law is enforced or noticed). That direct effect is far from the only concern I should have, however.

First, I need to ask about my own opportunity cost- or, as a political observer rather than actor, about the government’s opportunity cost. I spent a certain amount of time getting that ban on blue toothpicks to pass. What could I have been doing instead? I also spent some political influence (not just explicit things like favors but intangibles, like how much people like me and how much time they are willing to give me and whether they think I’m a doofus). Could that have been spent better?

As our real-world example, let’s look at the recent to-do in Venezuela and its ripple effects. Let’s assume the act itself ends up beneficial, a net positive. America kidnaps (the technical term) the Venezuelan president, puts him on trial, and scores a huge win by getting Venezuelan oil for its oil industry. What could we have been doing instead? What could the administration have focused America’s attention on instead? Perhaps rooting out internal corruption and fraud on a large scale (not the tiddly-winks the current DoJ plays at); perhaps investigating the murder of Charlie Kirk. (Seriously, has the world just forgotten that?)

Second, second-order effects matter. When I ban blue tooth-picks, I drive up sales for non-blue toothpicks, increase economic instability (by enacting an arbitrary ban), and increase government power over the economy, if only slightly (unless the bill backfires, but accelerationism is a loser’s bet). Every action has consequences that ripple out.

What about those actions in Venezuela? Let’s imagine that the oil really does get entered into America’s portfolio. The result will be significant economic downturns in the part of the American economy that produces oil. Remember, we could be oil-independent, so a further result would be increasing or maintaining America’s dependency on imported fuel, even if for a while the money we paid for some of that foreign oil went to big business in America.

(Posting note: I wrote this on 1/26/26, and now, 2 weeks later, Venezuela seems like old news. It’s not….)

Third, and here’s where the modern right seems to have pulled an Oedipus (not the mother thing; the ‘gouge out your own eyes’ part), I must consider how this effects the political landscape. When I ban blue toothpicks, I tell my voters that my greatest priority is not their concern- rising crime, rising prices, cultural disintegration, etc. My greatest concern, in their eyes, is blue toothpicks. More, my passing the bill I may very well make ‘blue toothpicks’ the apparent priority of my entire party, in the area.

So, with Venezuela, here’s what people hear: foreign, foreign, foreign (and **** you). Are you working to get rid of illegal immigrants? Nobody remembers, except when your officers look bad enough (regardless of the facts) for the media to convince a few more uninvolved people to dislike ICE. Are you attacking big pharma? Nobody heard about it (sadly). Are you dealing with political corruption of the most heinous sort? Not only has nobody noticed you doing so, everybody has noticed that you’re spending time on Venezuela instead. In such an optics position, a good economy tells people they don’t need you (because they don’t see you doing anything for the economy) and a bad economy tells people you’re a problem (because you promised to fix it). This really is a no win situation.

Always analyze what’s going on in politics past the direct effects. Remember: if you want a fix to last more than a year, more than four years, more than ten years, you have to persuade the people that the people who want that ‘fix’ are the people who care about and can deal with their problems- the people’s problems, not just yours.

God bless.