What happens when the policies we support contradict the outcomes we say we want? This December 2024 episode connects three arguments that initially seem unrelated: Prohibition and the demand for undocumented labor, climate rules and Chevron deference, and military effectiveness and women in combat. Each asks whether our preferred means fit our stated purpose.
Mabel Walker Willebrandt’s enforcement efforts introduce the problem of regulating supply without confronting demand. The discussion then turns to Congress, agency authority, and the desire for durable environmental policy, before considering Captain Lacie Hester’s combat leadership. I argue for consistency: account for employers’ labor needs, make laws through accountable institutions, and judge military contributions by the results a person can achieve.
Read the essay and sources: https://joelkdouglas.com/2024/12/03/unenforceable-ideals/
