Maurice Foisy writes: >>In our state (and evrywhere in the U.S.) when groups such as labor or the Democratic party attempt to rationalize the use of scarce resources - through targeting on winnable districts, etc.- the only perspective from which this makes sense is a centralized one, i.e. at the state level. The result has usually been that they fail or refuse to respond to grassroots support - focusing instead upon professionalized empirical indicators of success.... >>Do you think this is because the "rationality" we associate with planning is not genuinely democratic, i.e. based on value consensus achieved through discussion or is it something else?<< I think that in most cases the planners are pursuing their own career goals subject to the constraints put on them by the large number of competing interest groups. In our society, of course, the main shared characteristic of most of these interest groups (especially the powerful ones) is profit-seeking and the preservation of the societal status quo. Further, the planners want the issues to be simple. If you bring in the unwashed masses (i.e., the people) then suddenly issues get messy and complicated, asn issue that can't be solved by technocratic "expertise." Both the pressure from the business class and the need to cloak planning in the mystique of expertise encourage undemocratic ways. in pen-l solidarity, Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Econ. Dept., Loyola Marymount Univ. 7900 Loyola Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 90045-8410 USA 310/338-2948 (daytime, during workweek); FAX: 310/338-1950 "It takes a busload of faith to get by." -- Lou Reed.
