Of course root causes should be addressed (chiefly, I believe that tuition should be gratis for public universities), but in the meantime I think this is a perfectly fine policy. It achieves three goals:
• Gets people talking about higher education payments.
• Eases the financial burden of higher education for some. It should be all, but this is still objectively better than none, provisionally.
• Provides good publicity for the political party more inclined to do anything about the root causes (Democrats).
I think this will go over poorly in some parts of the democratic coalition. I don’t know that blue collar workers including blacks and hispanics will care for this much, or that centrist suburbanites will like it either. Continuing to loose support in the first group or slowing/receding support in the second could be a serious problem.
I disagree — enacting a policy people like and find useful is inherently good publicity.
If your city mayors’ initiatives improve your local library, this will make people who visit the library like the mayor more. This doesn’t make improving the library immoral or unethical.
No problem with having good publicity as a consequence of, but as a root cause is what makes it morally incorrect since the political party per se shouldn't be an end in itself. Your words, not mine.
Comments
Of course root causes should be addressed (chiefly, I believe that tuition should be gratis for public universities), but in the meantime I think this is a perfectly fine policy. It achieves three goals:
• Gets people talking about higher education payments.
• Eases the financial burden of higher education for some. It should be all, but this is still objectively better than none, provisionally.
• Provides good publicity for the political party more inclined to do anything about the root causes (Democrats).
I think this will go over poorly in some parts of the democratic coalition. I don’t know that blue collar workers including blacks and hispanics will care for this much, or that centrist suburbanites will like it either. Continuing to loose support in the first group or slowing/receding support in the second could be a serious problem.
This is not only illegal but morally wrong, though.
I disagree — enacting a policy people like and find useful is inherently good publicity.
If your city mayors’ initiatives improve your local library, this will make people who visit the library like the mayor more. This doesn’t make improving the library immoral or unethical.
No problem with having good publicity as a consequence of, but as a root cause is what makes it morally incorrect since the political party per se shouldn't be an end in itself. Your words, not mine.