Interesting stuff, maybe we are reliving the 18th century and only are barely aware of it -- is "divine right" is now spelled "meritocracy?"
8
Hey, wasn't it the brainy, standardized-test-acing elite who decided that packaging hundreds of of billions of dollars in garbage substandard mortgages into investment securities guaranteed by AIG in the form of credit swaps as a hedge wouldn't cause any problems?
Or the math geniuses and Nobel Prize winners that ran Long-Term Capital Management and who I'm sure aced at least the math section of the SAT whose we sure their brilliant algorithms were a sure bet in 1997?
Just a thought that suddenly for some reason popped into my head.
19
I am generally not a fan of Mr. Douthat but this IS a Brilliant Article.
10
So we'll fix our problems when we return to the Middle Ages. Cool.
4
If you feel comfortable because you think that you are part of the Meritocracy, think again. Can your job be replaced by someone else with the same skills and education in India and China working in a virtual office?
9
You have done it yourself Ross. Republicans spend so much time tearing down the “elite” and tearing down expertise and science that people mistrust comptence.
That the Republicans donor in order to let businesses avoid paying their true costs, in order to lie about coal, for money, to put our children at risk of their lives from climate, for money, and so on, should make you deeply ashamed.
You are the problem you are looking for. Really.
7
Interesting... read a few comments and it seems many didn't actually catch on to the idea that the author (of the column and the book) were pointing out that a true and simple measurement of "merit" is already impossible and just leads to arrogance and disconnect with the majority.
Also seems like quite a few can't fathom the difference between "meritocracy" and "plutocracy". But then again it is the NYT so that is par for the course.
5
Mr. Douthat writes: "That’s what statesmanship is for — to bridge gaps between complacent winners and angry losers, to weld populism’s motley grievances into a new agenda suited for the times, to manifest an elitism that is magnanimous instead of arrogant. But can the system we have really produce such a statesman? The next one we find will be the first."
Wrong. FDR was such a statesman.
16
Douthat's mashup of liberal democracy and authoritarian regimes is not prescient, but weak. As usual, playing softly to the neoliberal crowd is what he hopes will be a lovely tune...philosophically resonant, or not. Conservatism, in my view, is a funeral dirge, morally and intellectually. Attacking meritocratic views and positions is, fundamentally, a DWM refrain from a measure long, long ago. Rest.
2
If America were a true meritocracy, Donald Trump would not be president.
16
If only the elites could repair their own plumbing fixtures and harvest their own wheat. No merit in that or SAT questions either, I suppose.
6
There's an obvious blindness here in the NYT. You, the readers, are the meritocratic elite that Douthat is talking about and whom the populists hate. The meritocracy is the system that gave you power and income for your brains and education, together with the many ways that it allows you to ensure that your kids will similarly be rewarded power and income for brains and education in a way that is almost impossible to even conceive for the children of a blue collar worker in the mid-west.
IQ, performance on standardized tests, and where you got your schooling affect income and position in society more now than a generation ago, and much more than two generations ago. That particular kind of inequality is increasing. That is where meritocracy is driving us. How much more should educated NYT readers make than people who get their news from TV? Is that difference fair? Should only people with "good" degrees run the country? And should they be able to direct so many of the riches of the country to the educated elite? These are the questions that got Trump elected, and that NYT readers have difficulty fully processing. Yes, you worked hard to get your degree, but should you be making 4X more than somebody who works in a factory or builds houses? Inequality is not just about the 1%, it's about the top 20-30%, and that means you're part of the problem.
11
Didn't Huxley nail this in Brave New World?
What the Meritocracy- and the obscenely wealthy- and the Wall Street bankers and the City Bankers and the Q'uai D'Orsay and all the rest of the palces where our rulers congregate- had better grasp PDQ is that sooner or later hoi pouloi, the plebes, the proles, the "...working class..."- use what term you choose- are going to go into the streets with guns in their hands.
Either that, or a real strongman will come along- not a fat guy with a fake tan and a bouffant hairdo. It is happening right now in Poland and Hungary.
This situation is fraught with danger for "...The West...". Meanwhile, with Trump, it's "... panae et circuses..."
2
Progress "From the bottom up", an answer from "Those who work in your fields"!
What would that look like?
Maybe it means moving to a more basic position "The right to learn". The worker can learn, prisoner can learn, the refugee can learn, the condemned can learn. The powerful reject learning.
Unless you believe that "Power comes from the barrel of a gun", power comes from learning. The more of it you have, the less apt you are to abuse the power it gives.
Job postings, instead of saying "We offer big bucks and vacations" should say "We accommodate learning".
2
The author doesn't take into account the Russian disinformation campaign. Without that, Trumpism, Brexit, and perhaps other populist movements may have been but a blip on the political scene - like the TEA party, which flamed out after a brief incendiary visit upon the US electorate.
2
Socialism with American Characteristics ....... sounds like a plan.
1
OK Ross, so you addressed Meritocracy and Populism. But, what do you have to say about the malevolent, racist Kakistocratic GOP that is ruling our country at the present time .. given legitimacy by people who seem to have no shame?
5
I wonder if Ross ever heard of FDR.
6
We obviously ain't seen nothin' yet in terms of the Marie Antoinette blindness of rich meritocrats and populist rage over how meritocratic planning works out for uneducated masses. Six months ago, McKinsey, not Marx, forecasted that tech (the cutting edge of meritocracy upending all previous economic hierarchies in America) will eliminate 47%--47%--of ALL US jobs by 2050. 2016, in which Bernie Dems seriously threatened the party's establishment and Trump Republicans (more than enough of whom would have voted for Bernie if given the chance, according to exit polls, to have elected him) upended the party's establishment outright, at least on the superficial surface of who got elected (as opposed to massive continuity in terms of establishment goals getting accomplished). If McKinsey is even vaguely in the ballpark of what level of devastation tech will wreak in the next short 31 years, the 2016 rage of the workers should have warned meritocrats that elites may have to worry more about guillotines than mere wildcat presidential candidates. The bottom line is that both Bernie and Trump demonstrated that the plebs are the ones with the votes, and the elites only have money, which mass passion can sweep aside with not trouble at all. Meritocrats had better figure out how to share the IT wealth on a much, much bigger scale than they have so far, or there will be hell for them to pay. There's no other way.
3
There is no merit to a government that can’t explain and defend itself to the people. With today’s meritocracy, you get what you always get, a small group of powerful people who the moment that they decide that they are better than, they decide that they also deserve the better rewards. Self justifying greed and defense of power.
In a representative government. Our leaders are suppose to represent the people and lead them based on them voting according to their own lights. If you can’t make the argument, you don’t merit the power.
Further, in crony capitalism which protects the rich, the “meritocracy” becomes like the “Divine right of Kings” and Macron should worry what happens to the Kings and Aristocracy- those people of merit- when the revolutions inevitably come.
And, as I agree with Burke, so should we all worry.
5
Some very serious questions have been raised by Timothy Barker, a young researcher at Harvard, about the pieces Douhat wrote for the right-wing Harvard Salient when he was a student there between 1998 and 2002. Although well-written, they sound many of the themes that would later be picked up by alt.right "conservatism" to become a central part of Trumpist ideology. On cursory inspection, they exhibit an all too familiar and poisonous brew of white grievance, misogynist anti-feminism, homophobia, and a taste for authoritarian dictators (at that time Augusto Pinochet), that has moved into the Republican "mainstream" with the election of Donald Trump. In other words, though perhaps he has better rhetorical manners than a Steve Bannon or a Stephen Miller, he was very much a part of the campus wing of the "movement conservatism" that laid the foundation for the Trumpist horrors we see today. Douhat needs to be held to account for what he wrote then. He needs to offer an an explanation of why he wrote it, and explain how his views have evolved since then (assuming they have). The excuse that he was "just in college" is even less persuasive than saying Brett Kavanaugh, was "just in High School." As the twig is bent, so grows the tree.
5
This column is so beautifully written, and so fascinating in its explanation of the origins of the word “meritocratic,” that I almost forgot that “meritocratic” as it is commonly understood in 2018, is, as other respondents have noted, a good thing. The alternatives are what we have now—plutocracy (I.e., the U.S.A. under the Trump family) or autocracy (as in China and Russia), or a failing state (like Congo). Meritocracy—meaning equal opportunity for everyone and the rewarding of those who make the most of those opportunities—would appeal to populists if they believed it weren’t a sham. The fact that there is no real meritocracy in America, for example, makes people mad and vulnerable to demagogues. All those populists who voted for Trump or Brexit were led astray by people who told them lies about meritocracy being subverted by the undeserving poor—rather than by the rich, well-connected and cynical.
5
Economic elites are different than the cognitive elites. Street smart crooks can game the system and own the economic ladder. Most of the cognitive elites (eg. Scientists, engineers, professors, writers, members of Mensa, in short, the intelligentsia) depend on the economic system to earn their livelihoods. In a typical Venn diagram, there is some overlap between the economic elites and the cognitive elites. Meritocracy, which takes into consideration one's inherent and achieved meritorious results, does not guarantee induction into the select group of economic elites, i.e., the donor class of the super rich.
7
Meritocracy, though imperfect, is arguably the best system to have arisen in our human history. Look around the world - is there somewhere you’d rather live than the USA? People are invariably self-serving and the motivation, status and procreation, lead to strife against the hierarchies we that inevitably form. But what can be devised in its place that doesn’t conflict with our very nature?
2
The dichotomy of meritocracy vs populism is suitable to discuss the on-going situations as the column points out. From the one side, the term “resentment” may be a handy weapon. From the other side, the equivalent may be “fishy” (= distrustful). Whether the merit of meritocracy is, fully and convincingly, acknowledgeable to anyone would be essential. Why does it not work as well as expected or as it ought to be? Meritocracy-dystopian novels interest me therefore. Even if not a dystopian model for a fiction, “what I earned is what I am deserved’ might occasionally create an excess-pride mixed with scorns, that will slash the name of merit. Does this sound resentful? If so, surely I’m not your side. Does it then draw sneers from the obvious? If so, I can score my point at that point.
A significant problem that has developed and degrades the ability of "elites" to govern is that, in their success since the end of the cold war, they have become arrogant, believing themselves infallible. The "populists", using common sense, feel that somehow things are not right. An example would be the elitist idea that cutting taxes increases government revenue; this idea defies common sense but is taken seriously by factions of the elite. As others have commented, the "meritocracy" in the US is corrupted. Take the Asin-American admission lawsuit with Harvard. If there was a true meritocracy, why would getting into Harvard be so important? The lawsuit implies that a Harvard degree defines merit, not talent, vision, and effort. I am sure Harvard promotes this, but experience shows otherwise.
1
Our faith in the meritocratic "best and brightest" was tamped down long ago with the Vietnam War. In its place have followed simple men with pat answers (Reagan's consistent hatred of any non-military government, or both Bushes' faith in oil and the shady craft of the newly empowered purveyors in the Middle East.)
Perhaps we need to acknowledge that our meritocracy has been outsmarted by disruptors welding nothing more than box cutters or foreign-based operations turning our own social media technology against us, thereby by duping a strategic minority just well enough to yield Individual-1.
3
Finally a column where I can agree with Douthat. I usually find him insufferable but this time he is insightful and prescient.The Meritocracy are the new Mandarins. Those at the gates are the new populists, who are really the new royalists, since really are looking for kings and czars. What they hate is a meritocracy that does not include them, and wants laws and rules to be reasonable, and just. The crowd wants to blame, judge, be superior by proxy.
2
A number of comments here have mentioned this, but it bears repeating: Who decides merit? A cursory look at America's so-called elites certainly doesn't buttress an argument for meritocracy. The Clintons? The Koch brothers? The mandarins at Goldman Sachs? The Ivy Leaguers "bred to rule"? These people are elite? Then god help us. Or else let them rule at union scale, and see how they like that.
3
You can have great gaps in income between the rich and everybody else, or you can have democracy. You can't have both.
3
Rule by the cleverest, and those who can afford to employ them, acting in their own interests -- that’s a peculiar, Ayn-Randian sort of ‘meritocracy.’ It has no moral dimension. It's bound to produce exactly what we've got, which is a society in which wealth and power are concentrated in the hands of a few at the top. This is inherently unstable under current conditions as the pressures of population and climate change increase.
Some of the ‘meritocrats’ are getting very nervous. There's an interesting article in the New Yorker called “Doomsday Prep For The Super-Rich.” It describes how a number of very rich people from Silicon Valley are making plans for an apocalypse by investing in refuges such as housing in repurposed missile silos and homes in New Zealand. They imagine they can ride out natural and / or social catastrophe in comfort. So maybe they’re not so clever after all.
2
This cooption of the brightest is nothing new, nor is it limited to Western democracies. It worked more or less the same way in ancient China and in pre-collapse USSR. And it never prevented even a single revolution from happening. Neither will the Western so-called "meritocracy", unless true and growing contradictions of the global capitalist system are addressed in a meaningful way. The western elites ignore the fundamental and focus on insignificant issues at their own peril.
2
Jonathan Swift’s Modest Proposal sheds light here. Swift at the height of The Enlightenment or Age of Reason was satirizing the overreach of rational social science and govt. experts. The “modest proposal” of Swifts made-up social scientest about what to do with “extra” Irish babies was solidly based on the “reason” produced by numbers and the abstractions of economic logic. Seeing excess population and poverty As a matter of numbers and sociological problem solving removes the analysis from the countless personal considerations of life as actually lived by real people. Parents, as Swift brilliantly leaves unsaid, don’t see their children as edible commodities. Families are not social science constructs. They are complex, historically developed, psychological organisms. So are the other slices of society, villages, towns, cities, provinces, boroughs and states. Hence, as Swift brilliantly points out, we have the massive deep revulsion from meritocracy and its solutions that Douthat describes. People are rejecting the modest proposals of Brussels, Washington, DC., Paris, etc
1
I would also point to the media (traditional and newer forms) as part of the problem. It has always been the case that good things happening are not "news" and that the focus is on things that go wrong. This has been greatly accelerated in the fast paced, competitive media environment. The general population's faith in the "elites" has been eroded because any mistake they make, no matter how innocent or small, is trumpeted, while the good work they do is under reported.
8
The basic problem with these arguments is that the US is NOT a meritocracy. It has become, for most of our elected "elites", a plutocracy where the financial might of your backers is the key to your "success". Leading of course to the increasingly glaring truth that our elected officials owe their fealty to their benefactors and not to their constituents.
How else to explain the abominable performance of the ruling Republican Senators and Congressmen who consistently vote against the wishes of the majority of the people they 'represent'?
8
For the most part we do have a meritocracy. There are flaws of course as there are with any human devised system. To me, the most glaring issue is that some people are late to develop the desire or skills needed to be considered for top positions or top colleges and get left by the wayside. We should definitely focus on improving it so that the smarter and more productive members of society advance.
8
However, with the rise of AI and sundry forms of job displacing automation, when the "meritocratic elite" becomes a smaller and smaller percentage of the population, the "populist rage" will become harder and harder to contain and eventually the stalemate will break, with not such good results for the elite. How long this will take is unclear. What is certain is that, without some major change of course in our political/economic ideology, it will happen.
4
Meritocracy without values of fairness
and caring doesn't serve the society
as a whole. Mostly it is used to
accumulate wealth and garner
priviliges. Common people with
lower pedigree perceive the rigged
game and become resentful. Obama,
meritocrat, was senstive to the
underprivileged having worked
as a community organizer. Highly
partisan system and the decision
by Mitch McConnel to not let him
succeed stymied him partly because
Republicans are committed to serve the
interests of privileged.
16
This kicks around profound ideas, but sweeps them into gigantic piles. There's no such thing as 'meritocracy' unless it's fighting a Czar or the Holy Roman Emperor. The real efficiency rulers are "technocrats." The intellectuals being dissected here are not meritocrats, they're marketeers, sociologists, media wonks, and professors of gender studies. It's rather easy for a population to get bored with those groups. There is a moneyed aristocracy, but money alone creates no stability and no culture -- see DJ Trump.
6
The binary thinking that creeps into many of these discussions, especially those presented in mainstream media, is discouraging—bright, well-educated elites versus ignorant rabble. The dualism describes very few actual people. Many of our elites are specialists or experts in a particular area, which does not necessarily make them better, more responsible leaders or give them a deeper understanding of perspectives, ideas, or experiences outside of their specialties. Some humility wouldn’t hurt. At the same time, many people who hold ordinary jobs and who did not attend Ivy League colleges are not necessarily “less than”—less intelligent, less capable, less deserving of a fulfilling and decent life. They may in fact do useful, valuable work in a competent, knowledgeable, and professional manner. I see this all the time. In return, such basics as a living wage, health care, affordable education and housing, a sturdy infrastructure, fair taxation, clean air and water, and respect for an honest day’s work do not strike me as being radical or unreasonable goals.
10
Douthat's claim that, "the Trump inner circle is a parliament of opportunists" is only partially stated. The ultimate betrayal has been by America's Supreme Traitor to those whom he willingly conned to vote himself into office, then promptly betrayed with his self-serving mirage of a "tax cut" (though he's been notorious for dodging his own taxes), "health care reform" (which he intends to serve as denial of adequate health care to most of them), "immigration reform" (which operates mainly to cut off the supply of inexpensive labor to underwrite undesirable work), and "protective tariffs" (which chiefly drive up the cost of raw materials and consumer goods while doing nothing to stimulate domestic investment and employment). Yet his base continues to support him.
There is neither informed populism nor competent meritocracy in the Trump phenomenon, only willing, imagined self-serving ignorance. The same can be said of similar movements in Europe whether Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Poland, or Hungary. The predictions in “The Rise of the Meritocracy” already have begun to materialize, and will mature unchecked so long as both parties to its self-destructive processes continue to wallow in blissful ignorance of their inherent shortcomings. Even more ignorant opportunists like Trump and his sycophants, whose only skills lie in the oppression of others, always will lie in wait, ready to pounce and take in the spoils of deceit. All we need do is to keep on enabling them.
1
Why is "meritocracy" bad? It doesn't mean only good SAT scores. It means experience, intelligence, knowledge, and expertise. Farmers who understand animal husbandry are more successful. It used to be that a good union job relied on merit as a means to advancement.
Let's get real...no one wants an amateur doctor to operate on them.
9
This is a straw man argument. What Douthat keeps referring to as the "meritocracy" is really just the wealthy oligarchy protecting its interests at the expense of everyone else. There is nothing meritocratic about those who acquire wealth by putting their thumb on the economic scale, and then passing their wealth on to their feckless offspring. This is a significant part of why the West finds itself in its current mess. We lack competent leaders who represent the interests of the majorities in their countries. Think tank pundits can talk and write endlessly about why people throughout the US and Europe are so digusted with their governments, but there really isn't any big mystery here. When small elites garner vast amounts of wealth and resources, and large majorities see their wages and prospects stall, populist agitation should not come as a surprise to anyone. This has nothing to do with the tired left/right dichotomies. If we had true meritocracies, competent leaders who identify with the majorities would rise to the top and help to lead us forward.
