On this concept of feedback loops- do politicians take them into account? Looking at US politics, I strongly feel that members on both side of the aisle look p

On this concept of feedback loops- do politicians take them into account? Looking at US politics, I strongly feel that members on both side of the aisle look primarily at what is immediately accessible and rarely at long term effects or accountability. Sure, they make drafts, bills laws and propositions that mention things to take effect at some far out date- but that doesn't really mean that they are themselves looking at realistic feedback loops, but rather just what charged issues they can drive against the other side to appease their constituency on their far side. Take DADT, or Same-Sex Marriage. The feedback loop of realistic long-term consequence of them items against other people are likely close to zero. Facts reported in a (leaked) report due to Obama soon seem to point that the effect on the armed forces would be minimal- in my guess probably similar to integrating minorities into the armed forces. The long term effects would be the increased mental health of valued service members, and an increased pool of people that could serve. Yet, R's rally against it, pointing to odd and unfounded rhetoric that is held firmly in just keeping things frozen culturally and socially. They don't look at the long term effects, or even at the fact that some homosexuals might consider voting for them if they backed the bills. It is possible that this isn't the best example, but do politicians really look at feedback loops and probability? No, I don't think so. They look at the feedback onto the next election and that's about it.