the logic of policymaking

[Minima]

what is the problem with the logic behind lowering tuition fees and politicians who promote this or other financial benefits for students? (grants etc)

how can you explain the atomization of problems in education to the level of formal concerns like student fees and lecturer wages?

what is the logic of say a social democrat who still believes in capitalism so in substitute for actual political thought supports their argument with "policy research," and how best to explain and combat this?

[Dean]

what is the problem with the logic behind lowering tuition fees and politicians who promote this or other financial benefits for students? (grants etc)

how can you explain the atomization of problems in education to the level of formal concerns like student fees and lecturer wages?

what is the logic of say a social democrat who still believes in capitalism so in substitute for actual political thought supports their argument with "policy research," and how best to explain and combat this?

This hints at a deeper problem, and that is the deferment of culpability to experts" by the Western Liberal factions. To a large extent, the conservative parties tend to appeal to a mentality of common folk being threatened by an elite. On the other hand, the Liberals tend to appeal to the respect for expertise and academic authority.

Both of them rely heavily on policies and ideas that are naked attempts to perpetuate the same ruling class interests and conditions. The best argument against these positions might be that they both cede working class power to the political parties, by hysterical fervor or resignation to the superiority of "experts."

Neither narrative tries to engage the mass constituency in the democratic process, but raht tries to prove to them that there are only two options: let the elites have control or fight against them (conservative view), or let the experts have control or devolve into insanity (liberal view). Both narrative attempts to shut down communication between the two sides, and rather than relying on separate sets of facts, rely on separate interpretations of the same facts, which makes cross-party dialogue that much harder.

[MarxSchmarx]

This hints at a deeper problem, and that is the deferment of culpability to experts" by the Western Liberal factions. To a large extent, the conservative parties tend to appeal to a mentality of common folk being threatened by an elite. On the other hand, the Liberals tend to appeal to the respect for expertise and academic authority.

Both of them rely heavily on policies and ideas that are naked attempts to perpetuate the same ruling class interests and conditions. The best argument against these positions might be that they both cede working class power to the political parties, by hysterical fervor or resignation to the superiority of "experts."

Neither narrative tries to engage the mass constituency in the democratic process, but raht tries to prove to them that there are only two options: let the elites have control or fight against them (conservative view), or let the experts have control or devolve into insanity (liberal view). Both narrative attempts to shut down communication between the two sides, and rather than relying on separate sets of facts, rely on separate interpretations of the same facts, which makes cross-party dialogue that much harder.


On the whole I agree with your criticism of "liberals", but you neglect taht conservatives are quick to defend academic elitism when it suits them. Perhaps the most famous example is the Chicago school of economists like Milton Friedman and the likes of Hayek, but also reactionary scholars outside economics like philosopher Nozick in America and eugenicists like Ronald Fisher and Dalton in the UK have had profound impacts on conservative world views. And these are just in the ENglish speaking world!

Perhaps it could be argued that reactionaries don't really need its intellectual defenders because they already control the dominant social discourse. That is a fair point, but on the whole, conservatives are perfectly happy to defer to elites and generously reward them when the occasion arises.

[Minima]

What I am trying to figure out is this kind of figure of someone who accepts this kind of narrative that fighting against student loans is part of the problem of fighting against larger systemic problems, (like capitalism, or even just neoliberalism) yet isn't willing to politicize it. yet they are more then willing to invest alot of resources in to policy making "research".

crap like this:

"Past federal and provincial government decisions are forcing students to take on more education-related debt than any previous generation while middle class earnings have largely stagnated in the past twenty years. As a result, Canadians are making sacrifices to prepare themselves for an evolving workplace. Skyrocketing tuition fees and the prevalence of loan-based financial assistance have pushed student debt to historic levels. This past year, almost 430,000 students were forced to borrow in order to finance their education. The aggregate of loans disbursed by the Canada Student Loans Program, less the aggregate of loan repayments received, is increasing by nearly $1 million dollars a day.

In September 2010, the total amount of student loans owed to the government reached $15 billion, the legislative ceiling set by the Canada Student Financial Assistance Act. In response, the government altered the definition of “student loan” to exclude over $1.5 billion in federal student debt. Even with this new definition, it is expected that federal student debt will hit $15 billion by January 2013. This figure only accounts for a portion of total student debt; it does not include provincial and personal loans, lines of credit, and education-related credit card debt.THE

IMPACT OF DEBT ON STUDENTS AND SOCIETY
Many potential students are reluctant to take on the required debt and associated risk required to pay for a college or university degree. Research has found that debt aversion is strong among those who chose not to pursue post-secondary education. Of the 70 per cent of high school graduates who cite financial reasons as the main factor of not pursuing post-secondary education, one in four cited accumulation of debt as the biggest deterrent. Those from marginalised communities and low-income backgrounds and single parents are more likely to be strongly averse to accumulating student debt. Research finds that debt levels have a direct impact on success and retention. Students with higher debt levels are far less likely to complete their degree or diploma.After graduation, student debt distorts career choice, especially among professionals, which in turn undermines access to health care and legal aid. Studies of medical and law students found that debt levels prompt these students to seek higher paying jobs in fields or regions that are not necessarily their first choice or where demand is highest. Student debt appears to be driving committed young doctors away"

more at: http://www.cfs-fcee.ca/html/english/research/index.php

I guess in a more general sense I am talking about a form of left-leaning kind of liberalism, "genuine" liberals who kind of feel it from the gut (human rights) (healthcare, welfare etc) who still employ a kind of tactic of appealing to a moral indignation at everything that's wrong in society as if democracy in north america wasn't already impotent, as if somehow with another outcry of mobilized anger at a single issue like student debt or teachers wages it would somehow re-democratize democracy and make politics real again? I don't get it!!!, are they closet communists? no. do they believe in neo-classical economics? no. do they even have any faith in electoral politics in north america? (would they vote for any of the existing parties) no. then what the fuck?

spell it out for me in anyway you know how, theoretically, colloquially, or just tell me i'm barking up the wrong tree or wasting my time. i'm too busy and tired to think about this shit lucidly right now...