178
@EB Yes! A true believer in meritocracy would favor 100% death tax on the grounds that the children of the wealthy ought to start with no more advantages than their education and connections have already given them.
For some reason believers in 'meritocracy' and the Ayn Rand school of economics cannot bring themselves to support this idea.
24
I'm wondering though which meritocracy elite? Those that would side with -- say -- George Soros and Tom Steyer or those who are aligned with the Koch Brothers or Peter Thiel?
Or do you think they all exhibit profound differences of philosophy and political outlook in public, but then all get together secretly and sing Kumbaya plus a lot of good horse laughs over their private joke at the Bohemian Club?
5
Meritocrats get as stuck in the past as the populists, but for different reasons. Neither is forward looking. The populists are taking a very nostalgic view of the 1950s, ignoring the real problems, even for white males like themselves, of life in the 1950s. The meritocrats have ability is a particular sub-field and so that naturally is what they push -- they want to work in and succeed in the field they were trained in, with the theories and principles they have been following. That is very backward looking.
Our foreign-policy experts want to stick to the neocon ways of American interference throughout the world, which has cost us so much human and financial treasure and diminished our economy and, ironically, our global position. Our diplomats and military, given many years, many bodies, and a staggering amount of $ failed to produce a win in Vietnam, or Iraq, or Syria, or Afghanistan, or Somalia. They don't know how to win a war in the third world, nor do they have the politically acceptable equivalent of the British Empire to make all of this global adventuring an economic plus for the United States.
If we get back to China's 10% growth rate or President Trump's 4% for America, we are going to over-cook this planet very quickly. That old growth formula simply cannot serve us well going forward.
Meritocracy leads to re-fighting the last war. By the time the meritocrat rises up the ladder, he is defending the irrelevant old thinking. \
2
The best example of so-called meritocracy that I recall (not being a student of history or government) is Mike Bloomberg as mayor, sitting in his bullpen, with all kinds of inflows of statistics and algorithms, constantly minute-by-minute readjusting police, traffic, snow removal or what have you. Manhattan seemed to be constantly improving to this New Jerseyan's opinion, and many tourists as well. The outer boroughs decided enough and elected a populist mayor on the basis of promoting, or pandering, to the many lower classes a type of revolt.
The best example of merit plus populism was FDR. There is no time or space to dwell on his pluses and minuses. He was a comfort to all but the very rich, and maybe that is what's needed - the so-called first class temperament, to bridge the gap.
5
This is a nice column and tells the important origin story of the term "meritocracy." The point is not so much about whether a meritocracy does or doesn't exist: of course it does not. Rather, it is our pursuit of a meritocracy that is the crux of many of our political ills. For one, it encourages us to believe that poor and uneducated people deserve the conditions under which they live. And not just to believe it, but to think that it is a moral outcome. It also provides the ideological backdrop for talented young people to leave their communities in order to be surrounded by other bright (and wealthy) people. These deeply held beliefs (understood to be widely true by both political parties) is how Trumpian logic can start to make sense to an embittered public. It's not just populist. It's the underlying sentiment of wanting to watch the system burn. As we emerge from this political turmoil, I hope we re-think our ideological commitment to meritocracy and furthermore, adopt an attitude that allows us to create policy that takes into account the very obvious fact that life is unfair.
3
In the past, these extremely unstable conditions have always led to very bad things -- such as a world war. Some "savior" will emerge to unite the populists, why will be "hoodwinked" into believing that only he can save them from their misery -- just as Trump is now doing. That is the standard recipe for this kind of instability. There is no room for rational thinking since all of our institutions seem to have been discredited and there is too much distrust in any of them. I do not see a bright future. It will be a race between whether climate change will destroy the earth before fascism does..........
1
Let's change the wording of the opening paragraph a little:
In the US, where the extraordinarily unpopular Donald Trump presides over a country roiled by "nationalist" (=racist) protests, a leading politician of Trump's GOP Jesus party was asked in a televised interview what policy mistakes his peers had made: “We were probably too conniving, too dishonest,” he told the interviewer, whose eyebrows danced with disbelief."
3
The elite vs ignorant deplorables analysis is useful but limited. A better analytic framework in the USA experience is to follow the money. How do Multi-term Senators and Congressmen get to be worth $100's of Millions? Both sides of the isle. Linked to this mechanism is the answer to the question: why are voters routinely disappointed by the string of broken promises and outright lies told by elected officials. Answer: They found a way to monetize your ideological longings and political leanings while lining their own pockets. An irresistable temptation.
9
George W. Bush is in the meritocracy? Hmmmm.
5
Great piece!
Meritocracy is one thing, but government by the meritocratic wealthy who think of nothing but themselves is something else.
7
I think FDR accomplished "bridging the gap". Every farmer liked him and voted so esp after the Rural Electrification Act ,perhaps the best thing he did. Ok some exageration. Ross, perhaps a quick mention of FDR next time. A member of your WASP and meritocracy and someone who could direct the anger and hopelessness from the Depression. ".. is fear itself".
5
Macron is trapped by the capitalist solution to fight or at least diminish social inequality. To be reelected, he has to create jobs. Big enterprises threaten him to let him down if he doesn't reduce their level of taxes. Vicious circle. There is no capitalist solution to this situation. And he knows it.
4
The next statesman our system produces will be its first? No, our system has produced its statesmen, but they were martyred and vilified--to take only Lincoln and FDR as examples. Since it's Ross we're responding to, the Church's reception of Francis also comes to mind.
4
Look closely at what the protesters in France want, what the "populists" in America want: living wages, good jobs, home ownership, stability, social safety nets, good schools, fair taxes, security, health care, solid infrastructure, hope for the future. The problem is the money is funneled to a small group, not spread around. Meritocracy, socialism, capitalism, liberalism, conservatism, neoliberalism -- none of it works if ownership and wealth are funneled to the few. Give it a any fancy name you want -- just make sure wealth is spread around.
6
The problem is not that there is some meritocracy that is unappealing to populists. Rather the populists are angry at a system that is clearly not all that meritocratic, and is in many ways rigged to protect privilege rather than to promote merit.
From legacy admissions capital gains tax rates, those with the most opportunities participate in a system that rewards them for the benefits they've already reaped. Did George W. Bush go to Yale because he's one of the leading intellects of his time? Is Paris Hilton wealthy because of her vast business acumen that nearly rivals that of Warren Buffett? Even in arenas that are supposedly meritocratic like college admissions the system is still being gamed by students who pay for SAT prep classes, application coaching and leverage donations by friends and family.
Even the benefits of affirmative action don't really flow to those who are still suffering the most from the punitive effects of discrimination. A brief look at how few of Harvard's admitted students are poor or even middle class shows that they aren't exactly targeting kids from the projects.
Now this is not to say that the average IQ score (much less educational background) of a worker at Chipotle is the same as that of a Goldman Sachs employee. But there's enough of a degree of randomness - particularly between those who become a struggling member of the middle class vs those who join the elites to make it clear we don't have a true meritocracy.
8
The criticism of those born at third base purposely ignores the fact that SOMEONE got the needed singles, doubles, triples and/or walks necessary to advance there. Baron Trumps great grandchildren will have more right to the efforts of Fred Trump than any other group on earth. Like nature itself, capitalism is in effect a food chain. Some people are higher up than others. We’re not all equal in ambition, intelligence, innate ability, motivation, looks, talent, studious ability, comprehension, common sense, genetics, drive and speaking ability. As a result, it is absurd to expect that results will not vary widely.
3
The best case for Sherrod Brown 2020.
2
For a better sense of consensus read the comments by NYT readers. In general: neither meritocracy or populism are working although economically Europe provides greater stability. Populism is fascism but socialism maybe. Americans are hurting economically and Corporations are bad. Curiously absent from Douthats commentary and readers is any mention of race. This variable is driving populism on both sides if the Atlantic. Why is this word unutterable?
1
Really an excellent column. I hope it doesn't get a reflexive drubbing from Times bloggers who seem to despise all things Douthat, whether he's right, wrong, or both on a particular day.
5
I expect some of the driving force behind France's current turmoil is the same set of Cambridge Analytica/Russian troll farms that fomented the stupid reactivity of the Brexit fiasco, and the appalling manipulation of the US 2016 Presidential election. Stop conflating and confusing the unrest of poor disadvantaged people with the malicious manipulation of those people and the existing political systems by some very wealthy individuals who have lost their moral compasses, and have more money than sense.
8
What a relief to live in TrumpAmerica where mistakes resulting from being "too intelligent and too subtle" are never a threat. There's a sort of equal distribution of malfeasance developing. The Worst and The Stupidest can be elected, appointed or simply capture our attention via omnipresent social media regardless of their background or qualifications. They can be trash talking grifters or highly educated technocratic-tinhorns.
So many varieties of incompetence, lazy-mindedness and conscientious ignorance to choose from.
8
The West is on and off in Untergang or in Decline since who knows when. Nevertheless, the Arabs, Mongols, Jacobines, and Bolsheviks have been overcome. One can only hope, and look forward to, that the current generation of trouble-makers will si clearly recede into oblivion.
1
Ross,
The meritocracy works when the education system is a truly functional elevator, moving people up and down the social ladder as a function of their intelligence and not their socioeconomic status.
No one is stupid and everybody sees when the elevator is broken. That is what causes populist uprisings: when the lower classes see that the best and brightest among them remain confined yet at the same time the stupidest offspring of the rich and wealthy remain at the pinnacle of power.
Sincerely,
A believer in true meritocracy.
6
Europe maybe but in the U.S. to suggest we have anything close to a meritocracy is absurd. The best single indicator of success today is the zip code a person is born in, there is nothing meritocratic about that.
5
When my father passed away a few years ago, his NYC property taxes were about one tenth the taxes paid by my supervisor. Why shouldn’t my boss’ kids have schools that are ten times better than I did as a kid? Why shouldn’t their facilities and teams and clubs be ten times better? Why wouldn’t their opportunities be ten fold greater? Capitalism rewards those who successfully play its game and naturally punishes those (incl. myself) who aren’t up to hard competition and survival of the fittest business.
1
"Meritocracy is a political philosophy holding that power should be vested in individuals ... based on ability and talent. Advancement in such a system is based on performance measured through examination and/or demonstrated achievement." Dictionary definition. Presently many have come to assail this view as if it is racist, sexist, elitist, smug, too secular, and on and on. From the time of Plato we have debated the merits of the Philosopher King. It seems that many of us would prefer the Idiot King- a no nothing but perhaps well meaning oaf with a heart of gold but who leads us deeper and deeper into the mire. I worked in a hospital 'interdisciplinary' setting where everyone had a say in everything else. And believe me, you do not want clinical decisions made by individuals who have no business making such decisions, no matter how earnest they may be. We are reaching such a point with governmental politics as well. This is occurring on the left as well as on the right. Science and data need to be respected, and neither side currently has been viewing issues with objectivity.
3
Douthat is being criticized for the oversimplification of his model but he is onto something. Yes the elite is not all based on merit but the revolts lack competent leadership and much of the city elite is technically competent. Not discussed is that the revolts are largely rural. The countrysides are emptying out because agriculture has been automated and manufacturing with massive use of robotics is done more efficiently in urban settings. From the environmental point of view it is a good thing because it will reduce the pressure on habitat and can slow the mass extinctions which are ongoing.
Population reduction in rural areas should be encouraged , with reversion of much of the area opened up to grassland, wetlands and forest. Such a program faces the political challenge of reapportionment to correctly reflect the population shift, but that should be possible. As noted in a recent NYT analysis, moving manufacturing to the depleted rural areas is not working. Instead we should abet the movement of people from the rural areas to the cities. It is already happening but government could make it less painful. How about a program to buy up houses of people who don't leave places where the industries have died because they have sunk their life savings into now unsalable homes, for example?
1
Manufacturing the consent of the so called populist majority by the meritocratic minority to rule over the former is the art the minority is very good at. The populist majority is very bad at defending or resisting against this manipulation. Why?
The populists crave to be like the meritocrats in wealth, beliefs and knowledge, and attempt to achieve this by emulating them, and in the process, behaving like children in the care of an adult, a vulnerable situation to be in, in other words. A propaganda machine is a requirement for this mechanism to work which enthralls the populists with virtues and material possessions of the meritocrats, worth emulating.
That said, any society, present past or future, will eventually have some meritocrats, some populists, and some in between, that make up its ruling class. What is the right proportion of these groups in the ruling class, and how to achieve it, is the work we have trusted our democratic system to perform, because this is the best and the only way we know. Yet even this system seems broken and unable to perform in these times. It will take some very bold action by masses, or emergence of some bold personality, an anti-Trump, to restore it.
1
I am confident that Ross knows that this goes back as far as Plato's Apology - the tension between individual rights and what is owed to the city.
The Democratic Paradox by Chantal Mouffe outlines the structure of this uneasy equilibrium.
"On one side we have the liberal tradition constituted by the rule of law, the defence of human rights and the respect of individual liberty; on the other the democratic tradition whose main ideas are those of equality, identity between governing and governed and popular sovereignty. There is no necessary relation between those two distinct traditions but only a contingent historical articulation"
This is as ancient as the Greeks and as current as the French.
2
Canadian writer, historian, philosopher, aaand two time head of PEN International John Ralston Saul told us about these times and of a Trumplike President in his 1992 NYT nonfiction best seller Voltaire's Bastards (The Dictatorship of Reason in the West).
His 2013 The Comeback provide the antidote. Today's Douthat op-ed hints at the chaos but does reach back into the antiquity of the debate between empiricism (truth) and dogma (popular belief). When we are still killing each other over a 3000 year old debate maybe it is time to look at other civilizations and other cultures Western civilization has given us many wonderful things but maybe it is time to look at alternatives before it is too late. Obviously lowering taxes and smaller government was a dead end.
3
What's missing in this analysis is the degree to which the meritocracy does the bidding of corporate plutocrats and, in the case of Trump, his kleptocracy. Over the past several decades in the US, and at an increasing pace in Europe, the meritocracy/plutocracy/kleptocracy triad has been effective at getting populists to vote against their own health, the environment in which they live, and their rights to a fair and balanced workplace.
5
Macron won in a landslide not because he was popular, but because people were voting against the Front National (now, the Rassemblement National). His core positive support was mediocre. And now he sees what happens when the Silent Majority takes to the streets. American voters should not mistake unhappiness with the persona of Donald Trump as support for the left. Because if the left wins in 2020, in the form of the Democratic party, and that party does a classic overreach, GOP voters have gone to school on the Women's March, the Gilets Jaunes, and BLM. They'll take to the streets, the police who support them will stay home, and it will not be pretty.
4
This article says discontent in France is against Macron's policies. However it fails to understand how this discontent arose.
Just as America, Germany, and many European nations had their elections subverted by Russia into totalitarianism, so is France undergoing similar "forces".
Since he came to power, Putin has been angry with western leaders for not giving him the respect he believes he deserves. He waged clandestine cyber-wars against western nations. U.S. Intelligence Agencies have categorically described proofs of Putin deploying groups of Russian trained military hackers who subverted our 2016 and 2018 elections.
Putin's hackers did not try to directly disrupt/shift our elections - because that was too difficult. Their goal was a far easier task: to sow major discontent, hatred, and anarchy into parts of our society--against our democracy--using our social media addiction against us.
These hackers used social media to disseminate fake "articles", pretend to be our online "friends", and magnify the hate-rhetoric where many Americans live online. They used hate to turn our minds, and us, against our once stable but imperfect government. They targeted our poorest and marginalized (uneducated whites/blacks, white supremacists, etc.). They seeded discontent and anger against our democracy - targeting whomever Putin hated: "Washington" and Obama and Hillary. And they did it.
Now Putin is doing the same: sowing hatred against Macron in France. Probably elsewhere too.
2
Of course, the notion that the only smart people are the ones who went to the best schools, live in Washington or New York, London, or Paris, and all hold important, well-paid jobs is just as false as is the notion that everyone else outside this small elite is stupid. The truth is that there are in fact plenty of intelligent, reasonably well-educated and competent people who for one reason or another are not placed among the narrow ranks of the national/global elite, but rather have contented themselves to live out in the periphery. There, you will find them indeed providing leadership and service to their local communities, and helping their neighbors to live better lives than would otherwise be the case. Many times it is not the populist mob but rather these local movers and shakers, and the institutions they have built and led, that are the main thing that stand against the meritocrats who would run roughshod over their local communities and their people. If there is to be any hopeful way forward, one should look neither to discredited elites nor to opportunistic demagogues inserting themselves in front of the populist rabble, but rather to these intelligent-enough and more-than-well-intentioned enough local leaders.
5
For Ross Douthat, I suggest some alternative reading:
Jane Mayer's *Dark Money*: an important summary of the manipulations of power and wealth.
Also, some more classic reading and an old saying, as such things are, revealingtruth:
Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Milton has a few words, as do Virgil and Goethe, about the power of undiluted and conscienceless evil, which the current crop of Congressional Republicans are all to eager to sign up:
Evil, be thou my good.
Better to reign in hell than to serve in heaven.
Underoccuppied teenagers and immature young men (and some, but many fewer, women) use a platform that has earned a now grown-up teenager billions: Facebook etc., selling us to give us "free stuff"; lies claiming to be truth.
If only we had a meritocracy. We don't. What we have was well described by another classic: Orwell's 1984
Also encouraging intellectual laziness, bread and circuses: passive entertainment and the shaving of effort in doing simple tasks: Alexa do this
The salt of the earth, those working two or three jobs and not making a living wage, they are not the problem. It is those who are eager to siphon off every last penny to give to those who already have way more than enough: trickle-up.
Vote cheating and Putin's chaos machine are not helping.
It's not about meritocracy but purposeful evil, hypocrisy, PC religion (profiteers in the pulpit who'd put Jesus in jail in a heartbeat he threatens them with compassion).
2
In Radek Sikorski's country, meritocracy recently has been recoined to "wyksztalciuchy", and he is regarded as one, too. As Macron's example shows, naivety of these people starts where they realize the merits ordinary people may have, even if it is brute force. Fortunately for all of us and unfortunately for "wyksztalciuchy", life is not written in schools and cannot be learnt. After reaching all prescribed milestones, "wyksztalciuchy" remain empty-handed and dismayed. They have tried so hard, and couldn't do anything.
2
The U.S. is not a democracy but a plutocracy. The rich can buy all the brains they want or need to maintain and advance extreme inequality, witness the startling fact that the U.S. is the only wealthy country without a major party of the left.
3
"Meritocracy essentially co-opts the talented people who in a different world would be leaders in their local communities...and weakening every rival power center in the process." This is what has been occurring for the past 20 years. Now, however, these talented people are realizing that they would be better off in a decentralized world, where they could be leader "fish" in smaller ponds. And history tells us that revolutions aren't started by the poor. They're started by the educated who want to weaken the elites (technically replace them).
