“Like it or not,” in reference to a controversial and problematic policy issue is exactly what we don’t have to accept as the premise of discussion in a public policy think tank. I think we’re here to consider alternatives in policy, particularly in regard to ideas that are not currently part of the ‘fabric.’ Some of that fabric is rotten, even though it maintains a respectable, even patriotic, veneer.
Consider the recent NEA (National Education Association) meetings: by all reports, crammed with flag-waving and platitudes about the value of education to society. “Not” has more appeal than “like it” from my perspective.
Unfortunatley the education fabric we have is shot through with bad ideas. If a public policy think tank cannot consider alternatives to a poor policy, albeit one we are “used to,” it should shut its doors and send everyone home. I think we can do better than that.
Not only do I echo Paul Chesser’s remarks on the idea that sometimes the fabric needs to be, should be, and can be changed, I think that complacency is our biggest threat in this regard, though it’s easy to quote experts, even Nobel prize-winning experts, in practically any direction one might wish. Nevertheless, I offer the concerns about monopoly control of the climate of ideas expressed by F.A. Hayek in The Road to Serfdom.
Finally, both Milton Friedman (who wrote the 1976 preface to Hayek’s Serfdom) and Hayek himself embrace some inconsistencies on issues regarding personal liberty vs. the proper role of the state. As do most of us.
That’s precisely why the policy ‘given’ should not be taken as a given.
