What’s the best way to insure against reputational risks and to cover any potential reputational costs you may accrue in the future?

Good intentions.

Best of all it’s cheap and with a little cunning it can even be purchased post-hoc.

Accountability?

You mean for the results of my decisions?

Nah, didn’t you hear?

My intentions were good.

When people lead with their intentions, or keep doubling back on them before taking action, all I see is a tacit refusal to own results and future downside.

It’s a heads I win, tails you lose scenario.

Nothing encourages “uncertainty blindness” more than the “get out of jail free card” that good intentions provide.

Wherever results matter, “intentions” are given very, very little weight. Epistemic humility in such domains is high.

“Intentions” matter most whenever, wherever reputations are the main currency and the players are incentivized to be active participants (when/where passivity doesn’t pay).

“Intentions” based politics has co-evolved with “progressive” policy agendas.

They inseparably commingle.

“Good intentions,” remove accountability (downside risk) thereby clearing the way for aggressive, new actions.

Anyone that tinkers with new things, experiments often, knows that the more bold you are, the more likely you are to fail.

So in this arrangement between “good intentions” and “progressive” policies, failures can be conveniently chalked up to good intentions

In this way, the failures don’t stick to the agents of change, the players, and the players live to play more rounds.

By contrast, in conservative politics, with fewer new ideas in circulation, you don’t hear as much bandying about with respect to “intentions.”

It’s not necessary for that game.

It didn’t co-evolve for reasons of reputational risk management and survival in that ecosystem.