I sort of think you have it backward. Policy is about realizing vision. And vision is much more philosophical and emotional as it is rational. Going back to America's founding, the central conflicts were between the urban, strong central government, pro-banking leaders, and the agrarian, decentralized, states-rights proponents (exemplified by Hamilton on the one hand and Jefferson on the other). This conflict led to the formation of the first political parties (the Federalists and the Democratic Republicans), even though not half a decade previous, pretty much every agreed that "factions" were to be avoided. There's no amount of data or rationality in the world that can tell us whether we should be cosmopolitan or agrarian. Only our personal philosophy or belief system can inform that. What data can do is to help us realize our goals once we have set them. My stance that environmental policy should rise above partisanship is based on my belief that it's in everyone's interest to tackle large environmental problems (which we have been able to do in the past several times). Most issues don't lend themselves to this, because most issues are existential in nature. It used to be that politicians had saying that politics ends at our borders. This was in recognition of the fact that America's adversaries represented existential threats and we all agreed that we needed to present a united front to the world--it derives from the philosophical belief that the American project is worth protecting no matter our internal divisions (that's the policy vision--how it's prosecuted is where we need the data). I think that partisan politics serve a very important purpose (giving voice to the voiceless--they're the labor unions of policy). It's easy to look at our current political climate and conclude that partisanship is the problem. I don't think it is per se. I think that the problem is large and multi-faceted, and that the hyper-partisanship is a result not a cause of our problems (I think most of our problems drive from bad finance, but that's a bigger topic than I can elaborate here). If anything we need more vision, not more data. Data are the easy part.
In your estimation, do you believe it's possible to have philosophically driven policies without adhering to party politics? Do the two really necessarily have to go hand in hand? I wonder also, if whether or not we don't always implement data driven policies is because we allow partisan ideology to get in the way.
So here's something data driven: Look at every democracy in the world. They all have political parties as organizing structures. Parties take very different forms depending on the specific system, but they exist everywhere in one form or another. There doesn't seem to be any other way to get the masses involved in politics. In many ways, a couple of the founding fathers kind of thought that was the point. Madison, for example, thought that mob rule was the least desirable possible outcome from a democracy, and he thus proposed the senate as the supreme authority, and whose members would basically be appointed for life (and they would be chosen from a basic oligarchy). In this system the people really don't have a voice, even if it would certainly comprise a more "deliberative" body, as he envisioned. So you and me and your friend and my cousin and his girlfriend get together and say, "Sure we don't agree on everything, but we share the same basic values, and if you agree to support X I'll support Y," and thus our party of many can try to grab the power that otherwise would be held by the few. Parties are stand ins for your values. And in America the basic divide is and always has been rural vs. urban, agrarian vs. cosmopolitan, planters vs. manufacturers, etc. So while you and I can have our personal political philosophies, how do we connect with Tom from Little Rock and Jenny from Sacramento? Without a party structure it's essentially impossible. Again, I think the form of the question is incoherent. "Data driven policies" are not a thing. Data driven results can be, but they need to be guided by a policy vision that derives from a political philosophy. Let's say we all decide that global warming is bad and that it should be mitigated. That's the thing that matters. How we get there can be science or data driven, but science and data can't tell us what is right. Pure technocracies are probably the worst form of government imaginable. Trust me that you don't want to live in one. That's essentially the idea behind communism, and the result is always going to be mass murder. Techno-utopians crop up often throughout history and they're basically always wrong. There's no algorithm for humanity. It's up to you and me to decide what's right and wrong. "Partisan ideology" is a red herring in this case. There almost is no such thing, as the ideology of both parties is far from immutable.[Is it] possible to have philosophically driven policies without adhering to party politics?
I wonder also, if whether or not we don't always implement data driven policies is because we allow partisan ideology to get in the way.
I really appreciate the perspective. I can't say I agree 100%, but I also don't think I know enough or can speak well enough to explore the issue deeply without resulting in quibbling. You did remind me of an opinion piece I read earlier this week, The problem with utopias, that you might find interesting. I think the one thing we can resoundingly agree on is this . . . I think no matter how we decide to govern ourselves and what those systems end up looking like and how they work, if we don't govern with our commitment to humanity in mind, the results always end up being disastrous.There's no algorithm for humanity. It's up to you and me to decide what's right and wrong.