2
It's a problem that we define meritocracy by it's cleverness and short term wealth production rather than any inherent intellectualism. You see much of what we view as progress and deserving of merit recognition is no more than salesmanship and endlessly repackaged versions of the same thing. Consider how much innovation silicon valley and the tech bros really create and how much is the same app and idea spun and spun again while creating little to nothing of long term value. We also ignore that the meritocracy is no different then any other form of economic / class elitism. The first generation may have ascended to economic social domination through actual merit but their descendants are no more meritocratic than the descendants of any aristocracy. Once you get past the first generation then its all wealth and privilege or if you will people born on third base who think they hit a triple. It seems that wealth breeds arrogance and entitlement regardless of its origins and the so called meritocracy is no different then any proceeding clever men.
1
The enemy of populists are some combination of people who can take standardized tests, excel in STEM disciplines, have rich parents, and have successfully privatized profits and socialized losses.
Remedy? Bannon-brand populism that will replace current elitists, meritocrats and technocrats with religious-ethnic nationalism. He appeals to displaced workers who want factories back from 1950; the suburbanite who wants the social hierarchy 1950's. He is in ascendancy, large segments of his opponents are self-absorbed, disengaged from reality, and plain weak ("we studied feel-good, can quote Shakespeare, and possess skills no one wants to pay for, so pay us more - but we will not organize or vote in sufficient numbers"). None of these segments are particularly worthy of empathy or sympathy.
The fantasy of ethnic-religious nationalists? That current "merit" class will roll over and fork over, and surrender.
Here is what is more likely. Just as half of America has openly embraced ethnic-religious nationalism and do not hesitate to call for the elimination of all people they deem murderers and rapists, the "merit" segment (by virtue of a track history of adapting, improvising, and controlling others) will vote in a fascist state. Not a state run by 1930s uniformed fascists, but by those who control information, capital, and justice. So if populists are angry and frustrated now, wait until they see what is coming down the pike.
2
Mr Douthat,
My love/hate relationship with your work continues. I really enjoy the fact that you take on difficult issues and describe them with great clarity. However, you do a terrible job of explaining how your right wing approaches will solve any of these important issues.
2
"meritocracy and populism reinforce each other's faults"?
Utter claptrap!
The usual tossed salad of vague terms like "meritocracy" and "populism," mixed with some cherry-picked snippets of news, and a dash of obscure references to supply "intellectual" ballast... The end seems like pure sophistry, serving to obscure terms and issues rather than illuminate anything.
For starters, the terms "meritocracy" and "populism" are vague, totally misused, as so often in the media. What exactly do they mean to you, Mr Douthat? No answer?
And "meritocracy" is NOT the "problem" -- the widespread replacement of meritocracy by oligarchy and kleptocracy IS the problem. As are the falsehoods, disinformation, and outright lies that emanate from them. THAT'S why people are losing faith in their governments and in the very idea of "liberal democracy" in general "Meritocracy" is nowhere in sight, even though we sorely need it!
"Populism" is also bandied about as an undefined term, some faux-synonym for right-wing demagoguery and deceit. But "populism is properly defined as "support for the concerns of ordinary people" Right-wing ranters who duplicitously rail against government and pretty much everything are NOT "populists." They disdain and mislead "ordinary" people!
What we're facing these days is not populism, but rather right-wing demagoguery and kleptocracy masquerading as populism.
We need accurate info and discussion before we can hope to appreciate "statesmen"!
1
Yes it is obvious by now that Trump won the presidency by a con job with help from Putin who he is indebted to as we saw at Helsinki with Trump cowering to his master. Nationalism has led to wars in Europe and America First is a reflection of Trump's greedy core highlighted by constant deception. Trump knew that the main stream media was wise to his con job so he attacked them as "enemies of the people: a classic ploy of dictators. Playing to racism and class warfare Trump pretended to be a self made man (inherited 413 million from Dad) living in a triplex on 5th ave with his 3rd wife a super model. Vacationing in his lavish estate in Mar-A-Lago seems to be a modern version of Marie Antoinette with nuke codes.
1
The "meritocracy" is not the problem. The plutocrats, would like you to think it is, however. A straw man if there ever was one.
If a merit based system were actually allowed to function properly by ensuring those with credentials were commensurately given the same security as the upper class, we would see a very different outcome than the one that currently exists, controlled by a plutocracy. People would be better educated in general, for one thing, as schools would be better funded in those very rural areas were the populists live. They would not be so easily duped by the straw man arguments of the plutocrats and their far-right messaging machine. They may actually - wait for it- have OPPORTUNITIES to join the meritocracy.
We better educated "elites" are not much different than our populist friends in the end. We still have to work. Our employment is largely dependent on a functioning meritocratic system, that is the only difference. That system cannot work when it is becoming more difficult than ever for those in rural areas to join it.
The plutocrats are seeing to that.
4
Thomas Piketty in his book: "Capital in the Twenty-first Century," statistically described a US economy beset by inequitable income and wealth distributions. Partly, these inequities arise from "moats," or barriers to entry, that are erected to protect very profitable businesses from new entrants. New entrants would drive these very profitable businesses' economic rents back toward the break-even levels of normal profits.
Elon Musk and Warren Buffett recently debated the importance and effectiveness of such "moats" in protecting these profitable businesses from new entrants, to the US economy. Also, in his recent book entitled: "Capitalism in America, A History," former Fed chair Dr Alan Greenspan argues the need for unleashing forces of "creative destruction" to reduce these barriers to entry in order to promote greater economic competition.
Today, such protective "moats" have spread from the private sector to the public sector, including many public education venues. This private sector success has empowered more protective "moats" in the public sector, resulting in a more enfeebled meritocracy; or at the least, a more elite one, with fewer ports of entry for the diligent, yet unmoneyed.
[12/19/2018 W 2:47p Greenville NC]
1
Sorry, I can't summon any enthusiasm for all of the rage here. We can agree that pure "meritocracy" as a way to run the world is not so good, but a meritocratic society is just a straw man - pure fake news. In order to establish a true meritocracy, it would be necessary to have an objective and accurate way of assessing merit. A pure pipe dream, because everything we have today (including standardized testing) is incredibly biased.
"Meritocracy" should always be in quotes - because in practice, it is a system where a handful of elites decide who
can be part of the elect and select.
I can't think of anyone with any *merit* who is 100% pro-meritocracy - we need to have leaders who listen and learn, we need to have technical experts who are humble enough to admit when they are wrong. But most of us are anti-"idiocy in high places", and it seems that quite a few of the anti-meritocratic populist political movements around the world are just simply mean and nasty.
109
@Dennis Mancl. I think it's more simple than being anti-idiocy. Similar to the way the elite meritocracy inhibits competition by co-opting threatening populists, the American case is that any altruism in newly elected officials is quickly defeated by a flight toward greed / re-election in the name of political compromise and expediency. This explains the entrenchment of RINOs and their persistent repopulation shortly after each election.
5
@Dennis Mancl
Who is "we" and "our"?
Enslaved and separate and unequal black African Americans in America never seemed to have any merit over the lowest white European Judeo- Christians in America to do anything anywhere anytime.
Neither Jackie Robinson nor Barack Obama were the first of their color aka race to have the merit for their positions.
4
Macron may have a high IQ, but that's not why his unpopular. His lack of popularity stems from his being a reverse Robin Hood. People voted for him to avoid the xenophobic, racist populist, Marine Le Penn more than for any positive reason.
1
Is there really that big a difference between yesterday's elite and today's "meritocracy"? Am I missing something or wasn't George W. Bush President shortly after George H. W. Bush, who's father was a Senator, and wasn't Jeb the Governor of Florida and a Presidential contender? I'll also guess that George W. Bush didn't get the highest SAT in the world. And don't I see the Bush daughters on TV a lot? That's one family chock full of merit I guess.
2
We can't have statesmanship because we have conservatism and the GOP. That Ross is why we can't have statesmanship.
We revolted against the aristocracy and the traditional institutions of power like the church and deliberately gave the people what they'd never had before: a voice in their government. The Founders understood just how dangerous this was but both Madison and Jefferson believed that the cure to populism was enlightenment. It was our job to ensure that people were highly educated and knew the facts. The Federalists like John Adams, on the other hand, followed an Edward Burkean model believing that all people weren't really equal and that the people for the most part had to be subordinated. For better or for worse, we rejected that idea. Both Jefferson and Madison trusted the American people. I think the liberals have to too and continue to hold to facts and reject the right-wing conspiracy theories (birthergate, Benghazzi, Seth Rich, pizzagate, Hilary's emails, etc.) that continue to poison the minds of Fox News viewers and Rush Limbaugh listeners.
1
I think you're forgetting, or more likely ignoring, FDR and the New Deal, or even LBJ's Great Society. Both did much for the "non-meritorious" but have been weakened under continuous assault by conservatives like you.
4
The problem with “meritocracy” is that it is a justification applied to the elite, not a mechanism for success. It has no legitimacy because too many hard working, intelligent, and capable people can see the emperor has no clothes —regardless of SAT scores.
2
Funny how conservatives keep talking about meritocracy as if it was a real thing, sort of like virgin births, clean coal and supply side economics....
4
We haven't been led by any type of meritocracy, arguably, ever and to make it worse, the author seems to insinuate that the conservatives have represented such a thing, since the success of their "revolution" in 1994. It is the left that insists upon at least some movement toward such a thing, whereby class or race,etc, do not matter. In this country, the beef is with that same old same ol' - the elites and their crony monopolistic capitalism, replete with all the trappings of a proper gilded age. It is republicans and conservatism that have pulled one over on their rabble and troupe, fanning the flames of populist jealousy and rage at the left they happily title "elite", even as it is they who have been and always will be the defenders and heroes of the corporate class and political machinery that fills the trough the rabble never feed from and greases the wheels that roll over their dreams.
1
Imperial China was once run by a meritocracy based on educational success and standardized tests.
Imperial China was a place with great success, but very far from our modern idea of what we want for our country.
If we use the method of Imperial China, testing that identifies the smartest of those with a privileged elite background as a meritocracy suitable to govern, then we can expect to get an Imperial China.
That isn't what we should want. I don't.
2
When I see the people in the street in Paris, when I read about the Russian attempts to influence the 2016 election in the U.S., I wonder what role Russian propaganda has played in the rise in populism. With the advent of Facebook and etc. there is apparently more than one way to control the media and the message.
2
Meritocracy is another aspect of wealth distribution, and the more meritorious an individual, the more he or she can work the system to get richer, and eventually richer at the expense of the less meritorious. And when this latter group figures out what's going on, they get very angry.
3
My next door neighbor's 16 year old boy is intelligent but refuses to do any school work. He consistently brings home failing grades, and while he regularly threatened with being held back a grade, he still refuses to hand in homework or study for tests, averages D work, and is moved ahead each year.
But he goes to one of Los Angeles' elite public magnet schools. His father, making well into six figures as a programmer, some how wrangles free LAUSD helpers to tutor the boy for SATs, and will somehow buy his son's way into an elite college where he will stumble through with the help of his grandmother's millions, which he will inherit within the next 10 years upon her passing.
This is today's elite. Compare this elite to the George HW Bush generation of elites, or that of Senator John Kerry or Robert Mueller, both born with silver spoons in their mouths but dedicated to service and personal excellence.
4
@Livonian
That is kind of unfair. I can assure you that there have always been a bunch of kids just like the one you describe, just as there still are a bunch of kids just like George HW Bush.
Rs I think makes not enough of his diagnosis. In all three countries (and Germany)it is the failure of parties of the left to come to power precisely because they have been "decapitated" not by meritocracy but by the corruption of personal gain and life style. The exemplars are Clinton and Blair but also Holland and Schroder.
This is why Corbyn is such a refreshing figure in Britain and is feared by the capitalist classes and their lackeys in the media. This was also so in 1945 and 1964 when left wing (actually much more so then than today) Labor was elected to power.
Douthat is lost in his right-wing world view and his interpretations of reality are more based on believing right-wing lies than truth.
The U.S. has attempted to be a meritocracy, which is good, but the idea has been corrupted by those who keep hiring or appointing the politically connected and yes-men willing to support ideas and policies of their superiors without regard to the intelligence or wisdom of these ideas and policies.
Another attack on meritocracy has come from business elites, who attack education elites because the education elites keep trying to hold business accountable to facts and logic.
If meritocracy really held, then we wouldn't be paying some people billions of dollars for manipulating markets and government, while the workers that actually create the wealth are shortchanged. Workers have merit, and pretending that they don't is not meritocracy.
Populism is a scam. First it means nothing. A movement based on what is popular? That's circular logic that describes nothing. Populism is what the right-wing trots out as an excuse to keep doing what they are doing when business elites and the politicians they bribe, the establishment, becomes discredited for their lack of merit.
The solution is for us "rabble," We the People, to take our right and responsibility to govern seriously, and to hold our politicians accountable for doing their jobs. Their job is to represent us, not global billionaires.
Research, Vote, protest, write, call, draw, sing,...
2
Again Doubthat is talking about this "meritocracy" as if there is some kind of functioning meritocracy in place.
People don't rise to the top on the strength of their intelligence and talent. Money and connections are the key to success. The talented individuals in small communities aren't recruited by the elite - they mostly stay in their small communities and don't achieve much, because they never had the opportunity.
Surely even Doubthat has noticed that the people who make it to the top are for the most part not exceptionally intelligent or talented.
“But can the system we have really produce such a statesman? The next one we find will be the first.”
Well….Lincoln, FDR, Reagan, maybe Obama?
A thought-provoking essay.
1
Mr. Douthat's recent columns are annoying me primarily because he seems to leave "meritocracy" undefined, or employs a circular definition (i.e., the people who are "in charge" must, by definition, have some sort of merit, otherwise they wouldn't be "in charge," right?). What does Mr. Douthat consider to constitute a measure of merit? Money? Power? Raw intelligence? Degrees from good schools? In the absence of any sort of objective criteria, the term "meritocracy" seems meaningless.
I have a fuzzy notion of what it means (competitive examinations, objective selection criteria, advancement due to displayed competency rather than ambition and desire for power, etc.), and when I look at American society, I cannot see a single entity--perhaps outside of NASA astronaut selection--where I think that a meritocracy is in charge, that truly the best and the brightest have risen to the top.
Instead, all I see are government entities and corporations being run by those with this largest amounts of greed and ruthless ambition, coupled--for the most part--with an almost complete lack of any ethical bedrock. I have no idea what to call it, but meritocracy seems entirely the wrong term.
Or maybe my idea of "meritocracy" is totally wrong.
4
Populism as the revolt of the "resentfully unsuccessful?" Or is it the revolt of the oppressed? It doesn't matter if your oppressor is a King, Party Leader, Despot or a Member of the Meritocracy.
It is economic "fairness" that the people want. Everyone knows their will be economic inequality; but, people will only tolerate so much of it and we have passed that point.
1
@Ronny......"It is economic "fairness" that the people want."....Ah, but what is economic fairness, and who gets to make that determination?
You could begin with the challenging premise of a genuinely legitimate society: all serious policy discussion must begin with the supposition that no policy maker knows anything about the family into which s/he will be born, no policy maker knows how intelligent, athletic, attractive, compassionate s/he will be as a person, and so on. The "veil of ignorance" (John Rawls) premise forces policy makers to consider the contours of justice as opposed to self-interested personal or class agendas. If you might wind up with the short end of the stick in life, you'll think more about policies that work for everyone, not just yourself and your friends. Let's see how many of our geniuses are up to the real task of a legitimate "meritocracy": to wit, if you don't know whether you're going to be a genius, what would legitimate social policy look like (as opposed to a sophisticated grift on the public--eg., the Vampire Squid)?
Europe is different than here, vastly.
For one thing, it is, and always has been, ruled over by elites, whether they were selected for their parentage or the admission to elite academies for the training of future leaders. The populace was bought off by giving them beau coup vacation time, 2 to 3 months a year, lots of holidays, universal health care and money for what we would consider very early retirements with many people going on public payments in their mid-50s and living out the next 25 to 30 years sitting around in parks, playing pétanque, doting on grandchildren and tagging along for the traditional month long vacation at the beach side. Plus, in France, during the work week two hour or longer lunches with lots of wine consumed.
Unlike here in the States, people generally accepted the idea that where you were born is where you would stay. Get a reasonable job, enjoy yourself. Don't worry.
So, you can't really lump over there with here. You have to understand France and Europe on their own terms.
Except for the inherent advantages offered those born to wealth here, we have a dog-eat-dog meritocracy. It has not succeeded in producing two generations of worthy leadership. Instead, we have a situation where all you can grab in the moment in the priority, almost nothing else matters. Elected politicians are harnessed like draft horses to the money that supports their next election and little more.
The column convicts us and Europe of something we haven't done.
2
The alternative to meritocracy does not need to be populism; it can be greater federalism and liberty. That's usually what has worked in the past in the U.S. to counter excessive concentration of power. This means concrete measures to shift power to state and local governments, and to individuals, which all means more power for average citizens. That in turn gives people the opportunity to build coherent local cultures, ideas and politics, and then press back in a more coordinated way against abuses by corporations and by concentrated power among the elites.
Democrats keep thinking they can fix our problems by more concentrated federal power. But they're playing into the hands of conservatives and plutocrats. They need to drop it, and become the party of federated, distributed power; strength in state and local governments; rights to individuals; true cultural diversity (meaning, embrace religious and traditional people just like all the others). That's the long game that will get this fixed.
The leader who can do this will not be our first; she or he will be at least our second, after Lincoln, who artfully flayed the plutocratic Whigs and gathered grass-roots and local power through a powerful set of integrating ideals.
Great article and I will definitely pick up Young's forward looking book from 1958. Douthat's observations about the current politics of the world resembling this work of fiction is accurate. In many countries an angry underclass is fueling populist movements which are lead by those who pose as populists, but are really just elite opportunists playing all the right notes. (See Trump/USA). Until those who are smart enough to lead rediscover the concept of 'the greater good', the manipulation of the masses will continue by ruthless/self serving leaders. (See Putin/Russia)
4
Why does Ross Dothan frame the problem as meritocracy vs populism? It seems an exceedingly limited view of human (& political) motives. His theoretical reduction of humanity into two camps betrays a disdain for both groups. Perhaps he just doesn't like humanity which is a complex, almost contradictory species, that has been a subject of fascination & study for millennia. Easier to write both "side" off as failures and feel superior, I guess.
goes back to education: the two groups, mutually exclusive: the team of God and the team of Satan , the saved and the doomed, these beliefs color everything, for all time. so, worldview based on ancient superstitions.
I think the BIG reason for the failure of the peoples needs to get answered by government is the sudden influx of billions of dollars into politics. Once the money became the main reason that one is elected then those with the most money took over. Elections are estimated by how much money a candidate can raise, not ideas or policies . Candidates are chosen by their ability to raise money. Their chances are predicted by how much they raise. Less then 5% of the population contribute almost 90% of the money and they expect a payoff. No, its not elite intelligence or merit it's the stealing of our government by special rich interests and the apathy of the voters.
2
The problem is that the decline of the western working and middle classes is not a bug but a feature. That is why the elites that brought it about (e.g. Tom Friedman, Macron, Hilary) do not understand why there is a problem. What they don't understand is that the decline of the western working and middle classes means they failed, by definition. The fact of China's rise does not erase their failure. Supporting China's rise was never their job; supporting the western workers was.
