doing good policy analysis

Often, people settle for pursuing good outcomes (well, at least if simplistic analysis holds)-- and thus, the means of govt force are sufficient to justify the ends. 

For example...

-Is it moral/ethical/biblical to take money from a household earning $80K per year-- or undemocratically, from future households earning $80K per year-- to pay off the loans of other people for college?  

-Is it moral/ethical/biblical to use the force of govt on my neighbor smoking weed? 

-Is it moral/ethical/biblical to kidnap Maduro and replace his government? 

And then there are the practical angles to consider: 

-What are the long-term implications of bailing out people (and/or corporations) for bad decisions-- as if they're "too big/small to fail"? Can I clamor about democracy if I use EO's and debt to implement these policies? 

-What are the consequences of prohibition for 3rd world countries, inner-city youth, etc.? Does it make sense for marijuana to be illegal while cigs and alcohol are legal (and kill 100K's per year each)?

-What will replace his govt in Venezuela? Does this encourage/discourage Chinese shenanigans with Taiwan? How does this align with Ukraine/Russia, Gaza/Israel, etc.? 

Inability to do this level of analysis means that you're average (i.e. not good) at policy analysis. And that's ok; it's a common part of rational ignorance. (Just don't combine it with dogmatism and descend into irrational ignorance.) Unwillingness to do it consistently is a strong sign of unfortunate and unimpressive partisan or ideological bias.