Love how he accuses opponents of being "Too Online" while writing an entire article to defend his beloved subreddit lmao.
TLDR: Neolibs are the only "practical" group out there, the only ones who look at evidence, blah blah blah, etc. It's as insufferable as you think.
Translation: one study with an unrepresentative sample pool found one time that charter schools can achieve marginal improvements in one area, so I'm going to use that as an easy substitute for principles.
P.S.: "Hahaha, get it, I use arr like a pirate instead of r/ because they're homophones but the former makes me sound wacky. I am very humorous and not a poorly programmed Turing machine."
The thing about "evidence-based policy" is that it implies that their policy is expertly crafted, finely tuned, and precisely measured. That's fine, obviously everyone believes themselves to be correct, but it's incompatible with their other belief that it's not just necessary but also virtuous to compromise with one's opponents.
Was the original infrastructure bill "evidence-based?" Has each successive, smaller iteration been "evidence-based?" When Joe Manchin finally decides to allow the party to pursue their aims, is he basing his decision on evidence? If you meet (being generous) halfway between your "evidence-based" goals and your opponent's childlike populism, is the resulting compromise still "evidence-based?"
True! But it doesn't really reach the crafted/tuned/measured part because the compromising starts out prior to the policy even being written. And given that there's a think tank for every position, there's a tendency to pick the evidence that fits your policy rather than vice-versa.
Evidence based = think tank crafted and funded. Populist rabble rousing = things everyone wants that will hurt a donor group.