Political Action Doesn't "Work"

In response to @hefbuck
https://twitter.com/hefbuck/status/221386264073605120

@JulieBorowski you are so brillrant. Back it up with facts. You can't .

— tom heffner (@hefbuck) July 6, 2012

"Facts" are observations (or perhaps more accurately, statements regarding/referring-to "observations") of 'what is' (this could also be described variously as 'reality', or of 'empirical sense data'); Julie has put forward the proposition that, "Obama isn't working but Neither Will Mitt Romney"; now on one hand, this could be considered to be a prediction of the future, and since the future is inherently unknowable in terms of "what will be" (or more accurately, the "empirical sense data" is, as yet unavailable) I can understand your challenge that the "facts" aren't available and therefore Julie's proposition is an unverifiable assertion.

But if I may be so bold, I would like to suggest, with just a few "facts" that are knowable (and known) we may through a logical argumentation, be able to quite ably justify Julie's assertion praxelogically (though, to a certain extent, I will need to "read between the lines" of Julie's statement and add some interpretation that will necessarily be my own).

For whom is "Obama" not "working"?  I assume that Julie does not refer to "Obama" himself (as ostensively, he at the least, approves of his own political-actions), and I also assume that Julie does not mean to refer to "Obama's" supporters (as by the very meaning of "supporter", we may reason that those persons who "support" "Obama" are those that approve of the bulk of his political actions), therefore, I am assuming that Julie intends to imply the remainder of persons, who don't explicitly support "Obama", are those for whom "Obama isn't working" (and of course, this set of persons could be further reduced to the set of persons who actively oppose {stand against} "Obama's" political actions).

In what way, does "Obama" not "work" for those people who do not "support" his political actions? Well, I think we may reason simply, that "Obama's" political actions "don't work" for those person's for whom those political-actions are detrimental to their personal interests.

What are a person's "personal interests" based upon?  I believe we may reason that their "personal interests" are a result of their personal (subjective) preferences and on how they expect they would best achieve satisfaction (happiness/a-lack-of-a-feeling-of-uneasiness).

Are a person's subjective preferences known to anyone, in greater degree than the person herself?  In as much as a person's subjective preferences may change according to circumstance and time, it would follow that only the individual may knows her own subjective preferences at any given time, as how she may secure her own satisfaction.

Therefore, in as much as any political-action that "Obama" may take is likely to be contrary to the subjective preferences of some set of persons for whom it may affect (because their subjective preferences are unknowable to "Obama" or any other person), they will experience a decrease in satisfaction/happiness caused by the effects of "Obama's" political action and therefore "Obama doesn't work" for those persons.

I assume that "Romney" has no greater ability to know the subjective-preferences of any individual other than himself, therefore, this same reasoning would apply to "Romney" just the same as it would to "Obama" and therefore, we may conclude with great confidence that "Romney" would not "work"; or said another way, those affected by "Romney's" political actions in the hypothetical future, for whom those effects would be contrary to their personal interests, would experience a decrease in their personal satisfaction/happiness.

Here, we have all the "facts" we need, but better than "facts" we may know with logical certainty (if, of course my premises are true and my reasoning valid) that in "fact" it is a necessary condition that "Romney" won't "work".

:-D