Why Is More Consideration Never Required?

Political agnosticism is seen as a weakness, but it should be viewed as a strength. In today’s political landscape, it often feels like every debate boils down to a binary choice. You’re either “for” or “against,” “right” or “wrong,” with little room for nuance or uncertainty. This binary framework is reinforced by the two-party system and echoed in media narratives, creating a culture of political certainty that leaves no space for intellectual honesty or genuine problem-solving.

The reality, however, is far more complex. Many of the issues we face—whether they concern social, economic, or foreign policy—don’t lend themselves to simple answers. Yet, admitting “I don’t know” or suggesting that “more consideration is required” is often seen as a sign of weakness. As a result, political debates devolve into ideological grandstanding, leaving the actual problems unaddressed.

One area where this dynamic is particularly evident—and particularly harmful—is in discussions about the military budget.

A Case Study: The Military Budget Debate

The question of whether to cut the military budget is a prime example of the kind of binary thinking that dominates political discourse. On the left, the answer is often a reflexive “yes.” On the right, it’s an equally reflexive “no.” This framing reduces a deeply complex issue to a shallow tug-of-war, preventing any meaningful engagement with the real challenges and opportunities within military spending.

Instead of asking whether to cut or maintain the budget, a more productive question might be: Can we spend more efficiently with the budget we already have?

Changing Military Funding Methodology

This reframing opens the door to considerations that often go unexamined. For example:

1. Inefficiencies in Procurement: The military’s reliance on no-bid contracts and the manipulation of “3-name spec” requirements by monopolistic entities drive up costs unnecessarily. My own familial experience with the Phoebus Cartel—an infamous example of collusion—has shown me how easily systems can be gamed to fleece the government. Introducing stricter enforcement and transparency into procurement processes could save billions while ensuring that taxpayer dollars are spent wisely.
2. Retrofitting and Repurposing: The military often prioritizes new contracts over maintaining or upgrading existing assets, even when the latter would be more cost-effective. Greater emphasis on retrofitting and repurposing could reduce waste and enhance readiness.
3. Strategic Priorities: The U.S. military operates as a predominantly offensive force, despite being called the “Department of Defense.” This raises questions about whether our current strategies align with our stated goals. For example, why not establish a distinct “Department of Offense” to oversee offensive operations, leaving the DoD to focus solely on protecting American soil? Such a reorganization could clarify roles, improve accountability, and spark a much-needed conversation about the balance between offense, defense, and diplomacy.
4. Silicon Valley’s Role: The increasing involvement of private tech companies in defense raises ethical and financial concerns. While innovation is crucial, the unchecked influence of companies with defense contracts—like those pushing AI tools—risks prioritizing profit over effectiveness. A more agnostic approach would critically examine these partnerships to ensure they serve the public interest.

The Broader Implications of Political Agnosticism

The military budget debate is just one example of how binary thinking limits our ability to address complex issues. This same dynamic plays out across nearly every major policy area. On abortion, transgender rights, economic policy, and countless other topics, the pressure to take a definitive stance often overrides the need for deeper analysis and thoughtful deliberation.

But what if we embraced political agnosticism as a virtue rather than a vice? What if we allowed ourselves—and our leaders—to admit when more consideration is required?

Such an approach would have profound benefits:

1. Intellectual Honesty: By acknowledging uncertainty, we can foster a culture of genuine problem-solving rather than performative debate.
2. Better Policy Outcomes: Complex problems require complex solutions. Taking the time to fully explore an issue—rather than defaulting to ideological answers—leads to better, more effective policies.
3. Reduced Polarization: When debates are framed as absolute conflicts, they only deepen divisions. Acknowledging nuance creates space for dialogue and mutual understanding.

Moving Beyond Certainty

Ultimately, political agnosticism isn’t about avoiding tough decisions or shirking responsibility. It’s about recognizing that the world is complex, that quick fixes rarely work, and that the best solutions often emerge from a willingness to ask better questions.

The military budget debate illustrates this perfectly. Instead of arguing over whether to cut spending or keep it the same, we should be asking how to spend more effectively, how to align our strategies with our goals, and how to ensure that every dollar serves a clear, necessary purpose. These are the kinds of questions that lead to real progress—not just in defense policy, but across the board.

It’s time to move beyond the binary. It’s time to demand more consideration.