2
It almost sounds like you're predicting another FDR at the end. Or maybe not *predicting* one, but hoping one will emerge?
This is a really insightful analysis of what happens when the most talented people in the wider society are co-opted into the elite, but have no solutions for those left behind.
But behind all of this uproar is the specter of automation and foreign competition impacting workers all over the western world, workers who are either unwilling or unable to transition to post-industrial work (ie. the gig economy meets dealing with information on a computer, replacing doing various kinds of more "manly" labor and long-term job stability).
In the end, I don't know if any pundit or politician will have to answer for what these people want, because it simply may not exist any more.
2
@Bryan There is a strong anti intellectual streak in some communities. I was one of a minority in my high school who went on to college - most everyone else mocked higher education and planned to work in the local factory. That factory eventually closed and when I return to visit relatives I have found my old classmates still live there, working at Walmart or unemployed and hoping Trump will bring back factory work.
1
@Cal
You were right to do what you did. This has been for a really long time and the government and people in general should've been preparing for it.
But yeah, there are a lot of people who aren't willing to learn new things....
We never had a meritocracy. We've had the rich lobby Congress for and get most of what they desired at the expense of the rest of us. We've watched our politicians become indentured servants for the rich due to the cost of running for election or re-election. We've all had the experience of seeing inept and incompetent people moved into supervisory positions while the competent people were fired, left, or chastised for being competent.
In America we didn't elect one of the most competent presidential nominees to come along in decades. Why? A combination of media coverage, well-timed useless investigations, and an opponent who said what people wanted to hear even if it wasn't the truth. We have an oligarchy and corporatocracy that is slowly but surely starving the working class (most of us) to the point where we will be unable to muster any objections to their continued plundering of the economy to further their ambitions of nationwide domination.
Industry has contributed to this. Facebook, Google, Microsoft, the telecommunications companies, the misnamed healthcare sector, the financial sector offer the best to their richest customers and drop crumbs for the remainder. They are not held liable for their criminal or negligent activities. When the 99% have problems we're told it's our fault.
A humane society would see to it that the economic inequality is lessened, the richest pay their taxes, and that people are not discarded because they aren't rich.
243
@hen3ry
Hey, just what I was thinking, especially in the conclusion in the first line. We have deeply flawed meritocracy and legacy preference admissions to "elite" colleges proves the point as nothing else could (although lots of other evidence could be offered).
11
@hen3ry -
Whether Hillary Clinton was the most qualified Democratic nominee is debatable, but for sure she was the least electable, not only because of her ample surface area for attack (her email indiscretions, her heading a billion dollar foundation), but because she cowered in the face of Donald Trump's abuse and largely vanished into her safe space which is why Donald Trump got all the media coverage and hence his lies and abuse went unopposed.
4
@hen3ry In other words, the opinion piece is badly mistaken because it ignores the plutocracy? If that's part of what you mean, hen3ry, then I agree. Money is an unreliable proxy for merit.
15
If the rural populists do not want a meritocracy, where people rise up based upon their ability and accomplishments, then they want socialism. But the rural populists keep voting for right wing fascists who reward profit seeking corporations which is the opposite of socialism.
Then the rural populists complain that the meritocracy thinks they are stupid and then go right ahead and vote for more fascists who serve to line the pockets of the wealthy elite.
The rural populists have been conned by the fascists who use ethnic and nationalistic tactics to get their votes. Those other people are the problem. Works really well.
The rural populists think socialism is stealing because a few dollars of their tax money goes to help minority people in urban centers. So they vote for fascists who cut taxes and the government programs they support, and call it freedom. Then the fascists seal the deal with guns everywhere policies because the rural populists think owning guns gives them power. Those guns won't buy a house, put food on the table, or cure disease.
This is what the Republicans have done. This is what Trump has been doing for two years.
It is possible to have elements of socialism and capitalism operate side by side. The "yes/no", or, all or nothing policies of the Republican fascists prey upon hot button beliefs and ideology. These are same mechanisms that cause Catholics and Protestants to wage war against each other. That works really well too.
554
Amygdalas R Us
Jesus R Us
Whites R Us
Guns R Us, Bruce.
Fear and loathing.
Divide and conquer.
GOP 2018
"Free-DUMB !"
61
@Bruce Rozenblit As usual, you strike right at the heart of what's so wrong with the political/social universe we now endure here in the U.S. Who could have thought a mere 30 years ago our public discourse would be co-opted by a 21st Century-Right-Wing Pravda (FOX) and a brutally hateful propagandist (Rush Limbaugh)? Today, tens of millions of Americans consume this nonsense as if it's the truth and they make important decisions based on the outright lies crafted by these media. In the end, Americans have allowed themselves to be brainwashed by some incredibly cynical, greedy and dare I say hateful people. It's almost impossible to get through to them, to make them see through the us/them dichotomy. In the end, we will simply have to live with our fellow citizens who are going to vote against their self interests and (as a result) ours.
61
@Bruce Rozenblit In America the problem began with the rise of Ronald Reagan. He championed the idea that government is the problem and that we can have it all without having to sacrifice or pay for it. And the right wing media has been spreading and reinforcing this philosophy ever since. Prior to Reagan America was a model of being both a capitalistic system and a socialistic one that took care of the disadvantaged, the elderly, and the welfare of the environment.
This is a very wealthy nation and there is plenty to go around to take care of the poor as well as keeping the 1% filthy rich. And we can even help refugees fleeing horrible conditions where they live. It just takes a leader to come along and show the way. Unfortunately we don't create great leaders any more. And that is a reflection of the failure of our educational system. We need to teach our children to give back to their country. To teach our children the value of self sacrifice. It should be part of civics training that comes out of a strong public school system. And required public service for every American child would be one way to make that happen. But sadly, we are a long way from that.
63
What bothers me about Ross's thesis is his insouciance about the limits of populists. He seems to view them as grievance-driven but rudderless, impotent, and unlikely to gain real power.
What he leaves out, however, is the natural extension of populism into fascism, as in 1930s Europe. And when he refers to Polish politics as centrists taken over by populists, I cringe
because reports show alarming trends towards authoritarianism per th e crackdowns by former Prime Minister Kaczynkiski, mirroring Hungary's rightward spiral under Orban.
Even though Ross seems to feel the US goes through natural cycles of meritocracy and populism, I say it's dangerous to say those are the only choices.
If populists can find a strong and charismatic enough leader to follow, countries can swing authoritarian.
We say it can't happen here, but even though Trump is a corrupt clown who's given up on serious governing, his Republican party is operating behind the scenes to power grab and subvert democracy. From voter suppression to stripping new Democratic governors of their powers, we see a flouting of US laws, norms, and governing practices.
Political polarism (and paralysis) could still morph into "soft" fascism if we aren't careful.
285
@ChristineMcM There are drastically fewer of us saying 'it can't happen here' now than there were just a few years ago!
26
I wish otherwise smart people (as you seem to be) would stop hand wringing about "1930s fascism". If you're definition is brownshirts smashing windows and dissidents being carted off to reeducation camp then rest assured that will never occur.
The new fascism will be much more insipid.
The case of James Damore is a far better represetnation of the chilling effect of group think that will overwhelm the US in the years to come. If you vocally disagree with your employer's policies you will be forced to leave, justified by your colleagues feeling "unsafe".
The US is returning to its puritanical roots.
Instead of Hester Pryne being branded with a scarlet letter, those outside of the "mainstream" will be driven off by twitter mobs (and maybe real mobs like those who accosted Tucker Carlson's wife) and forced to chose between submission to popular sentiments or unemployment and social ostracization.
9
That "soft fascism" can turn very hard very quickly when the dupes/victims suddenly wake up to the con and -- gasp! -- get off the sofa, act rowdy and protest a bit. Authoritarians are always eager to take advantage of the inevitable chaos they create (the "Shock Doctrine" in practice).
10
Douthat undercuts himself when he says "his administration's policy agenda has been steered by the Republican Party's business elite". That's not the meritocracy, that's the plutocracy and I would argue that both Clinton and Obama both abetted said plutocracy by hiring Goldman Sachs henchmen to help run the economy. Populism is being driven by rising inequality, not some made up bogeyman called the meritocracy.
82
Interesting perspective except that French "gilets jaunes" (I'm one of them and I read The Times) don't want a leader or a unique vision ON PURPOSE : we're over with central super-power, we ask for more horizontal and grassroots decision making, like you have in D.C. or in many liberal states. It's hard to imagine, because in the US you enjoy cheap gas and no road tolls that are super expensive and everywhere like in France, but here we feel paralyzed, we're stuck, we can't even move around anymore, that's why the movement started from the road, it's a symbol.
The "gilets jaunes" are not (just) angry losers, people sometimes choose jobs not for the money but according to other principles. It's actually quite an interesting time we experience in France right now.
136
@Laurel Oooo ... interesting! More power to you, and may your spirit spill across the Channel (not likely though).
5
@Laurel: It is a standard operating principle for the powers that be to describe protesters as angry losers. It's an ad homenim attack; instead of someone who is motivated to protest against an injustice, they want everyone else to believe that you are an habitually angry person who can therefore be ignored. They've been running that script for at least a hundred years because it works.
21
@Laurel - Don't kid yourself - we've got plenty of tolls, and they are not cheap. There are many ways to extract money from taxpayers.
6
The fundamental issue, surely, is not meritocracy, but access to opportunity. In societies where all children get the same start in life (think Sweden), meritocracy and popular will are not at each others' throats. What has evolved in most of the world is a new form of aristocracy, whereby the successful and wealthy provide unparalleled opportunities, education and social capital to their offspring. The best measure of the lack of these opportunities to the masses is the reduction in social mobility we see in the data, and in our everyday life. Elites should remember that Rome fell, ultimately, when the people lost faith in their leaders and refused to fight any more wars for them.
1
If the word "centrist" in this essay is replaced by "protects interests of the wealthy" and "populist" is replaced by "regular person fed up with getting hosed" it makes much more sense.
I regret that some of the greatest and brightest minds of my generation were put to use to maintain and increase the wealth of the already very wealthy at the expense of societal greater good.
5
The problem isn't with any of the various "ism"s, it is with basic human nature. These characteristics have always overruled the thin veneer of intelligence. A truly intelligent human would say, after buying their 3rd or 4th supercar, that is enough. But they do not. A truly intelligent human would weep at the broken dreams of a child born in a housing project, but they do not. A truly intelligent human is one whose brain can effectively function, working and planning for a better future for everyone, while at the same time their heart breaks for every stymied human life.
2
The problem is that human nature tends to induce successful meritocratic elites to "forget where they came from", in other words lose their ability for empathy with the situation of those "less fortunate". If we could somehow work empathy into the list of criteria for "meritocratic success", the human race might yet stand a chance...
1
Ross says the next great leader to address this impasse would be the first. Maybe because he is a conservative, the columnist forgets that FDR did successfully deal with the needs of the mass of the people, the predations of the elite and the good of the nation. We might have had a revolution in this country in the early 1930’s. And plenty of populists stepped up. We were saved by the CCC, the WPA, the SEC, the NLRB and Social Security. The CCC and WPA created work. The SEC snd NLRB blunted the worst predations of rich against poor, Social Security gave people dignity. And when populist hero Huey Long ran for President on a platform of giving every family $10k, FDR made people see how dumb that was by asking “why be such a piker-why not give every family $100k.?” People got it.
Sadly, the dumbest president we ever had-up to now-Ronnie Reagan-started dismantling FDR’s institutions. Republicans have gutted union rights. They oppose government funding the arts. They want to “privatize” Social Security. Ross thought that was great. And now he awaits a conservative savior? Good luck with that.
4
@Fred Shapiro So how do we reckon with our now $20 trillion debt (thanks Obama) and the high, $250 billion-plus yearly interest payments that will be a permanent part of our future budgets? Social Security is certainly a worthy entitlement but will run out of money by 2034. And now, Democrats want to give everyone universal health care and $500 per month guaranteed income. What about a liberal savior to fix our enormous funding problems? Good luck with THAT.
Perhaps Elizabeth Warren is the stateswoman you seek. Perhaps she will be our next president, with Bernie Sanders as vice-president.
Mr. Macron does not need superior intelligence, or a degree from an “elite” educational facility or even how to interpret an Excell Spreadsheet. All he and his fellow super smart, intelligent and subtle “elites” have to do is compare the average cost of living with the average wage. This is not rocket science. The people who have been freezing on the street for these many weeks are not there because they have visions of a utopian future. Their children will face extreme poverty if Macron’s policies become law. Macron does not represent the people. He represents the business interests that literally installed him and his party.
2
BTW -- Did you read Mr Friedman's column today? He seems to think that neo-liberal "meritocracy" is the only way to go. Apparently, he didn't get your memo.
1
"But can the system we have really produce such a statesman? The next one we find will be the first."
Well, if you don't believe Obama came close, how about F.D.R.? What doesn't seem to happen is have these leaders come from the populist side. Huey Longs are allowed to shoot themselves in the foot, but Bob LaFollettes aren't allowed a political toe-hold.
1
Douthat's series on meritocracy and elites has continued to surprise me by the absence of any reference to the work that described the problem better 25 years ago: Christopher Lasch's last book, The Revolt of the Elites (And the Betrayal of Democracy). Highly recommended.
Douthat ends with a wishful fantasy: that a single statesman must be found to lead democracy from meritocratic darkness into the light. Really, Ross?
1
Apropos to this pice I just finish reading this article dated 2014 all 4 pages of it
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/06/the-pitchforks-are-coming-for-us-plutocrats-108014
SPECIAL REPORT
The Pitchforks Are Coming… For Us Plutocrats
By NICK HANAUER July/August 2014
Apparently he was expressing his concerns in many publications on the same issue, the dangers of unregulated capitalism.
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2013-06-19/the-capitalist-s-case-for-a-15-minimum-wage
https://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2013/06/21/nick-hanauers-near-insane-15-an-hour-minimum-wage-proposal/#5ee10b77d821
2
Good work, Mr. Douthat! That was interesting.
BUT--
--as ever, two thoughts occur to me.
(1) Your book alludes to the "meritocracy" reaching down into different communities, "co-opting" them into some sort of national elite:
Ring a bell?
How about the Roman Empire? That is precisely what they did. And it worked for a long time. A VERY long time.
As expressed (in Tacitus) by the Emperor Claudius, addressing the Roman senate. "We have flourished," this Emperor declared "huc transferendo quicquid egregium."
"We spot the talent--the ability--and we bring it here. We make it ours.
"And it makes us strong. Very strong.
"Almost invincible."
(1) Ten years before Mr. Wood's book came out, another dystopian novel appeared. Much glummer. Oh dear, yes!
George Orwell's "1984."
He had his eye--not upon Hitler or Stalin. Oh no. He was thinking (he tells us) of the Cambridge-educated Laborites of his own day. With (it would seem) their bottomless contempt for ordinary people, ordinary Brits.
And, of course, he turned them--
--in monsters.
Like the unspeakable O'Brien. Pleasant and affable (sometimes). Capable of incalculable cruelty. His vision, he tells us--
--"is a jackboot forever crushing a human face.'
IS THERE NO MIDDLE WAY--
--between a heartless, unfeeling elite on one hand--
--and the brutish mob on the other?
And can we find it?
How?
1
@Susan Fitzwater
The middle way is to the left.
The left believes in democracy, truth, logic, the Constitution, etc.
The left believes in government and business being honest and fair. The left believes that merit means you get the job that you are good at and do it well. The left believes that some jobs are not worth 10,000 times more than other jobs, but maybe two or three times more. The left believes that a teacher has more merit than a Wall Street executive. The left believes that democracy is bottom up and that everyone needs to be involved.
The right believes in top down elites (even when they rebel they follow a top down elite) imposing their will on everyone else through sheer power enforced by militarized police. They are not interested in merit or popular policies. They are interested in getting away with whatever they can get away with, and they call it whatever they think will help them cheat or steal.
Everyone that still supports Trump has proven they will follow a proudly ignorant, pathological liar, who cheats and steals and bullies his way through life and has probably committed treason. The is no merit to this, even though Trump calls himself elite, and it is only popular with his cult of personality.
We the People have to hold government accountable for the policies we need, including holding business accountable for being honest and fair.
We have to do that by organizing ourselves to learn, communicate, and act in Our interest.
"Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it...GOOD AND HARD!" H. L. Mencken...Doubtthat seems to forget the first meritocracy/populism conflict...Abel versus Cain...in the first disfunctional family...
2
Although I'm no fan of Corbyn, your glancing reference made me wonder if leftist-populism is 1) not worth entertaining in your column or 2) worth its own column for its potential to break the logjam between meritocracy-facade and right-populist-con-artists. Sorry if I phrased this like a push-poll, would still appreciate your take.
1
@Ernest Woodhouse
The left doesn't call it populism. Populism is a the capitalist's bait and switch, that promises revolution but delivers accelerated capitalism.
"But can the system we have really produce such a statesman? The next one we find will be the first."
In a word "HOGWASH", we had one, his name was Barrack Obama. We who voted for him but ultimately we did not have his back, we allowed Republican congress men to overrun him, abuse him and defeat him. The voters put the tea party in a position of authority, hardly the meritocracy but a rowdy, vulgar, whiny do nothing bunch of puppets of the Kochs and the oligarch. The circle is now complete as they have their soulmate occupying the WH.
We are as yet not ready for the emergence of another statesman until the Republican Party has totally collapsed and the current group of incompetents in the WH are largely in prison.
Macron won the election. His failure was and is to recognize that he represents all of the people not just the rich oligarchs be they elite intellectuals or dumb as rocks but just plain wealthy.
9
The populists are the last gasp of dying democracy. The only choice left is between the meritocrats or authoritarian dictators, or some combination of the two.
" the Washington Post columnist Anne Applebaum, which portrayed populism as, in part, a revolt by the resentfully unsuccessful against “meritocracy and competition.” "
Only when Anne Applebaum sees her job disappear to Bangladesh, where some one writes her column at 1/10 of her salary, she will finally understand the "unsuccessful"
Until then she will continue to live in her bubble
5
As for the US, I think meritocracy is still the best way forward for a nation of immigrants. It doesn't need to evolve to this level of analysis which I believe is faulty and unyielding of any solutions. I think a large part of the mess in this country would be solved by getting rid of Citizens United. Meritocracy is not what is at fault as it should exist everywhere -- not just the boardroom or the classroom. You shouldn't fault meritocracy but a system whereby corporations have the ability to subvert the government's ability to represent actual people. It's the ever-increasing income inequality that has created this mess.
55
Good points... and what is a reasonable alternative to a meritocracy?
@Me
None of my college educated professional businessmen black African enslaved and free person of color ancestors ever had the merit of the Czech Ivana nor the Slovenian Melania Trump.
No Americans ever mistook Barack Obama for a half-white man by biological nature nor all white by cultural nurture.
I see the point that Douthat is trying to make but I get the feeling that he is picking and choosing facts and situations to support an opinion.
