The politics of doing something that does nothing
The politician’s syllogism is the laziest form of public reasoning, and it works because no one forces it to grow up.
“We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this.”
The trick is that urgency replaces judgment. Once “something” is on the table, the evaluation phase quietly dies. The question is no longer whether this will work, but whether we can point to it.
Modern governments are rewarded for visibility, not effectiveness.
Solving a problem is slow, uncertain, and often anticlimactic. Performing concern is fast, legible, and camera-ready. So policy drifts toward actions that signal effort rather than produce outcomes. Optics beats mechanics every time.
That is how you get homelessness policies that manage appearances rather than housing people, and diversity trainings that generate certificates rather than institutional change.
These programs are not designed to fail. They are intended not to matter. Their real function is reputational. They allow officials to say they acted, which is usually enough because the bar is low.
Over time, this creates a political culture in which action is mistaken for progress. Complexity becomes inconvenient. Tradeoffs are treated as moral failures. Announcements, not aftermaths, measure success. If a policy can be photographed, branded, and defended in a soundbite, it is already halfway to adoption.
The bleak insight is not that governments are incompetent. It is that the incentives are clear and consistently followed.
Problems that are solved disappear. Issues that are managed theatrically justify budgets, careers, and elections.
The syllogism persists because it flatters everyone involved. Politicians look decisive. Voters feel reassured. Institutions stay intact. Only the problem notices that nothing has changed.