Read on Twitter
Interesting idea. While there are real limits to the use of appointments to depoliticize issues, this strategy might generate net benefits in areas where there isn't deep-seated ideological disagreement (provided the appointee is well-qualified). @haroldpollack @JohnArnoldFndtn https://twitter.com/JohnArnoldFndtn/status/1320795200424419328
In our book Unhealthy Politics about the politics of evidence-based medicine, we speculate about whether PCORI might have been able to build more bipartisan support for an ambitious, impactful research agenda if it had been led by a respected GOP health expert like Gail Wilensky.
What we think is a problematic strategy is using signature partisan bills (eg the ACA) as a must-pass vehicle for enacting technocratic, evidence-based reforms that have the potential to gain broad support, but haven't been fully incubated yet.
Sure, the technocratic reforms might become law faster by "hitching a ride" on a signature partisan bill. It is really hard to pass bills that benefit diffuse constituencies! It can be tempting for parties to throw everything into a bill that will pass on a party-line vote.
But the danger is that the technocratic reforms passed in this manner will inevitably be tainted as partisan, reducing their sustainability and impact. That has happened to some degree with CER.
Some bills are inevitably going to spark partisan fights (eg the public option), but where there is the potential to find bipartisan support for evidence-based policies in critical areas like public health, it may be worth trying to keep them on a separate legislative track.