The truth of what he says is supported by the election of Trump after an intellectual in Obama. It's also correct that Brexit was a result of populism but Mays has been left to clean up the mess of her predecessor. Macron is a great example of sound ideas that result in populist revolt.
So what is the common element? Leadership. Obama was a great man with good intentions and sound solutions, but he was not a good leader. Macron came to office in a country with an unsustainable economic model and unrealistic expectations about what France was capable of doing. His policy decisions are largely correct in order to fix the fundamental problems, but Macron did it in the same way Obama did. I can only describe it as the "smartest person in the room" syndrome where, in their head, people can't possibly be against him because he knows the decision/policy is right.
A great leader is a very unique person. They don't have to be the smartest but they know that they need the smartest people working with them. They don't have to be the most politically savvy but they need the most politically savvy people working with them. I hope Democrats give a LOT of thought to who that will be in 2020.
5
Like a chain, democracy is only as strong as its weakest link. Once a significant portion of the electorate is sufficiently ignorant then democracy itself is threatened. The “rabble” can be dangerous. That is why a democracy must invest in its people.
2
Dear Mr Douthat,
I sincerely think that Barack Obama was the statesman you seek. If the racist lunatics who surged from the woodwork and their Tea-Party enablers hadn't prevented further legislative action on the former President's part, I think we would be looking at a very different decade today. Mr Obama's failure will continue to echo into the future....
5
Has anyone talked lately to an American High School student about anything in the liberal arts area? They are utterly clueless about the organization of their government, basic principles of the constitution, and their social studies are along the line of wearing ethnic costumes and enjoying culinary treats from around the world. Forget learning dates or the causes of wars: history consists of apologizing for the past sins of the Western world. I assume that there are natural born engineers, scientists and doctors out there, as there always have been, I'm just not sure that our system is geared to find and educate them anymore. It's too busy apologizing for colonialism and racism. And no, I don't think we're going to be building our bridges and running our hospitals with migrants. I just hope that the private schools are still interested in competence.
4
@Mary odd, my two public school kids got a very solid grounding in US and World history starting in middle school.
Perhaps people are revolting against meritocracy, because it means that there will be losers, and masses of losers. If having the best SAT scores, getting into the best colleges guarantees that you and yours will be the winners, while all the rest will be something less than, then you also guarantee a populist up rising in the future. Meritocracy like capitalism seems to work great for the top 10% in OECD countries, but like with all competitions there are losers and having a society where 90% are the losers whether it is the U.S., France, U.K., etc. will result in massive backlash no matter how many statesman we elect.
As a Democrat myself, I wish my own party understood meritocracy better and were more humble about its rewards and compassionate about its impact to the losers. The GOP sees the damage that meritocracy is doing, it is just that they either accept it as it is, or just don't give a fig. My guess is that the Democratic leaders do not know how to deal with the negative side of meritocracy, and the Republicans are perfectly fine with it.
3
There's some merit it the meritocracy, but a lot of it is just a con job and a squeeze.
How much merit is there in Sam Walton's daughter or in the children of other plutocrats? Not a lot, yet the top fraction of one percent run the show to a great extent.
The game is rigged by the plutocrats whose "merit" mainly consists of being willing to cheat other people out of the fruits of their labor.
8
Here’s an idea: Instead of donning a MAGA hat and cheering at Trump’s venomous nonsense, try attending your community college, seek out training programs, extend yourself to develop the skills for the jobs so many employers can’t seem to fill, start a small business, move out of a county that has no opportunities. None of those require a high SAT score, or even necessarily the narrow definition of a stratospheric IQ. Yes, times have changed. And will continue to do so. Being dumb is easy. Smart requires thinking.
4
They do require money, time, and a support network. Are you wiling to pay more in taxes for student tuition grants, subsidized health care for the student and his family, subsidized housing, subsidized child care, moving expenses to move somewhere more expensive where you don't have friends and family to help you out when your kids are too sick for school or your boss lays you off with zero days notice.
For some people, life is too precarious to take risks.
Ah, from the writer of "Why I Wish We Were Still Ruled by King George III and a Feudalistic Aristocracy" comes "Why the Poors Are Too Stupid to Govern, If They Weren't Stupid They Wouldn't Be Poor." Can't wait to read your upcoming articles Ross! I bet the next ones will be "Capitalism Hasn't Failed, Poor People Just Don't Work Hard Enough," "What Do You Mean People Are Hungry? There Is Plenty of Cake to Eat," "Yes the Masses Are Revolting, But Their Anger Isn't Justified, I Should Know I'm an OpEd Columnist," and finally "The Revolutionaries Are At My Door, Someone Please Send Help."
6
Times change. People forget. Extremists take advantage. The US is NOT exempt.
“As the memory of World War II, the Holocaust and the Gulag fades, so too does the antipathy to the illiberal ideologies that spawned Europe’s past horrors. This is evidenced in the rising electoral success of populist authoritarian parties of the extreme left and right, none of which have anything new to say, yet claim the mantle of ideological innovation and moral virtue.” James Kirchick, “The End of Europe”
Today we are the victims of two the most disgusting socioeconomic philosophies to come out of the Twentieth Century: Social Darwinism and Neoliberalism. To wit, only the market can pick winners and losers, and the losers have only themselves to blame.
The current uprisings and election of radical strong men point to a complete failure of this construct meaning the stalemate is only temporary.
3
The irony of the passage quoted by Douthat is apparently lost on him -- as he proves, week after week, along with David Brooks, another American meritocracy fantasist.
Does Douthat read this paper? Is it really news to him at that the most successful among us in the realms of media, finance, business and politics are mediocrities blessed with a singular focus, no ethical reservations and an enormously mistaken conviction of wisdom on every matter under the sun?
3
Who exactly do Times writers think they are misleading when they distort political discourse by mislabeling contending forces? How many yellow jackets do you actually believe would identify as populists" And by what stretch of the imagination does it advance anyone's understanding of what is at stake in the current conflict of forces to identify Macron as standing for a meritocracy?
our so called meritocrats, unlike those in France, have not excelled in competitive exams. Nor do they have SAT scores superior to those of non-elites. "top schools" don't just pick the highest scorers. They admit socially compatible people. Nor (I've taught at them all my life) do they demand a lot from their students. Rather, they endow them with a wholly unwarranted sense of superiority and entitlement to rule.
If Barack Obama's SAT's were higher than Sarah Palin's the Times would have advertised them.
Then these snowflakes get co-opted into positions of power in government and corporations. Thus negative selection of elites happens.
Time was when entry into institutions such as the foreign service was by competitive exam. But now, because such exams bring in the "wrong people," it's co-option.
1
Charles Murray has had some relevant things to say about all this, if you can set aside your preconceptions long enough to read him.
My thought about this issue is , Yes crude populist masses will eventually create a big disturbance in the system we are already living. But this revolt is not going to produce something positive for this world, we saw this before pre WWII and WWI world and what happened?
In fact Meritocracy in Human history first time created a 70 years long peace and prosperity without heavy , flagrant whole scale mayhem like WWI and WWII.
The most crude average man ever steeped on world stage was Adolf Hitler , he was private in WWI , he was jobless and he has grandiose ideas with no discernible benefit to society.
I can only say about post WWII meritocracy mistake was uncontrolled population increase, they missed that very big.
Republican leaders are indeed opportunists driven by business elites. But, I see no sign that they are "complacent". Rather, it is the opposite. As they pack courts, overturn voter mandates, hamstring incoming duly elected Democrats, jigger census questions,... what I see are hopefully the last gasps and grabs of the hyper-cynical modern day American politician.
3
I'm not an apologist for H. L. Mencken, who held some pretty odious racist views, but his thoughts on meritocracy and democracy seem particularly apt at this moment:
"On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron."
1
I would say that the meritocratic state has arisen concurrently with the growing bureaucratic state in Europe and USA. Bureaucratic states, if size unchecked, eventually collapse under their own weight and begin anew under populist rule. We are seeing this cyclicality right now in Europe and USA. Macron is a mouthpiece for the bureaucratic state. Nothing more.
8
@Tiger shark
Your "bureaucrats" are the people standing between us and chaos. Those underpaid but skilled people are keeping things running in the face of real obstacles.
"Privatizing" prisons, schools, post office, etc. leads to people making ever bigger profits and siphoning from the little people to the top to pay for largely useless luxury goods, which are making a killing.
9
Meritocracy is Ross's new bogeyman. Sure, let's return to social immobility and inherited status. Great idea! Populism is, as it has always been, a fight between Capital and Labor. It can take different forms and be manipulated in any number of ways, but that is what is about. Ross needs to stop taking the term "elite" at the face value Right Wingers claim for the word.
2
Smart people generally have better ideas but always seem to forget how to communicate them. That's why the best politicians are well educated but can still relate to and speak to people in their language. Obama was a master of this. Take note, future leaders.
Everything in life needs a rebalancing every once in a while. Sometimes it comes naturally - if we're lucky - but mostly it comes with various degrees of civil unrest. Sometimes, though, it only comes only with civil war.
This has been coming for a while. We're living in an age similar to that of pre-French Revolution. Leaders need to take note.
4
Query - were the Founders correct in trying to insulate the government from the masses? Would we be in this predicament if state legislators still picked our senators and the president was elected by real representatives sent to the Electoral College who exercised their own judgment rather than the will of the majority?
The Founders didn't trust direct democracy. And with good reason.
3
@Citizen
Read the Gilded Age by Mark Twain-it was worse.
A meritocracy linked to formal education -- particularly as it is currently construed -- is no meritocracy at all. True meritocracy was found in the old, much-maligned 'well-rounded' standard of yore. For centuries, warmth, creativity, eloquence, humor, athletic prowess, leadership, and sound judgement defined true merit. Unfortunately, schools in the twentieth century decided to get rid of true merit and replace it with a technocratic regime. Ever since, education has become a paradise for sneaky beta males, snarky feminists, clerks, and bean-counters. Academia today is Tech-school on the STEM side, and a pink-collar workforce in the Humanities. They exclude those not fitting-in. The 'meritocracy' today is equated with snitching, two-faced relationships, insularity, and double-standards. Bring back an emphasis on Shakespeare, sports, music, and stop bashing men. Maybe then we can go back to having a genuine meritocracy, in academia and beyond. The people running academia at present have practically run it into the ground and the bubble is about to burst -- not that they'll care. They've been doing quite well, actually. It's just everybody else who has to put up with this rude, calculating, accusing, judgmental, shallow, vain, status-obsessed, pseudo-meritocracy who has suffered. They are full of rich people from other countries yet barely any African Americans. But they have the appalling arrogance to preach to others about social justice. Sorry for the rant!
3
The resentment expressed here seems to add credibility to Mr. Douthat’s point.
1
Meritocracy and populism today in the Western world?
First, I am not so sure meritocracy is meritocracy, that political/economic systems are elevating the truly best, talented human beings in various areas of life. It appears rather both right and left wings know with cunning how to justify themselves these days, and what better way than saying the system now is next to perfect at identifying truly deserving talent and elevating it to proper position in life.
Right wings need to don the meritocracy guise so as to avoid the label privileged wealth not to mention old aristocratical order. Left wings need to use this label to drive home to the public that the socialistic state is indeed being run by the best available minds. But for all meritocracy these days we see no measurable advance on the problem of human genius (Shakespeare, Mozart, et. al.) historically being accident, which is to say we see no measurable increase of human genius, and certainly no measurable increase of profound statesmen.
I see rather than meritocracy just left and right wing populism, and the West now seems caught between the dilemma of breaking up into right wing phenomenons (such as led to the 1st and 2nd world wars) and holding itself together by typically distasteful socialism, a world of righteousness not much different from the religious, constant bureaucracy, pettiness, jealousy and envy run rampant, minor accomplishments, surveillance, and of course censorship.
I can't imagine school.
Sure, meritocracy has its shortcomings, but for an alternative please see the Mike Judge's Idiocracy.
2
Populism is what toppled the aristocracy in France, Austria, GB, America, Eastern Europe and beyond.
The PEOPLE, the PLEBS, The SERFS, The POOR were behind every Popular Revolution, with Women often leading the way.
The people in charge, The Royalty, The Clergy, The Rich Landowners. hated it and fought against it for hundreds of years.
Now they wear no crowns but today its the NYTIMES and other Elites have taken up the Anti-Populism Mantle, against the people.
2
The pundits are complicating the story: people want an upwardly mobile middle class, and more money in their pockets. The wealthiest in society, though, divide the low and low middle income lobbying efforts to keep them poor by sowing hatred and fear among them - and by taking their gold-plated ball and going home if their taxes are raised or their 300 times-a line worker's wages are reduced.
6
I never liked the term populism. It implies immediately and necessarily a separation between those in the know (the meritocratic or plutocratic elites) and everyone else. The unwashed masses. I view this term as an atavistic holdover from our more explicitly anti democratic past. A clue from linguistic archeology about our history. The bottom line is that democracy is about majoritarian voting and the more votes you get the more you win. Is that populism? Or just democracy?
1
How you win, the issues you choose to appeal to supporters, is what determines what is being called populism here. What Mr. Douthat is calling populism could also be described as a politics of resentment from those who see themselves on the outside. Politics, after all is merely whatever you can do to win votes. Ultimately it is a practical, pragmatic endeavor. Winners win, losers lose, analyze what moves your “team” into one column or the other. Repeat as necessary.
@Marshall Doris yes, that's certainly part of the baggage of the term. But are you suggesting that populism should be seen as synonymous with demagoguery? Those are different terms for a reason IMHO. When we have phrases like leftwing populism to describe Sanders and his supporters and rightwing populism to describe Trump and his supporters it should be clear we have a problem with the term and the attitude behind it.
1
For once, Ross Douthat writes an essay I can agree with, although he inadvertently skewers his own colleagues, the NY Times pundits who declare in essay after essay how inferior the current out-group is, this includes the white patriarchs for which the pundits provide examples, like Harvey Weinstein and Les Moonves, but the poor read the essays as criticizing the white patriarch failures, the over 2 million American men in prison for example. The US has 14 times the incarceration rate of Japan for example, evidence that males of all races are actually discriminated AGAINST by the arrogan and sanctimonious NY Times elite.
So the poor went out and voted for Trump. But slogans do not make policy. And it is becoming apparent, perhaps even to the poor and uneducated, that Trump is a singularly ineffective spokesperson for their cause.
Does building the wall stop illegal immigration? Or would a genuine leader negotiate with the Democrats, phase in a more effective e-verify system, help Mexico deal with its own problem of overpopulation by inducing it to provide family planning in exchange for economic development that might bring more jobs to Mexico?
This is light-years away from Trump's actual policies.
Slogans do not necessarily lead to good government. And the rabble that cheered the carnage in Rome's coliseum reflected what Plato observed after the Athenian democracy executed his mentor.
Democracies fail because the majority, being uneducated, is often wrong.
@Jake Wagner -- "Democracies fail because the majority, being uneducated, is often wrong": then, why not focus on improving education instead of increasing our defense arsenal? A well-educated citizenry instead of a well-armed country, wouldn't that reinforce democracy?
2
Ross,
FYI, the earliest use of meritocracy as found in the OED precedes the book you mention by two years, to wit:
1956 A. Fox in Socialist Comm. May 13/1 The ‘meritocracy’; the society in which the gifted, the smart, the energetic, the ambitious and the ruthless are carefully sifted out and helped towards their destined positions of dominance.
1
...or Process and Patriotism at an Impasse
"How Fox news, religious fundamentalism, Wall Street, social media and racism reinforce each other's faults".
2
A shred of truth makes this a very interesting essay, but the issues with its logic are remarkable. To point out several:
1) A meritocracy overlaying gross societal inequality is a farce from the beginning and cannot be used as an example of failed meritocracy.
2) The second and third generation of a meritocracy is no more than an aristocracy wrongly named as your quotes make clear.
3) The assumption that the smart people who take advantage of a meritocracy to move ahead will forget about and lose any loyalty to their origins or compassion for those left behind, is absurd.
Never the less, you are right in your characterization of Trump as a bogus populist. He is just the logical extreme of the cynicism of the "American values" republicans who have been conning the white working class for decades, and are now stuck with a white collar criminal, and probably a traitor, disguised as President.
2
Mr. Douthat misses the mark. The debate, at least in the U.S., isn't between meritocracy and populism. It is about the acceptance of truth, or the acceptance of lies, as a basis for governance.
Yesterday's legal events are a case in point. They provided damning evidence of the most unfit administration in our history. And yet half this nation believes there is nothing wrong with Trump's conduct. To the contrary, he is the best president this nation has ever had, to them. This, despite the mounting evidence of his criminal wrongdoing, his obvious unfitness for office, his mental instability. We are two years into what may only be described as a national disaster. Trump has trashed international alliances that took decades to develop. He has personally aligned with dictatorships that would do our nation harm at any opportunity. Our country is now a laughing stock at best, and an international pariah at worst. And yet, to Trump voters, he is their savior.
Thus, our problems have nothing to do with the failure of meritocracy, or the excesses of populism.Two years into this horrific chapter of our history, it is clear that Trump supporters will never leave him. And they are nearly half of us.
Our nation must be partitioned. Those of us who value education, facts, science, progress, respect for the rule of law, tolerance, equality, and the reality-based world may live in one, and Trump voters may live in the other. There is no longer any other way for us to go forward.
33
@Christopher Anvil
One thing the left has never been able to learn or accept is that Trump did one thing that no major politician outside of Bernie has done in decades. He spoke to the middle americans, whose standard of living has been deteriorating for decades and said I understand your problems and will help (regardless of offering real solutions, he did acknowledge them and their situation). The left didn't seem to care much about their well being as manufacturing shifted overseas and now we should partition our country? When we had manufacturing and unions these people were strong democratic voters but now they are deplorables.
1
@Christopher Anvil
Blah blah!
The truth is that Donald Trump is our one and only President because 63 million Americans including 58% of white people voted for him giving him meaningful Electoral College majority.
Both slavery and Jim Crow were lawful in America.What is legal should concern embarrass and shame us.
2
@Christopher Anvil An electoral college majority has honest disagreements with your assumptions on how the country should be run and what should be done policy by policy.
I grew up in the Midwest, served in Vietnam, earned an advanced degree, traveled extensively in Europe and Asia for business and pleasure, raised three kids in SF, sent them to elitist private schools and they matriculated to Ivy League or national universities and I live on the Left Coast surrounded by people who think and talk like you.
This is a fight over the direction of our country. We will stay in the fight and oppose the collectivism and post-modernism that has already taken hold in our Universities and large, powerful oligopolies such as Google, Facebook and Twitter, which presents an existential threat to our society. Just to name a few of the issues on which you missed boat-it is rational, not ignorant nor racist:
-to oppose open borders and unchecked immigration too fast to be assimilated;
-to believe trade policies and arrangements should be reviewed after 25 years;
-to worry about abolition of voter ID's when over 10 million illegals are in the country; and
-to believe the presumption of innocence and right of cross-examination should not be stripped from one-half of the university population.
