[lehighguy]

This is copy pasted from your other thread, which took a very similair bent.

I note, you seem to be in quite an intellectual hurry. Perhaps you should slow down a little.

Anyway:
I'm not advocating a specific approach, nor saying this applies in all cases, just trying to give a general overview that you requested.

I would say your response is perhaps simplistic. When I refer to a idealogical base, I mean that there are rules and principles that govern how you approach a problem. For instance, mathematical rules govern math. One of those rules might be addition, and by using it you are able to figure out 2 + 2 = 4. Since you understand addition you can apply it to new situations, like 2 + 1 = 3. Things like "all men are created equal" are like the addition of political idealogy.

If you don't have a base set of principles, you can make addition do whatever you want. You can make 2 + 2 = 5, and 2 + 1 = 5. However, you quickly find that they can't both be five, and this is where the problem by problem approach often breaks down. It's the political equivilant of implementing farm subsidies to save farm jobs then complaining about tech outsourcing because everyone in India had to close down thier farm and move to the city and learn about computers.

Sometimes your basic principles are wrong or are you misapplying them. For instance, in high level mathematics you realize that there are wacko cases where 2 + 2 doesn't = 4. However, as long as those principles remain adaptive they can still be used in the majority of cases. An overall working framework helps you keep uniform policy accross problems so you don't trip over yourself. Or as my old math professor would say, "simplicity is elegence".

Benefits of adaptive policy principles:
1) Uniform
2) Transparant
3) Simple
4) Usually more vetted because they have been around longer

If we want to get into your question, or how I handle political problems myself, this requires a great deal more writing.