A response to the excellent post over at Interfluidity (a copy of the comment I made there, archived here):
1) Goals-based technocracy does not preclude /framing/ arguments in moral terms. There really is no disconnect here. FDR and his advisers MIGHT have thought privately that what they were doing was the best policy without any emotion, but he had no problem framing everything in terms of morality. He was ready to "welcome their hate" and stand up for the Four Freedoms, all while put in place policies that did the job.
2) What passes for "technocrats" in this context is laughable. What we have here seems more like "warmed-over, largely unemotional Neoliberals." as opposed to "radical, let's assassinate democratically elected leaders who privatize their pension systems to show fealty to Lord Friedman Neoliberals."
3) I think it should be the goal of any serious technocrat to consider the context that they are working in. That is NOT an excuse for the absolutely awful preemptive compromises, milquetoast half-measures, and incoherent "split the difference" bi-partisanship that we have had to deal with for decades. No, they should understand and consider the social and economic environment and, if it is not conducive to what they truly believe are the best policies, /then they work to change said environment/, rather than just "best is the enemy of good" us to death