I too want to avert my eyes from Trump the Man but have to cheer Trump the President. "Cometh the hour, cometh the Man." We need to find a way to go forward together.
2
I see the problem as three-fold: the disproportionate rewards that accrue to meritocratic winners; the entrenchment of an aristocracy by allowing those rewards to be passed on to the next generation; and a general failure of empathy for those less advantaged.
The American ethos that claims 'anyone can succeed if they work hard' leads to the view that poverty is a character defect, a view implicit in most GOP policies.
3
Don't agree. To disagree, one merely has to answer Mr. Douthat's last question: "But can the system we have really produce such a statesman?"
Well, it already did--in Obama. The products of meritocracy can and do care about the greater good.
What we have now isn't meritocracy, it's the last gasps of White-tocracy.
4
Doubtthat uses one of his favorite devices, to set up a false strawman (meritocracy) and then knock it down. In the new millennium the U.S. is hardly a meritocracy when it comes to politics and in many areas of business. He does not account for our extreme concentration of wealth and the increased authoritarian actions of our national leaders.
87
@Bob Garcia Douthat also oversimplifies "meritocracy" and being inseparable from intellectualism. Merit is based on ability, and ability involves much more than being smart.
7
@Bob Garcia
Re “In the new millennium the U.S. is hardly a meritocracy when it comes to politics and in many areas of business.”
You’ve got a good point, but so, I think, does Mr. Douthat. Let’s accommodate both views by recognizing that, in today’s America, “merit” has at least as much to do with money as anything else: It’s meritorious to be wealthy; money *impresses* us. Many American “Christians” explicitly view personal wealth as God’s reward — a guarantee of merit if there ever was one. Thus a great many merit-minded Americans not only tolerate “our extreme concentration of wealth,” they encourage it — even if it doesn’t include them, and even if there’s no intelligence, creativity, hard work, or moral compass to back it up. THAT’S our American meritocracy — money. It’s not at all meritorious, but it’s no strawman, either.
5
Brilliant analysis and commentary. Just want to point out that the dynamic described in "The Rise Of Meritocracy" was anticipated 70 years ago in "1984", specifically in "Goldstein's Book" Inner Party inquisitor Obrien's discussions with protagonist Winston Smith, and the division of society into Inner Party, Outer Party, and Plebs.
Also anticipated by HG Wells' "Things To Come" (1935), realized in an excellent film staring Raymond Masey, worth viewing on YouTube, and by Huxley's "Brave New World"
If you want to go further back even further in time, Plato and St. Thomas (Moore, not Aquinas) also anticipated current events, and Aristotle in his "Politics" described the recurring cycle of Monarchy, to Democracy, to Oligarchy, and finally to Tyranny.
Still, a form of "Pink" or "Soft" Totalitarianism is vastly preferable to the other 20th-century experiments in total control.
It is highly unlikely the capitalist system is meritocratic in the objective sense there is more social mobility than in other eras in Human History.
During Ancient times, the was a very restricted oligarchy, but social mobility was constant (there was even a term for it in the Roman Republic: novus homo) and only rose as the Roman Empire begun to collapse. The only difference was that social mobility was conquered directly by the sword: during the transition from the Republic to the Empire, the old Patrician oligarchy was almost entirely wiped out thanks to the civil war. By the time of the Antonines, epigraphic evidence strongly indicates it was basically another elite that ruled Rome.
During medieval times, there was social mobility too. The nobility continued to wipe itself out through wars. Many monarchichal families disappeared due to interruption of lineage thanks to inbreeding (the Spanish Habsburgs). What unnerved the illuminists about the manorial system was the fact the peasants were bound to the land, so there wasn't freedom of movement and thus of labour.
In the capitalist system, there is a illusion of constant social mobility for the simple fact wealth became a thing in itself, earned a life on its own. Thus, we have anarchy of commodity circulation and production. But many capitalist families rule for more than a century -- comparable to many Ancient elites or monarchies.
4
The "impasse" part made me laugh, thanks. This went to print as the PM in Belgium submitted his letter of resignation. He was just the latest globalist open borders stooge to go down.
For a movement that wasn't even visible to those at the rarefied heights of the chattering class only 3 years ago, to now say it's at an impasse seems a bit premature, no? I mean y'all gave Trump a 3% chance of winning. And from my vantage point, in addition to today's news from Belgium, we have Brexit, Italy, Austria, Hungary, Poland, Columbia, Mexico, Brazil, and the Philippines already in the mostly populist camp, with France and Germany teetering. A few more Christmas market shootings, and they'll come home too.
I'd call that populist progress, hardly an impasse. And if you want to know how all of this pans out, just apply the following hypothetical; who's likely to fight harder and more effectively - some woke progressive who's idea of struggle is defending their virtue on Twitter? Or some vet, cop, firefighter or out of work coal miner who's had enough of globalism? And if this sounds like an absurd hypothetical, it's not. It's what just happened in France.
Eco-conscious pretty boy childless banker met the mob, and the mob won. We always do. Why this is news to anyone, and why anyone thinks that the two sides here are equally matched to the point of creating an impasse is beyond me, but generating content for ad revenue isn't my job. Maybe this was click-bait?
6
@Trans Cat Mom
Of the four professions you pit against the banker in your hypothetical, three are government employees. Was this intentional? Just curious.
Brilliant column.
4
The US has one of the lowest rates of socio-economic mobility of all developed countries. Our "meritocracy" is less about "co-opting" the most talented people from poorer classes (as the Young book quoted says) and more about giving a litigating ideology to a self-contained and largely self-perpetuating elite: They are the "best and the brightest"; they went to the best schools; it is just a coincidence that their parents went there too.
14
I think Douthat's analysis seems extremely timely and (once again) right on target. I would just add that I note the radical Liberals of the 1960's were very aware of the hypocrisy of the Liberals, regarding their habit of holding out the temptation of meritocracy to the Blue Collar and the unwashed, but always seeming to hold back the entry to the halls of real power for themselves, and their primarily Ivy League cohorts. But I also note that the Radical 60's Movement itself was ultimately coopted from within the movement by the miasma of the greed of their own leaders for power ,as well with drugs and a sense of Male and White privilege -And from without the movement by the Far Right, via the well documented campaigns of disinformation, incarceration and perhaps assassination.
My point being, is that Douthat is bringing-up, in his series of articles on elitism, the some of the same criticisms of the Liberal Establishment that the Radicals on the Left expressed during the 1960's and 1970's. Personally, I hold out hope that the new generation of Progressives can learn from the mistakes of the Radicals and old Lefties (like myself). Because it seems that unless we do, it indeed appears likely that our future could be no more than a nightmare,'Brave New World'.
3
I’m concerned about the way we throw around the terms “meritocracy” and “populism”.
It’s too easy to define merit as “ways in which people like me are measurably productive or smart.” That leaves out a lot, like good judgment and the suitability or quality of what productive people produce.
We seem to have turned “populism” into a snarl word with a vague meaning. That’s rarely a good idea with any word.
I thought the idea that financial systems should be fair and serve the general economy was once a populist idea. So, I thought, were the ideas that taxation shall be equal and uniform (with exceptions like allowing a graduated income tax or giving a tax break to disabled veterans); that public money may be spent only for public purposes, with sufficient controls to ensure the public purpose is accomplished; and that government grants of power to private entities (like granting the power of eminent domain to lay wires or pipelines, or granting an exclusive service territory to a utility) must be combined with government regulation and a suitably defined duty to serve the public interest.
These ideas weren’t put into constitutions and statutes by self-interested elites or a disorganized populist rabble.
3
I believe the variable you are excluding is the rising inequality, coupled with meritocracy. A meritocracy might survive if it didn't capture all the rewards for itself. Currently, to whatever extent the elite meritocrats are willing to be "traitors" to their cause and share the gains, it is the democrats who are willing to wield that power. Imperfectly, and incompletely, and not all willingly, but that's where I see a path forward. Democratic control, with a willingness to support safety nets, higher taxes, and infrastructure, including education.
6
The "populism" of Sanders and Trump is exactly what the democracy needs at this time, a perfect expression of the people for whom the "establishment" has failed. It's exactly why a democracy exists! The other point that is missing is that there is a huge generational shift going on just as there was 40 years ago when the baby-boomers pulled down the WASP elite and put in an establishment more representative of their world view. That establishment is being dismantled and a new one has yet to emerge from the younger generations. You have to have that turn over to prevent a permanent aristocracy. It makes democracy much more vital. What the left needs to do is turn their fear and paranoia into new ideas to help create the new establishment. Hint: replace neo-marxism with humanism. Hint: extol the virtues of a bourgeois culture and support its effort to wrest control of power from wealth.
5
I agree and think you present the reasons for why education is so important! Critical pedagogy -- pedagogy of desire and pedagogy of daring -- is the way forward, making sure new generations of critical thinkers and activists are prepared. Plus the notion of "infinite potential" of each and every human being as the basis for a fundamental equality and social justice contra meritocracy and social Darwinism. ALL PEOPLE are equal due to equality of their infinite potential, not restricted by any "natural" ceilings (google these notions).
3
Most of the comments here come to the defense of meritocracy. Last I looked, our country was founded on the principle of democracy, on the idea that all people are created equal. To support meritocracy is to believe that some people are worth more than others, and that the former deserve to rule. Sounds a tad anti-American, doesn't it? That said, there is some imprecision in the terminology being used here. What are referred to as "meritocratic ruling elites" should really be called technocrats, who are the true successors to Douthat's governing WASPs. We are told that the complexity of the modern world requires those with technical expertise at the helm to keep things on keel. But, as one commenter pointed out, that narrative is belied by financial crisis of 2008 (brought to us by finance wizards) and the debacle of the Iraq War (by foreign affairs experts), as well as the destabilization brought about by Big Tech.
18
@Dialoguer Some people are indeed worth more than others. Failure to discriminate among job applicants, for example, leads to incompetence
1
@Dialoguer Well said, bravo! (or brava, not sure since I do no know your sex/gender)
You cannot talk about ‘meritocracy’ in a country that is at the bottom of the OECD in terms of socio-economic mobility....
14
An interesting dialectic and a recovery of an interesting novel I suspect few have heard of. The long quote from the novel reads a bit like a distillation and extension of the thought of Walter Lippmann and his call for expert governance as the complexities of modern industrial life were far to complicated for the hoi polloi to understand. The classic counter to Lippmann was John Dewey and his call for pragmatic, experiential learning and the reconstruction of a true public. But that's "ancient history" of nearly a century ago. Yet still that juxtaposition of Lippmann and Dewey has merit. Only it's not so much industrial society that creates the masters of the universe today but financial society. And the then holy economic belief system of laissez faire, until overthrown by the Keynesian meritocrats of the FDR administration (by the way, FDR being the first statesman Douthat seeks in his last sentence), has been replaced by the neoliberalism emerging from M. Friedman et al. where, as one of it's first implementers (M. Thatcher) said, there is no such thing as society, only the individual/family, and the only alternative was creating a new man of economic striving alone. Neoliberalism worked for a while, but the rising populism, particularly the resentful crypto-fascist populism, is due to the failure of markets to substitute for democracy. That's the rub that "such a statesman" as we need will need to figure out.
8
It's a strange idea, to think that only book-learning would be the best way of learning.
How arrogant to think that a society can exist on computer scientists alone, but not electricians or manufacturers. Engineers, but not construction workers or landscapers. Designers, but not tailors or furniture manufacturers. Everyone has their place in society, everyone has a function in society, because without any one group society collapses.
I think the true meaning of these ideas is forgetting value. Every person has value. Every being has value. Everybody has something to contribute to society, to change it in a positive way.
I think that when people forget this basic fact bad things happen. When people come together, put aside their pride, and recognize the positive contributions of others, then great things will come.
6
On some level, most legislators and executives should have both training and talent in law or economics or the relevant engineering discipline for their profession. There is simply no substitute for genuine expertise at the highest levels of a system. The issue underneath the frequently catastrophic decision-making by "experts" is that a good engineer, lawmaker or applied economist has a ton of empathy and a sense of caution - the ability to "game out" how a product or policy will interact with other features of society and thus how it will, over both the short run and the long run, affect people.
If empathy and the courage to regularly act on it were rewarded as people "climbed up the ladder", the decisions made by technocrats would not only be better, they would carry more credibility with almost all segments of the public.
1
As for the meritocracy producing a statesman, consider, for just a moment, Barack Obama. Oh, sorry. I forgot who I am talking to. Well, here's another approach. On the subject of understanding meritocracy, consider Mr. Douthat's grasp of that concept in light of the well-known Dunning-Kruger effect. While we're at it, toss in the concept of populism as well.
2
The west is at an impasse because of the so-called conservatives who are out to roll back the last 1000 years of greatness so that a few of them can run the show again, like it was during the early feudal era.
5
@rjb Exactly wrong. My tea party brethren would reduce and flatten government at the Federal level as we see it as a Levithan. More Jefferson, less Hamilton
1
you got that backwards. without a strong and good government, American culture will disintegrate in the coming upheavals that are now inevitable. Inevitable because of foolish policies supported by conservatives and know-nothings like the Tea Party. Hamilton did a lot of lasting good for the country, Jefferson was great in his own way but he supported partisan bickering and calumny as vital tools of democracy. in his later years, he wised up. Jefferson is the one who can always be counted on for a good quote, no matter what your opinion. during his lifetime he was accused of lacking backbone. he ran away from the British. Hamilton ran towards them.
@Douglas. one of the distinguishing marks of a third-world country is lousy government. not just corrupt government, but lousy, poorly run because of lack of funding. government that does less is found in these kinds of countries because money goes to the upper classes instead. this is the effect of your desire to shrink the Leviathan, a term from a book by Hobbes published in 1651. guess what? that was three and a half centuries ago. why don't you use Astrology. it's more accurate because it's even older.
Quite the cherry-pick by Douthat. Find a sixty year old book that give the simplistic, but wrong, answer you’re looking for and voila! In the real world, and maybe Douthat will join us here some day, those left behind, while the best and brightest moved up in the world through hard work and ambition, are not organizing themselves to protest what the right snarkily calls the elites. They are being used by the one percent, the actual elites, to fight their factional battles. Fox Fake News and right-wing radio and websites rally the left behind using cheap psychology obvious to anyone with enough education. The real problem is that the wealthy heirs of industrious, meritocratic achievers, think Koch brothers and Waltons, don’t want anyone displacing them at the top. The so-called populist revolts are top down, not bottom up.
10
@Renee Margolin
you're so wedded to your resentments that you don't realize that Douthat actually agrees with you.
I have always been amused that the term "meritocracy," originally intended as satire, was so quickly adopted in earnest. This says something about this arrogance and cluelessness of our "meritocratic" elite--not to mention their lack of a sense of humor.
4
You should listen to Alfred Dolittle of Shaw's Pygmalion, who speaks of the "Undeserving poor," by which he means, the poor who deserve to be poor because they are undeserving.
The other side of the coin is the deserving rich, who have been identified as worthy by the universities who magically identify the leaders and tomorrow's rich.
This idea goes back to the Sword in the Stone, when Arthur easily pulls out the sword where so many others have failed. In this tale is the idea of destiny for success and leadership which justified aristocracy and royalty as the "select." We have ceded this judgment to the academy and the corporation--no longer to God.
Meritocracy is dead. Long live aristocracy. At least in that climate, if you're poor, it wasn't your fault; you were just born that way.
2
Douthat seems to want to use a "both sides" argument here to blame everyone for the impasse, but it seems to me that the central Catch-22 for the "elitists" is that they (we) are generally right: Brexit is going to be a disaster, and the Trump presidency is so deeply mired in corruption as to be a threat to the Constitution and our entire democracy (not to mention what it's done to public discourse). But if we state these facts, we're know-it-all snobs who look down at the people who caused this mess. Yes, we should try to understand their grievances and how we can move forward productively together, but if it sounds like we're saying "We told you so," it's because we did.
7
@Kate, we :elites" should be able to proclaim the truths you state because they are clearly true. Both Brexit and trumpism are "stunning" because it was and is a shock that a tiny minority has been empowered to change our fates, perhaps forever. Brexit--a 3.8% difference out of 30 million votes. It's amazing to me that a referendum of this import was allowed to pass with a simple majority. In CA, we can't pass a parcel tax without over 60% yes vote! As far as USA 2016, well, 80,000 votes in a handful of precincts in 3 states in a country as vast as the USA should have been enough to make even a "believer" skeptical. One would have hoped for an investigation, though for some reason, this was blindly accepted and here we are. In neither case is the result even close to a mandate. In both cases the effect is disastrous.
3
For the first time, I pretty much agree with the gist of your column. I am stunned to find that you are expressing some of the thoughts and concerns that have been occupying my mind ever since I saw a faux-populist win and now maintain and personally milk the Presidency with his deceptions and demagoguery. I was raised in a suburban middle class family with a father who worked in middle management at General Motors. Although we did not socialize much outside our class, we interacted and connected with both the country club set/top executives and the assembly workers at my father's plant because many of both groups lived in our surrounding neighborhood and most sent their children to the neighborhood public or Catholic parish schools. Of course, this era wasn't perfect, as racism and sexism permeated every aspect of society. My late father who had an engineering degree blamed rising income inequality on the elevation of the MBA and its extreme inflation of salaries for top management. Although I don't fully understand the numerous causes behind today's extreme social fragmentation, I see and feel this fragmentation's dire effects on our society. With a commitment to widening the social safety net for the excluded, I hope that both meritocrats and populists will be able to recognize and support the much needed statesperson (not just man!) you describe.
4
What Mr Douthat misses--at least in American populism--is the role of plutocratic money. The network of think tanks and media outlets funded by the shadowy network described by Jane Mayer in "Dark Money" is one of the primary drivers of American populism, stoking both the rage and many of the incoherent policy agendas. To naturalize populism as some organic, unmediated expression of those left out economically and intellectually by globalization is a serious oversight.
9
Yeah, but these self-proclaimed elitists couldn't change a light bulb; at least, not without first forming a committee. They're great with garbage-in, garbage out spreadsheets however.
2
It is only quite recently that intelligence - SAT-type intelligence, book-learnin' - has become the be-all and end-all of merit and success. For most of human history it has been just one quality of many contributing to the outcome of one's life. And it will probably return to that diminished role fairly soon, as AI becomes commonplace and cheap. Who needs a $100K Rhodes scholar when a $200 desktop "assistant" can give you the same analytics and advice? And beyond that, when an attractive, personable, high-energy/low-intellect individual can get a chip implanted that will give them 800-SAT capability? Raw inborn intelligence may one day be no more important to success in life than sheer physical strength is now.
5
Meritocracy was a good idea and far better than the incumbent oligarchy it replaced. But it has --no surprise-- been captured by the moneyed interests. Skillfully. Patriotism and its ugly cousin 'nationalism' have been stoked by mind boggling successes over decades if not centuries. During that time aristocratic beneficiaries of the system were replaced by the wealthy--corporate and individual. Skillfully because there is enough meritocracy in the system to allow escape from under classes into the elite to perpetuate rags to riches mythologies. But in their greed, vested interests are closing down bootstraps success in the US and exacerbating the income distribution gap.
