One of the tragedies of the passing of the modern age was its perceived simplicity.  There were facts and we knew them.  And if we didn’t know them, then we could discover them.  And even though we can intellectually understand complexity in the postmodern age, we haven’t truly grappled with an important revealed truth: for every problem, there are often (at least) two simple solutions.

Which of course means, for all intents and purposes, there are none.

Let’s throw up one particular issue: what we choose to teach our children about sex in school.  For decades, there have been two prominent options: comprehensive education (a similar strategy was annoyingly dubbed “abstinence plus”) and abstinence only.  The principle argument for the more traditional, comprehensive sex education program is to inform students about what sex is, how to do it, and what the ramifications are for having done it: these ramifications run from pregnancy to STDs.  Students in abstinence only curricula don’t learn about their bodies and what they’re for, but how not to use them, with a great emphasis on youth not engaging in sexual activity.

Results of these programs have been pretty consistent, revealing that of these two options, abstinence only has the lowest reported sex rates*.  Hooray!  But also higher teen pregnancy and STD rates.  Oops.  The one with lower pregnancy and STD rates is, not surprisingly, the one that focuses on keeping these things to a minimum: the program that is most comprehensive.

[*Please note that in abstinence-only schools students are much more likely to lie about their actual activity, because the perception is that they are wrong for having done it.  It is much more likely that they are just as likely to have sex, but also more likely to not protect themselves.  I’m reminded of the conversation about this in the pilot of The West Wing, when a religious leader says “Show the average teenage American male a condom and his mind will turn to thoughts of lust.”  And Toby responds “Show the average teenage American male a lug wrench and his mind will turn…”]

So the debate over sex education has two simple solutions, depending on what you value: if pure ideological consistency is more important than real world outcomes, then abstinence only is for you!  And if real world outcomes are the focus and you can handle a bit of moral ambiguity, then a truly comprehensive sex education curriculum is the way to go.

But as you can see, it is much more difficult to agree on what is most important.

The current issue in which this is presenting itself is in the economic debate in Washington around tax ideology.  Since 2008, the popular refrain has been “we can’t raise taxes in a recession”.  The principle argument makes certain obvious sense (much like abstinence): when people are having trouble making ends meet, don’t make that challenge more difficult by raising one of those “ends”.  In fact, it makes a lot of sense.  But here it is a different way: arguably the biggest burden on the economy are the unemployed whose jobs have disappeared, so if we continue the tax cuts, we keep people unemployed.  No amount of tax cuts help a person without money.  [Note: Please listen to my argument more than my examples.  I’m not interested in a debate about free markets.]

Or:

• We are in a recession, so we can’t raise taxes.
• If we don’t raise taxes, we prolong the recession.

Like the previous argument about sex education, the discussion about taxes requires that we make one thing more important than the other.  For those that favor the tax cut, it is more important to maintain the ideology that as many people pay as little as possible for the services of government, especially when times are tough.  Those that don’t favor the tax cut are concerned with the fiscal health of their neighbors and their country, making job creation the highest priority.  Historically, the numbers are on the side of job growth and spending fueling the economy, bringing more people out of poverty.

So this begs the question, which priority is more important: ideology or results?  And what happens when one of them wins?