The Measure of the (Political) Man
Between the sacred and the situational lies the spiritual measure of the political man.
Intro:
For this Active Measures post, it’s worth pausing to ask: how much do people actually value the measures (math, statistics, artifacts, etc) we use to understand our world? How much do we value accuracy of the data? For some, measures are sacred: fixed, objective references to something outside of ourselves that must be preserved and reported no matter whose argument they help or hurt. For others, measures are situational: valid when they advance the cause, but open to adjustment or deconstruction when they don’t.
Two Approaches to Measures (to math, data, archives…)
Situational view of Measures
Core belief: Measures are valid when they serve the cause; open to adjustment, disparagement or reinterpretation when they don’t.
Risk: Short-term wins at the expense of long-term credibility and public trust in the measuring process.
View of institutions: Sees independent measuring bodies as potentially unaccountable actors; better to align them with the will of the majority.
Treats measures as political ammunition — valued when they support the majority’s current goals, distrusted or dismissed when they don’t.
Sees no problem with replacing career measurement experts in statistics, science, or research with loyal partisans if it serves the majority’s will.
Will tolerate (or encourage) selective or misleading use of measures to win an argument.
Accepts “common sense” or anecdote over disciplined measurement, especially if the narrative resonates emotionally.
Views measure verification (fact-checking) as an obstacle to “telling it like it is.”
Believes “the measures are what we say they are” if that serves the popular narrative.
More likely to change findings (e.g., unemployment, inflation) to fit the political moment.
In practice: If the inflation measure is politically damaging, redefine the basket of goods being measured or pivot attention to a friendlier metric.
Sacred view of Measures
Core belief: Measures exist independent of preference; they must be preserved intact even when they undermine one’s own goals.
Risk: Short-term political losses; can appear naïve when inconvenient measures are made public.
View of institutions: Sees independent measuring bodies as guardians of the public record and civic trust, not political actors.
Treats measures as a public good — valued for accuracy, transparency, and long-term reliability regardless of short-term political gain.
Protects the independence of agencies like the Bureau of Labor Statistics, National Science Foundation, Census Bureau, and Federal Reserve from political interference.
Upholds professional standards for measurement integrity — confidence intervals, peer review, methodological transparency — and resists cherry-picking.
Understands that complex systems (economies, climate, pandemics) require rigorous measurement, even when the results are unpopular.
Views fact-checking as a safeguard of civic trust.
Believes the measures “are what they are” — and that accuracy is the starting point for policy.
Defends consistent definitions and methodologies so year-to-year comparisons remain meaningful.
In practice: If unemployment spikes before an election, publish the measure as recorded, explain causes, and propose remedies rather than re-writing the metric.
We see this same sacred-situational divide playing out in a more theoretical realm right now in Texas. Some lawmakers appear openly willing to skew what might rightly be called the will of the people through aggressive gerrymandering — a practice critics describe as politicians picking their voters rather than voters picking their politicians. In that light, the sacred–situational split isn’t just about the accuracy of the numbers themselves, but about the integrity of how those numbers are gathered. For the sacred-siding, the process of measuring democratic will is as inviolable as the measures it produces. For the “situational”, rigging the process is fair game if the outcome serves the cause.
Closing thought:
For those who see measures as situational, the other side’s insistence on keeping them intact — especially when they cut against the cause — often feels like arrogance. What one camp calls integrity, the other calls elitism.
Our approach to measures (statistics, numbers) is about whether truth is something outside ourselves — a reality we answer to — or something we can remake to suit us. That choice, sacred or situational, says more about the spirit than about the spreadsheet.
Future installment:
In an upcoming post, we’ll similarly explore two political dispositions: 1) passion for liberal democracy, with its constitutional safeguards and independent institutions, and 2) majoritarianism, which elevates (at least the claim of) the majority’s “mandate” above all else. One scholar (a) uses this distinction to draw the line between “elites” and “populists.” Stay tuned.
(a) https://think.kera.org/2025/08/13/what-elitists-and-populists-have-in-common/