Only when opportunities are evened out, the skewing of income distributions reversed and baseline social safety nets guaranteed will the US and the West begin to realize its potential and authoritarian populism cease to be considered a viable alternative.
The system we have now in the US is a self fulfilling prophecy of decline and will continue so as long as the rich monopolize wealth and opportunities.
Today's evolving meritocracy is more like the beneficiaries selling the rope for the hangings until no one and nothing worth preserving are left...proving that dialectical materialism is also evolving.
14
@Chris Parel
Brilliant analysis, hit the nail on the head. The "Rags to Riches", the child of parents working sweatshop labor in Chinatown in NYC who ends up a Harvard doctor is put out as 'proof' the meritocracy works, meanwhile those stories represent a tiny percent of people in this country, most of those who end up at the top level 'elite' are people who came from that level. Take a look at Trump nation, who point to 'their' president and say "he is proof you can achieve anything, he is a self made billionaire" (meanwhile, dad basically gave him almost 500 million dollars, some rags, huh?).
The GOP has used this to get the blue collar base to vote for them, for example with tax cuts for the rich, they tell their base "someday, your gonna be rich and you won't want to pay for everyone else" and the base falls for this. When people point out the concentration of wealth in the elite, this inbred class of the .5%, the GOP cries "class warfare" and the blue collar populists yell "class warfare, you are jealous"...and then are angry when their ship doesn't come in, when they realize, not that more and more people are moving up the ladder, bust most people are moving backward while a tiny elite gets more and more gorged- but rather than admit that they were wrong, they blame it on liberals and immigrants and the like, fed by Faux news.
Meritocracy seeks to portray our rulers as disinterested intellectuals and technocrats. In reality it is all about interests, property and privilege.
7
The danger in reading predictions from 70 years past is that a few things might have happened in the interim. Meritocracy is not new, nor is the managerial class. What is new is the rise of algorithmic intelligence. Donald Trump is the first 'algorithmic president', elected, in large part, because the old human newspaper editors, who in years past would have laughed his bid off the page, had been replaced by poorly penned algorithms. That was the sine qua non of his election. In 1950 machines had automated mechanical tasks like bottling beer, formerly done by humans. In 2018 the story is that machines are automating thought tasks, like deciding what news stories are important formerly done by humans. That is what is different, and it isn't a problem for the 'West', it is a problem for humans.
15
No matter which way you want to frame it, we're overdue for a reset in this country. It's coming, sooner than we know.
There are a lot more of 'us' than there is of 'them'.
And most of us are not too happy right now with the way things are going.
The largest mistake made was not keeping the populace well or better educated (& skilled) over the past 40 years.
The 'only' thing the proletariat knows of today is guns, (American pitchforks).
Big words do not work anymore and are meaningless to the downtrodden masses, like this article.
8
You don’t have to be Karl Marx to agree with Warren Buffett when he said: “There's class warfare, all right, but it's my class, the rich class, that's making war, and we're winning.”
We will never find working solutions to the impasse between meritocracy and populism until we own up to things as they are rather than looking for a statesman in shining armor.
9
@KM
The thing about Warren Buffett is that he doesn't believe it's fair that his secretary pays a much higher % of her yearly earnings in taxes than he does. He's very aware that his side is 'winning,' and he's one of the few billionaires who think that might not be such a great thing.
But, when it comes down to it, he doesn't see himself as an American, he sees himself as a Businessman. Maximizing profit, maximizing shareholder value--that's all he's interested in. Now, he, Bezos and Dimon are trying to create their own health care system because our government has been so weakened by forty years of trickle down voo-doo Reaganomics that the billionaires running our medical industrial complex have been freed to ravage us all--costing other billionaires way too much money in health care premiums for their employees.
Billionaires fighting billionaires. So weird.
I didn't think Bernie Sanders should run again--as the 'evil messenger' bringing the bad news of our income inequality problem to the masses, he's just disliked by too many. I thought he should pass the baton off to a younger Democrat with the same message but no baggage.
But, these days, I think it has to be either gruff old straight-talking Bernie or some old man Democrat Billionaire like Bloomberg.
@CF
Agree with the new generation idea. My one concern is the younger political crowd may not have the depth of understanding and stamina required to mount a serious challenge to the donor class. That said, can't agree with the idea that billionaires fighting billionaires is weird, precisely because you are right that Buffett first and foremost sees himself as a businessman and will compete to expand his share of the corporate pie wherever that leads him...
@KM, And it's never called a 'class war' until the lower classes revolt.
1
Ross' analysis is interesting, to be sure, but I still wonder to what extent this could be subverted by going back to a New Deal type economic regime rather than the vulture capitalist one that has obtained over the last several decades.
I seem to remember, the general anti-intellectual tradition of our great nation notwithstanding, that expertise was not frowned upon in the aftermath of the Great Depression; it was actually aspired to, and having experts in positions of influence was not looked upon as a plot to exploit everyone else.
Of course, that was because the experts who made a lot of money at it had to give up a lot more of it in taxes and the legislative infrastructure did not support subverting that to anywhere near the degree it does now (which includes the overbearing influence of rich people in our election process-- self-perpetuating a cycle of increasing wealth concentration).
Despite the whole corporations-are-people shibboleth, actual people made these decisions, and/or allowed them to be made. People can unmake them, too. They can elect representatives who could legislate greater fairness and more resource equality; they can turn a more critical eye on and regulate misinformation/propaganda. Determined people can effect change. Indeed, they're the only force that ever has.
Both meritocrats and populists know this; the question is can they resist the tendency to treat all as a zero-sum game, and reject that Social Dariwinist/Calvinist mindset.
9
It looks as though we are living at an impasse where this so decanted democracy is unable to break loose from it's deep inequality ('proper' only in a capitalistic society, where capital always trumps labor), where the opportunities in life depend on who your parents are and where you were born, and the access you had for family support and elite education... the 'masses' can only dream of. Otherwise, how to explain the current segregation of Housing, Education, Health and Jobs? Aside from our current vile and vulgar bully in-chief's faux populism, we are witnessing a similar attitude in France (as an example) when elitism forgets that 'a chain is only as strong as it's weakest link' (the disenfranchised, the forgotten, the one's left behind...but made to pay the excesses of those 'incorporated'). Can't we see that, unless we are willing to allow justice to shine, by sharing the economic pie more equitably, we are doomed?
8
Statesmanship. That lofty word cropped up at the end of this interesting piece.
No administration has ever debased and mocked the talent and art of statesmanship more than Trump’s band of scornful liars. The bank of institutional knowledge at agencies such as the State Department and the EPA, for example, has been gutted. People who know nothing about everything are in charge of so many parts of this government it is frightening.
Statesmanship is a process. Practitioners know things. They must have read, studied, visited, observed, and deeply researched the issues and have a sound understanding of the history, nuances and players involved in circumstances around the globe which require solutions grounded in experience, cooperation and intelligence (both kinds).
Populism is much more emotional, much more a spontaneous venting of pent-up grievances, real and imagined. The goals of modern populists seem so scattershot that the people they are trying to win over struggle to grasp their priorities because, it seems, they have thousands and the order of importance changes daily. Occupy Wall Street made many sound points, and had they been able to coherently prioritize them and formulate an intelligent game plan they may have survived.
Alas, passion must be supported by statesmanship. Income inequality, the lack of focus on white collar crime and corporate greed were all meaningful issues. But the kind of folks who know how to structure progress were in short supply.
4
Douthat has the right diagnosis but aims at too wide a target. The basic problem in the US is a relatively narrow elite, not the well or overeducated but rather an undereducated weatlhy elite. This particular elite has lost any sense of social obligation that was more prevalent in the wealthy elite of the past and is acting more like the 18th century French aristocracy: conspicuous consumption and controlling laws for their own benefit.
13
@serban You are correct. I taught high school for 30 years in poor school district in the central valley of California. Trust me, every parent wants their child to be educated and successful no matter how poor their own circumstances. But those educated and successful children will never be the “elite” painted with this broad brush.
2
"Just because you're intelligent doesn't make you smart." The common people have rebelled against meritocracy because while they may have been the smartest people in the room, our so-called elites have generated some truly epic smash-ups. Consider, for example, all the brilliant people who said we didn't need a wall between commercial banking and investment banking (apparently this generation was so much smarter than the generation that put Glass-Steagall in place following the '29 Crash and the Great Depression). Or those who said NAFTA and bringing China into the WTO would generate prosperity for all rather than destroying American blue-collar families that had previously enjoyed a middle-class standard of living. Or the great minds from both political parties who responded to 9/11 by destroying Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya and yet have not brought us one step closer to curbing Islamic terrorism after seventeen continuous years of war. Those three examples are just off the top of my head; I'm sure you can think of others. Bottom line: there is no such thing as a meritocratic elite that will lead us into the promised land. Everyone has strengths and weaknesses and to pretend otherwise is to ignore both human nature and thousands of years of recorded history. I trust myself and the people I've chosen to have closest to me and suggest you do likewise in your journey through life.
17
A lot of what you’re claiming about trade is wrong—but as somebody who’s got a PhD (and we all know what the initials really stand for), I do often say that if you want things truly fouled up, get somebody with a doctorate.
Ordinary people just don’t have the background and training to come up with the truly astonishing, sophisticated idiocies, let alone the brilliant explanations of why the resulting disasters are really successes.
3
@Robert What did I get wrong about trade? And how would you frame your explanation to the person who lost their manufacturing job at the age of 50 and now just scrapes on a part-time Walmart gig?
2
@Earl W. Allow me to respond: "those who said NAFTA and bringing China into the WTO would generate prosperity for all" is a mis-characterization of the widely-accepted economic theory that free trade is - overall - good for nations, but the benefits are not necessarily evenly spread. Trade with China brought most of us cheap consumer goods from Walmart and low interest rates on our mortgages, but cost many manufacturing workers their jobs. Our failure was in providing government support to that minority of citizens.
I fully realize that what I am about to suggest plays directly into Mr. Douthat's arguments about arrogance and elitism, but I'm going to suggest it anyways because I believe it to be true and backed up by empirical, observable evidence.
That is: meritocracy isn't the problem, but instead it's those who believe they should be at the top of a meritocratic system but aren't because they really do not have the expertise, ethos, or, simply, merit, to be there. Thus, they lash out at what they perceive to be unfair systems or outside groups...because it couldn't possibly be their intransigence, unwillingness to learn new skills, willful ignorance of science, cultural animosity, or anything else. See the virulent strain of anti-intellectualism that has infected rural America and threatens the future of our world over climate change denial and rabidly consumes and promulgates fake news. President Trump is, of course, Exhibit A, but his base is equally guilty.
All of this underscores the urgency of restoring a more balanced class and wealth spectrum in our country: populists, and the snake-oil salesmen Mr. Douthat writes about, thrive among the destitute and impoverished. Restoring more livable middle-class wages and improving public education will give us a populace that is smart enough to reject populist demagogues and won't make rash decisions out of economic hardship.
Then again, the GOP wants even more money in the hands of the rich, so I'm not holding my breath.
17
Yep. Not to mention that there’re two things Douthat isn’t going to want to mention...that there’s a vested interest in keeping consumers dumbed down and angry so that they’ll go buy stuff to stop up the holes in their lives, and that somebody who’s always lecturing about Catholic values really needs to take a good sharp look at the Church’s little probs with meritocracy and populism.
5
Actually, Exhibit A is the current incarnation of the liberal...we...progressive...er... whatever it is that they are calling themselves these days to evade having to take responsibility for the disasters the have created.
They are the ones doing the bleating and shrieking since Hillary lost the election that was hers to lose.
The past two years, we've had a steady torrent of ad hominem attacks and pontifications as to how poorly the other side is handling the issues of important to our people. The constant subtext is that only the enlightened and "woke" liberal is can lable of leadership and governance.
If that isn't an exclusive, elitist message, I tremble in fear over what the liberal thinks "elitism" might really be!
@The Owl
"Take responsibility for disasters the have created?"
Which are those? The ACA?
You can go on all you like about how you think liberals aren't capable of governance, but I think a pretty baseline comparison of Trump's level of governance versus Obama's (or, for that matter, Bill Clinton's versus either Bush) would speak for itself.
And for what it's worth, I didn't mention Hillary or losing the election - you did. Then again, projection is the current Republican special du jour.
Meritocracy and populism aren’t the problem but corporatize control of everything is! Humans are tired of seeing this Roland water and air polluted because thenpolluters can afford to buy governments. There is no meritocracy there. It’s criminality.
For god’s sake Trump is president because big business wanted him there and his nasty tax policies have passed because as Lindsey Gramham told us THE BIG DONORS WANTED IT.
BIG MONEY has destroyed our democracy. Frankly, Ross It’s people like you who helped.
37
Like the religious, (ahem) populists gain power by lies and providing simplistic "solutions" to complicated concepts/problems.
Like religion, ALL of them Ross, populism relies on gullibility, stupidity, and the exploitation of the human traits of "righteous punishment" scorn, scapegoating, and in group/out group thinking. All in all both are a distillation and exploitation of the very worst aspects of humanity.
And it is why both populism and religion always result in misery and waste at every level. The only dff between them is religion relies on more "magical" thinking.
5
@David Anderson This reply also goes to Justice Holmes: Three pillars of the GOP have brought American democracy to its knees: the gunsuckers, the Bible thumpers and the Wall Street money grubbers. None of those three care about the others, but they all reliably vote Republican in large-enough numbers to control our government on all levels, federal, state and local. They have the ethics of bacteria.
8
Try as Young might, he could not satirize the self-congratulatory meritocratic editorials and comments in the Times. They are beyond satire, beyond parody.
3
In our country, the formation of our ruling class is determined by how well one has done on the SATs and whether one can, therefore, be admitted to an Ivy League University.
If we are choosing our ruling class on the basis of one's accomplishments at age 17, I would rather be governed (in the future) by that 17 year old who is taking care of his/her parents, working to help provide for the household, and still finds time to volunteer at a soup kitchen that the 17 year old whose primary accomplishment is a perfect SAT score.
7
Actually, SAT scores don’t weigh that much any more. And you’ll be glad to know that there’s a thriving trade in helping applicants write touching essays about their struggles and community service.
5
To expound on a point that reader "jdc" from MInnesota makes: the statesman you describe, almost to a T, is FDR. who truly "welded populism's motley grievances into a new agenda suited for the times, to manifest an elitism that is magnanimous instead of arrogant." This a perfect depiction of Roosevelt's political achievement, and of course, he was an aristocrat.
Conservatives still haven't entirely swallowed the New Deal so this instinctively fills them with fear. The closest thing we've had to an FDR since was Reagan, who with help from the Democrats, was able to turn the consensus the other way.
Students of American history will note the roughly 50 year cycle as economic policy has turned towards supply then demand. Even some of them have forgotten that this happened in the 19th century too. Current moneyed elites would do well to study that era and its history of populist debt "reform" and accompanying monetary devaluation, also noting the mountain of student debt that is piling up right now.
The US has faced crises before, including many seemingly existential economic crises that have mostly faded from memory, and barely feature in history books. The open question is whether the American political system and its voters are still capable of adapting to the times, as they (eventually) have in the past. Within a decade, 70% of the Senate will represent aging, rural states containing just 30% of the population, and the average voter will be 11 years older than in 1930.
7
Your columns get better with each appearance. Seriously -- way above the surrounding daily drivel of manufactured mini-issues. Thank you and keep going.
4
As often happens, Ross has his own view of history. For instance, he says: “In the British version the forces of populism won a stunning victory in the Brexit referendum” This stunning victory was by roughly 1/3 of the population, with almost 1/3 opposed and the rest indifferent. This was not a populist victory, but a propaganda victory based upon false depictions of Brexit.
The same is true of Trump. A propaganda victory aided in this case by a disinformation machine of dazzling competence, not seen since Goebbels and the rise of Fascism. Some 40% of voters caught in a spiderweb of Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, Alex Jones and rabid fundamentalism. And Facebook, Instagram, YouTube manipulation. And Trump tweets.
Couching these disasters in talk of “meritocracy” is misdirection of giant proportions.
43
@John Brews ..✅✅. it may well be that Brexit and the French yellow vests have been prompted by the same sort of cabal you describe. (except the trump tweets which, alas, are exclusively "owned by" the USA) The social media input from Russia may loom large in all three. This then should be the focus of discussion, not the vagueries of a meritocracy.
2
My problem with meritocracy isn't because some people are more successful than others, it is because of the outsized rewards given to the people at the top, at the expense of those in the middle.
The hollowing out of the middle class isn't a myth, it's a fact. Those who manage to claw their way to the top are acting, and being compensated like they're the only ones who matter.
I take a hint from the movement to advance women and its fixation with leadership, as if nothing else matters. Most women (or men!) can't be leaders because to be a leader, you need followers. Yet we act like if you aren't a leader, you're a loser.
I have no problem with people who are more dedicated and skilled getting more than others, but there is a matter of scale and perception. The idea that leadership in and of itself is more valuable than other skills and contributions is creating at least some of the problems we as a society face today. After all, if we're all leaders or losers, who are you going to lead? A bunch of losers?
11
More meritocratic rhetoric from on high? Thanks again, Mr. Douthat.
1
Very efficient summary of the times we live in.
2
well, for sure, we lack statesmanship in our current administration. As Douthat implies: their all crooks. We have the meritocracy to succeed. Lot's of smart folks that have solutions for are many problems unfortunately our Neanderthalic populists are fearful of a future/present that is leaving them in its wake. What to do: educate those that seek it. The others: flotsam.
1
Politics isn't binary. The public isn't choosing between meritocracy and populism alone. Douthat seems simplistic in trying to force the real world into 2-dimensional relief. He's trying to put the Z-axis onto an X-and-Y graph. The analysis reads like some monologue from an Ayn Rand novel. That's not how the real world works.
I'll agree Trump is a complete con and the populism he supposedly represents is leaderless and incoherent. Trump is not a leader and his base was rejecting Clinton more than they were promoting an agenda. In the resulting vacuum, business elites and opportunists have spent their time pillaging the nation.
However, socially popular initiatives are not inherently incoherent. The socially oriented movement ignited by Sanders is organizing a coherent policy platform. Democratic socialism isn't winning many elections but the movement is shifting the policy priorities of that disdained meritocratic neoliberal elite. As you might notice, there aren't any burning cars just yet.
Populist revolts are inherently different from a socialist oriented political program. Socialism is by definition un-meritocratic. More accurately though, you might say democratic socialism is either anti-plutocratic or anti-oligarchic. That doesn't make the movement populist.
However, if you see plutocrats behaving like Wisconsin politicians, you can reasonably expect revolts in addition to the social platform. Social unrest is the outward manifestation of unresponsive government.
120
@Andy
Socialism and merit do not have to be mutually exclusive.
People find meaning in work, especially work they are good at. We need to stop only rewarding the top performers, and reward everyone who has merit. Our obsession with worshipping the cream of the crop encourages manipulation of the system by cheaters.
