"They would rather keep a sick system that their kids will benefit from in place rather than fixing the system while diminishing the advantage their kids have via familial wealth. " This just seems like garden variety self-interest. It's a tough sell to ask people to deny their kids the best opportunities in the name of making a more eq…
"They would rather keep a sick system that their kids will benefit from in place rather than fixing the system while diminishing the advantage their kids have via familial wealth. " This just seems like garden variety self-interest. It's a tough sell to ask people to deny their kids the best opportunities in the name of making a more equitable system under the best of circumstances. Harder when the criteria seem to be group-based rather than merit-based. This is why fewer people are sold on affirmative action than on dejure desegregation. And why getting rid of testing for magnet schools has caused problems in San Francisco.
Right. But patriotism is precisely what we have used to call on people to deny their self-interest for the good of the nation. Men and women in military, law enforcement, and medical services have done it. So have politicians, at least in the now, somewhat distant, past.
If patriotism can get poor kids from rural areas and ethnic minorities to risk their lives to protect the country, it should also be expected to get the wealthy to create a fair system.
This is a good point, and one I think that should be a lens to view the difference between cold war America and post cold war America. During the cold war we had a competing economic system as the bad guy that we had to make sure we kept our system better than. When the cold war was over, communism was fully discredited and thus less of a (perceived) need to sand off the rough edges of capitalism.
Yes, I have noticed that, too. Almost makes me nostalgic for the Cold War. There may have been the uneasy threat of nuclear annihilation, but at least the fear of godless Commies taking over the world kept our leaders more honest.
"They would rather keep a sick system that their kids will benefit from in place rather than fixing the system while diminishing the advantage their kids have via familial wealth. " This just seems like garden variety self-interest. It's a tough sell to ask people to deny their kids the best opportunities in the name of making a more equitable system under the best of circumstances. Harder when the criteria seem to be group-based rather than merit-based. This is why fewer people are sold on affirmative action than on dejure desegregation. And why getting rid of testing for magnet schools has caused problems in San Francisco.
Right. But patriotism is precisely what we have used to call on people to deny their self-interest for the good of the nation. Men and women in military, law enforcement, and medical services have done it. So have politicians, at least in the now, somewhat distant, past.
If patriotism can get poor kids from rural areas and ethnic minorities to risk their lives to protect the country, it should also be expected to get the wealthy to create a fair system.
This is a good point, and one I think that should be a lens to view the difference between cold war America and post cold war America. During the cold war we had a competing economic system as the bad guy that we had to make sure we kept our system better than. When the cold war was over, communism was fully discredited and thus less of a (perceived) need to sand off the rough edges of capitalism.
Yes, I have noticed that, too. Almost makes me nostalgic for the Cold War. There may have been the uneasy threat of nuclear annihilation, but at least the fear of godless Commies taking over the world kept our leaders more honest.