Education in a democracy: rationalised rant

[Haggridd]

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "David" <dfrankiswork at n...> 
wrote:
> I sneered:
> 
> > > Surely one of the main aims of education policy in a democracy 
> is to maintain an underclass to make the rest feel they are doing 
> well?
> 
> Haggridd quivered:
>

"Quivered"?  Hardly, sir.  Riposted, explained, maintained, declaimed-
- even pontificated-- but "quivered"?  Not I.

 
> > The theory is that an educated citizenry will be an educated 
> > electorate.  It seems that a person's perspective on democracy is 
> > affected by that person's allegiance to some other form of 
> > governance.  I shudder to speculate as to which that might be.
> 
> That person?  Who?  Oh, you mean *me*!  **Turns pink with 
> pleasure**  High praise indeed!  Who wants governance anyway?
> 
> (Do you mind if I don't start shouting 'I demand satisfaction!  
Name 
> your seconds!  Have at thee, varlet!'?  I would probably lose 
> interest half-way through the duel and walk away, adversely 
> affecting the entertainment value for spectators.)
> 

Weltanschauungen at twenty paces!  Your choice of weapons obviously 
has been that crabbed cynical offhand sneer you do so well you must 
have practiced long abd hard at it.  On the other hand, I am armed 
only with Truth, Justice, and the American way! (with a pinch of salt)

> Yeah, well, technic'ly, an educated citizenry will be an educated 
> electorate.  *Technic'ly*, you could say that.
> 
> Here's how it works:
> 
> Assumptions:
> 
> Politicians are mostly decent, well-meaning, intelligent people who 
> want to do what's right for their citizens;
> 
> People are mostly decent, well-meaning people who want to do what's 
> best for their children;
> 
> People are mostly prepared to settle for an arrangement that is 
fair 
> to everybody, even if they don't get everything they want;
> 
> People's perception (and here's the killer) of what is fair is 
> biased toward their own interest.
> 
> Observation:
> 
> An organisation or any kind of corporate structure can have aims 
> which are never stated, and are not held by any one person who is 
> part of that organisation or body.
> 
> The argument:
> 
> People vote for the politicians who promise them the most, within 
> some envelope of fairness and credibility (my dad claims that at 
the 
> time of their precipitous decline between the wars, the UK Liberals 
> campaigned on the slogan 'vote Liberal for free food' - promises 
are 
> not enough).
> 
> The politicians then go about putting their policy into practice, 
> always bearing in mind that they must work within the constraints 
of 
> their mandate, public opinion, and the next election.  They may 
have 
> some bright ideas that really do benefit the vast majority of the 
> population without breaking the bank; if so, they are put into 
> practice quickly, all the other parties claim it was their idea all 
> along, and the electorate discounts the benefits long before the 
> next election, which is fought on the differentials between what's 
> offered at the time.
> 
> Pretty soon they come up against a decision which will involve 
> sacrificing the interests of some for the benefit of others.  What 
> do they do?  They make a political calculation.  Will the proposed 
> change lead to a situation resulting in defeat for them (other 
> things being equal!)?  If the answer is yes, they can go ahead 
> anyway, see themselves punished at the polls, and the policy 
> defeated.  Or they can pull the policy themselves: same result for 
> the policy but they are still in power.  (Of course, it's far more 
> complicated than this as there are lots of policy areas going on at 
> once which the voters will be affected by, so if you can pull off a 
> good war abroad you might risk some unpopular policies at home.  
But 
> then you've definitely left the zone of 'decent, well-meaning'.)
> 
> In essence, politicians are constrained by what they think they can 
> get away with in front of the electorate, the key point being that 
> this doesn't only apply to selfish and corrupt acts but also 
> altruistic ones.
> 
> So, the crucial element is the political calculation.  I think, 
once 
> you have got the easy ones out of the way (those which have a clear 
> net win or are out of the question), the hard decisions will 
cluster 
> around those which tend to benefit a small majority slightly while 
> causing a few to suffer considerably, or a larger minority to 
suffer 
> somewhat.  The majority who benefit will see such decisions as fair 
> becasue assumption 4 above causes them to discount the ill-effects 
> on others, while perceiving what is in fact a skew in their own 
> favour as being a rectification of a slight injustice.  Some of the 
> smarter politicians may well realise what is going on, but they are 
> largely powerless.  The electoral dynamics paint them into a corner 
> with the others.
> 
> (Note.  The precise meaning of 'majority' will depend on the system 
> of elective representation; where proportional representation is 
not 
> used, a large minority may at times be the beneficiaries rather 
than 
> a small majority.  At other times a larger majority will have to be 
> placated.)
> 
> Quod Erat Demonstrandum
>

Q.E.D. my sweet Fannie Adams!  You don't seem to have grasped the 
differnce between theory (see my brilliant unquivering riposte above) 
and practice.  Though one might fail at achieveing one's ideal, is it 
not better to light a candle than curse the darkness?
 
> So, if education is to *support* democracy, rather than merely be a 
> by-product as I have described above, perhaps it should concentrate 
> on encouraging children to see their own interests impartially.  I 
> think such a project would be guaranteed to fail, because it would 
> enrage parents.
> 
> On a more personal note, I'm broadly with Churchill on the question 
> of democracy: I disapprove of it, but the other systems are worse.  
> At least in a democracy 51% of the populace oppresses the other 
49%, 
> whereas in other systems the ratio is much worse.
> 
> Of course, I disapprove of the human race, too, so I'm not quite in 
> the same corner as Churchill.
> 
> David

Enlighten me as to your external perspective on the human race, if I 
might be so bold to inquire?

Haggridd