The merit of Kant's ethical system is open for debate, but the problem with the "good intentions" camp today is their belief that they merit Kantian moral praise for merely supporting admirable social policies, such as helping the poor. Whereas Kant praised the goodwill of an individual who performs an action, the "good intentions" camp takes a more ivory-tower approach and transfers the burden of action from the individual to the state. For the "good intentions" camp, the state should embody the goodwill, which raises three problems.
...Merely claiming good intentions does not sanctify our own policy proposals, just as attributing bad intentions to others does not discredit theirs. It is not unusual for people with good intentions across the political spectrum to disagree on the best policies. The true measure of a righteous policy is tangible consequences within a broader moral framework — reducing crime, promoting economic prosperity, promoting strong families for children, and so on. We might not agree on which polices are the most righteous or how to prioritize them, but at least we can ignore the rhetoric of self-proclaimed good intentions.