There are far too many people getting billions for cheating while those that actually make the world run are told to fight for scraps.
Socialism merely means that we put social relations over economic relations and machinery. Capitalism doesn't require humans. Computers can trade and robots can build, and they can fire all of the humans and let us starve and markets would soar.
But robots don't have social relations and they don't have democracy, and they don't love their children, their country and their earth.
We should not be taxing the work of humans at a higher rate than the work of machines. We shouldn't be paying the owners of the machines more than the people that run them.
Every human has skills that they can contribute. If we stopped telling people what they can do, and started asking them what they wanted to do, there would be a lot more merit going on.
Look at the millions of socially inept mathematical geniuses through history who could have done calculations at blinding speed, if we had not killed them or let them starve because they were different or a burden on society.
Merit falls apart when it is used to exclude.
5
I'd suggest Tailspin by Stephen Brilll as an in-depth examination of the way that meritocracy has produced a class of 'leaders' smarter than those supposed to regulate them, leading to the succesful overpowering of regulation in the public interest.l
What one never reads in discussion of 'populism' however, is its relationship to rising corporate influence, which has the power to buy or influence democratic representatives, or bribe autocrats which in both cases leads to a selling out of ordinary citizens.
8
@Peter Coyote ... did read it; yes, quite good.
1
Good column. And, as Douthat implies, there are no statesmen or stateswomen among the dozens of Democrat "hopefuls."
Of course, few are willing to say that these hopefuls have no statesman clothes. Nor will they be described -- as were the Republican hopefuls in 2016 -- as a carful (or two) of clowns. But that's what they are.
4
I will answer Douthat's final question with an emphatic NO! Populism, at the least the angry irrational kind, can not produce a statesman because anger is not the same thing as policy. Any given policy has winners and losers by definition, whether it is crafted by the aristocracy, the elite, or the first two hundred names in the Boston phonebook. There is no such thing as the "right" policy merely one that most people can grudginly accept. The job of a statesman is to find the best balance possible which necessarily involves the exact opposite skill set most associated with populism, righteous indignation.
We see the distinction clearly with Trump. Trump's supporters honestly don't care if they win on any policy issue as long as no one else "wins" either. They don't care if the border wall is built or not, as long as we don't give dreamers a path to citizenship. It's deeply cynical and deeply corrosive and Trump actually understands his populist base well.
Macron is trying to balance vastly different interests in an almost impossible circumstance. His reforms are generally painful and probably necessary for France in the long term, but profoundly unpopular with France's less than fully productive work force. It's not clear how Macron, or any one else for that matter, can bridge that gap.
4
Ross, don't be so quick to write off Jupiter...I mean Macron.
He was elected to serve for 5 years and as he said, "There are no mid-terms". His changes to employment, taxes, and pensions are essential and part of a strategy to make them sustainable. Even the political right supports the social contract in France. It's more a question of how to fund it. You can't provide more services on less revenue. The violence we saw in Paris is partly the result of casseurs (the "breakers" who love the opportunity any protest provides to smash shop windows, torch cars, and deface property) and the anarchists (from the far left and right) who infiltrated the legitimate protests of the yellow vests...their version of demolishing the administrative state. The wage concessions Macron promised will cost 8-10 billion. Unless I'm mistaken, the rich (and big business) in America want reduced taxes and reduced (or eliminated) social programs. Trump is just a different version of a Republican being a Republican.
In general, the old elite in Britain may have gone to Oxford or Cambridge but rarely left with a degree or a prfession. Brexiteer, Boris Johnson, is a good example of an elite buffoon who, you might remember, hid out playing tennis at a friend's country house instead of facing the public to explain what happened to the promises about Brexit. Now he wants to be Prime Minister.
Is philosopher king one of your options? Be careful what you wish for.
10
What we have today is a fight between those who believe people are all connected and those who don't. The former understand that they cannot secure a life worth living without caring about others and acting on those cares. The latter think that by acquiring more (money, power, sexual conquests) their lives will have meaning.
The elitist/populist dichotomy breaks down. There are people with elite minds and capacity who are motivated by the common good. There are others who take their talents as signs they are meant to have more. There are similarly populists who want for all and those who want for themselves or those like them.
This way of looking at the world is more useful (both personally and from the standpoint of understanding what is happening in our society) than Ross' formulation. What will it be - "God" (all of us) or mammon (me, myself and I)?
6
It's disappointing that Ross doesn't consider the position occupied by Obama. He clearly came from the disadvantaged classes, and rose from the masses on the basis of merit to an elite education and then some.
As President he kept the interest of the masses in mind - Obamacare being only the most salient example.
If we can get rid of the phony populist who now occupies the White House, we will elect someone who will prioritize the needs of the general populace. So far, the leading Democratic candidates all seem to favor that approach.
11
@Charley Darwin
Thanks, Charley. I’ll just add that under Obama all the policies that would have helped pull working people toward a better future we’re cynically blocked by Republicans and their running dogs in the media. Examples include greater economic stimulus through fiscal policy, a better version of Obamacare, and improvements in infrastructure. But for Republican obstruction, things could be much better now.
And Charley - Loved your work in the Galapagos. It explains a lot. Keep it up.
5
Ross Douthat,
The so called conservative intellectuals are just caricatures as long as they don’t want to see and realize that meritocracy isn’t the problem BUT the accrual of all the benefits by a rigged tax system to themselves leaving out a majority of people with peanuts IS THE ISSUE. The right in America has created a rigged system to benefit the wealthy donor class and the upper middle income meritocratic moochers while giving their voters the means to rage against the immigrants and straw men.
This demagoguery is destroying the nation because all the GOP and the con-man do is exploit the rage of their voters without solving their issue. How long can this con last? As it is the GOP has won the popular vote just once since 1988(by one state in 2004) and the con-man list by 3 million votes ONLY to be selected by the Slavery era EC. How long can voter suppression, gerrymandering and Slavery era EC sustain this elaborate charade on its own people to get power ONLY to pass tax cuts for the rich?
People are stupid but just enough catches on to the game and they become disillusioned with the ruling class because the other party can deliver only so much Despite active opposition from the GOP to deliver something to the people. The GOP wants to keep the people uneducated, without access to healthcare trumpeting individualism while gaming the system to benefit the wealthy. How can the mass without education or connection ever become successful based on individualism alone?
4
And in place of meritocracy, you want what? A return to rule by people with the "right pedigree"? Back in the day, the right pedigree didn't include Catholics, or have you forgotten?
3
It's not a stalemate. Now that the Common Man is in overabundance and less needed for labor, they will no longer be invested in or maintained. I suspect that we will see a less-dramatic version of what happened to the large population of horses in America when the car rendered them unnecessary. https://thetyee.ca/News/2013/03/06/Horse-Dung-Big-Shift/
3
Not bad but, Ross, as usual, leaves out the crux of the matter. Trump's "populism" is a coalition of xenophobic racists, anti-regulation corporate interests, kleptocrats foreign and domestic, conspiracy-mongers, climate change deniers, truth-slayers, single-issue voters (abortion, gun rights) and deplorable members of the US Congress. Hail Meritocracy! Long may it prosper.
6
'That’s what statesmanship is for — to bridge gaps between complacent winners and angry losers, to weld populism’s motley grievances into a new agenda suited for the times, to manifest an elitism that is magnanimous instead of arrogant'.
You might wish to erase the word 'motley'. It can be misinterpreted in a variety of ways, and whether a populist or a royalist, sensitivity among classes is at an all-time high. Not all royalists are rich, and not all populists are poor, and this reader has yet to meet a 'complacent' winner, with the exception of life-term rulers in lawless countries, parading as democracies.
'But can the system we have really produce such a statesman? The next one we find will be the first'.
We have. His name is Barack Obama, our 44th president and possibly our last true one. Give it some further thought, Mr. Douthat, and read 'Luc and his Father' where Gallant offers a little wit to gap our differences from across the bridge. There is a Jesuit priest in this anecdote who comes right to the point.
7
Whatever we may have thought meritocracy once meant – it ain’t no more.
On the surface, meritocracy once contained strains of nobility and religious certitude – the Calvinist DNA in the American character that said merit and success were signs of preordained divine selection. And in the secular version of that story, the playing field was level and the divine became Emerson’s self-reliance and Kipling’s ode to meritocracy, “If”:
“If you can…[then]
Yours is the Earth and everything that's in it,
And- -which is more- -you'll be a Man, my son!”
Ah, those good old days when we could count on our myths to sustain us – before we could see right through their flimsy curtains.
But today “meritocracy” takes place in a Darwinian jungle. Oh sure, conservatives still worship the idea of a Burkean natural moral order, but even they admit that when they come out of that church they are winking at each other. Those who game the system win. Rules are for suckers. No one who succeeds is held accountable for how they attained their success – at worst you have to pay a token fine, or pay someone off. That’s what lawyers are for; they grease the wheels of what we call meritocracy. The levelness of the playing field depends on what perspective of privilege you view it from.
No wonder the populists are upset – they haven’t “earned” anything.
4
This is a fraudulent argument.
Whether a society has a "nobility" class or an elite "meritocratic" class (our "defacto" nobility), people that have inherited wealth/power, superior abilities, talent and intellect are going to end up running the show.
What we have now, as you even acknowledge, is a "fake" populist with inherited wealth who ascended to power because he was able to exploit the ignorance and social fissures of a significant swath of populists.
This has absolutely nothing to do with "meritocracy" circularly reinforcing it's own faults, it was simply a con job.
Meritocracy of course is going to result in it's own expressions of vanity and self indulgence, but that doesn't preclude it from being a viable means of governing.
Meritocrats are going to come in all shapes and sizes, just like everybody else. Some have the "common good" at heart, some don't.
But at the end of the day, "somebody" has to run things.
Would you prefer the people who believe the news coming from Russian troll bots to run the government?
The next time you step onto an aircraft to fly to California, would you prefer a "meritocrat" as your pilot or a bus driver for your local school system?
I reject the notion that "meritocracy" is something inherently defective or an ironic "reinforcement" of "populism's" faults.
7
Now a days two terms, all the time clouds my conscious thinking - "intelligent" and "populist". Who is this intelligent entity in our society and who determines their status. Definitely it is obtained at birth and your family can give it as family gift. So why this intelligent have special status in a world where most of the people are ordinary and do real world staff and not considered as intelligent. The second word populist are those charlatans who can fool most of the people all the time. How they fool the people is historical tricks - telling lies. In this case there is no new innovation - 5000 years history had many examples of these populists. So stupidity of West to depend on these elites to guide them to the utopia will definitely be a failed project - do not expect a surprise.
2
Who was our last "statesman" president?
FDR seems to qualify, despite modern Republican vilification for much of what Roosevelt accomplished. The modern GOP flirtation with the alt-right can even be seen as turning its back on the winning of WWII. Reagan? He wouldn't be allowed to grace the truck door of dogcatcher these days. Bush 41? Still no cigar.
Lincoln, of course, but with Republican fingers crossed and the same dogcatcher caveat. That takes us back to Madison, Adams, Jefferson... though the lens of history has of late magnified their warts more than it has limned their accomplishments.
Finally we come to George Washington. If it just were not for that pesky little fact of buying and selling human beings. Still, even with that, Washington qualifies, giving us a grand total of two flawed human beings that we can, more or less, hold forth as true statesmen.
So the last statesman was more than 150 years ago, and the one preceding him yet another 70-and-some years further into the past.
Few and far between and, man!, are we overdue. I have the distinct feeling the next one will not be recognized as such until women are truly accepted as equals to men and, with luck, perhaps she will live to see that da
3
I'm not sure you meant to suggest that we have strictly a meritocracy in the US. Atleast I'd be surprised if that's what you intended. But you did hold trump up as an example of someone who's supposed to be betraying his own class on behalf of populists, while trying to make a point about meritocracy. I'm not sure he's a great example. It shouldn't be controversial to say that trump is a part of an elite class despite a complete lack of merit. It seems like there is some generalizing about elite classes going on here, or maybe I'm misunderstanding your point. Certainly trump was born into an elite standing because of plutocracy. There are certainly many power dynamics at play in our society, but it sure feels like meritocracy and democracy play second fiddle to plutocracy.
2
There has always been an aspect of anti-intellectualism in American politics. It's OK to be smart, just don't appear to be condescending and smart. This has affected more Democrats than Republicans. Adlai Stevenson, Michael Dukakis, and Al Gore come to mind. Perhaps there are fewer intellectual Republicans or they don't make it through the primaries. Recently, Republicans have insisted that knowledge about science, such as climate change, disqualifies one from office. Better to vote for someone you'd like to have a beer with, like George W. Bush, or someone like Trump who will tell voters whatever they want to hear no matter how wrong or ridiculous.
The average person is smart enough to understand complex issues if and only if the politicians and media present them properly. But when politicians lie and the press tries hard to present "both sides" equally, the result is the voters feel that no one knows what the truth is and they can choose what they like to believe. The experts seem to cancel each other out and the public doesn't know that, for example, the fossil fuel companies promote the climate change deniers.
4
@MEM
I'd second that and remind readers of how once upon a time the Farmer's Grange movment was having in-depth discussions of the Gold standard and monetary policy, rendered clearly enough for ordinary people to understand. Our military manages to train recruits who in some cases can't brush their teeth to run complex systems. The truth may be that it is in the interests of elected people to be obscure and to advance their own interests by slogan and meme. Full Federal Funding our our elections, might be a corrective to this.
2
There is a lesson to be learned from the French and the Americans. The French Revolution proved that the populists not only won, but things did change. And the same with the American Revolution. But those Revolutions took place hundreds of years ago and we are now at another juncture in the road.
Voters are fed up in both countries. And we have had mini-revolutions along the way this year. In our Country, The Women's March, the MeToo movement, Black Lives Matter, etc. The French have their Yellow Jackets.
I believe here in America we have many people that can take over these movements and we will end up with the Leader we need.
It happened during the Viet Nam era an it is going to happen here within the next two years.
We have to only be patient a little longer.
1
@Jean
With all due respect, whatever leader is elected will run head--on into our privatized election system where the voters are minority shareholders. When new Congressman attend introduction sessions run by Goldman Sachs, and are given goals of raising $40,000 a day, it should be clear who owns the election system. This is why so many of our European allies have full Federal funding of elections, to make clear that Legislators work for the people. In such a case it is unnecessary (and therefore should be prohibited) for Lobbyists to give money or gifts to elected officials.
5
@Peter Coyote
I am in total agreement with you. Unfortunately we can thank the Supreme Court for putting the final nail in that coffin.
Who was our last "statesman" president?
FDR seems to qualify, despite modern Republican vilification for much of what Roosevelt accomplished. The modern GOP flirtation with the alt-right can even be seen as turning its back on the winning of WWII. Reagan? He wouldn't be allowed to grace the truck door of dogcatcher these days. Bush 41? Still no cigar.
Lincoln, of course, but with Republican fingers crossed and the same dogcatcher caveat. That takes us back to Madison, Adams, Jefferson... though the lens of history has of late magnified their warts more than it has limned their accomplishments.
Finally we come to George Washington. If it just were not for that pesky little fact of buying and selling human beings. Still, even with that, Washington qualifies, giving us a grand total of two flawed human beings that we can, more or less, hold forth as true statesmen.
So the last statesman was more than 150 years ago, and the one preceding him yet another 70-and-some years further into the past.
Few and far between and, man!, are we overdue. I have the distinct feeling the next one will not be recognized as such until women are truly accepted as equals to men and, with luck, perhaps she will live to see that day.
4
@Glen
Harry Truman....
Can it seriously be argued that we are a meritocracy with Trump and family Don Jr. and Eric at the helm? We have a nepotistic kleptocracy put in power by populism. Neoliberalism did fail to deliver on its promise. We need a blend of people who know what they are doing and people who have a real feeling for where we should be going. They are not in the White House now.
3
Defining meritocracy as rule by men and women who excel in the academic world omits an entire class of individuals whose long experience in politics has endowed them with a mastery of governing equal or even superior to that possessed by their Ivy League competitors. These graduates of the school of practical politics (Lyndon Johnson comes to mind) do not necessarily develop the arrogance and sense of entitlement attributed by Douthat to the intellectual elite.
Nor do they inevitably identify with populists and their scorn for elites of any kind. They remain part of the establishment, but they have gained their status through careful attention to the needs of their constituents.
Douthat creates a false dichotomy by dividing the political class into two artificial groups that do no capture the true complexity of our governing elite. Our political problems stem from the rejection of democracy by a large part of the Republican party, not from some imagined stalemate between meritocrats and populists.
6
The Russian novel and film "Heart of a Dog" perfectly exemplify this phenomenon.
Douthat ignores the LUXURY of universal health care, of taking care of children and families, and sustainability. This is the pinnacle of sophistication, to dismantle it is to go slowly to theater end of the spectrum, Somalia, where the market rules, no government influence.
6
Ross Douthat ignores the fact that the Conservative Revolution of 1980 has undermined the social policies designed to broaden the path into meritocratic employment. Starting in the 1940s, liberals expanded financial aid programs to enable working class people to attend college. There was also strong governmental support of public higher education that offered all Americans a path into meritocratic employment. The Conservative Revolution has been destroying this. They cut financial aid programs to the bone, they cut spending on higher education, and they cut other social programs that help young people take advantage of educational opportunities. Conservative policies are returning us to our aristocratic European origins, where only the economic elite can afford to complete their educations.
23
I’d be more worried about a future revolution if those who were to fight it could stand up for 5 minutes without becoming tired, dizzy, and out of breath. Revolution is hard work and those who have avoided hard work for two generations ain’t gonna start now.
7
@William Mansfield
Maybe they are "tired, dizzy and out of breath" because they have been working too hard and/or can't afford medical care. But they do have guns and if pushed too far down, they are much more apt to use them. Fancy high rises and gated communities will not be any kind of protection from truly angry people who finally figure out just who it is that is doing them harm.
I see two issues here. First, I think the problem is not so much that we have a meritocracy, but in how we assess merit. The second is a failure to distinguish between tame problems and wicked problems.
As to assessing merit, I'll refer to something someone I know who runs a notable law firm once told me. He mentioned hiring an associate from one of the top law schools, and then discovered that this associate couldn't produce for the firm and subsequently dismissed him. Our current meritocracy de facto puts the equivalent of those from high in elite law classes on the fast track to partner. What we need instead is to assess merit based on some equivalent of how someone performs for the firm.
The complication in that lies in the difference between tame problems and wicked problems. Tame problems would include putting a man on the moon or making NY's subways run on time. Both are technically challenging, but it is clear what the solution looks like. In contrast, wicked problems involve tradeoffs between helping one group at the expense of another or the reverse. For instance, should we make 80% of the public pay 20% more than their actuarial cost for health insurance or make 5% of the public pay 1000% more than the community actuarial cost. In the reality-based world, you cannot refuse to do both, and when you opt for one of them, the group getting shafted is going to come out with pitchforks.
17
It would appear our system is controlled by wealth, not merit.
Those who ARE actually capable of climbing the social ladder by merit find it is leaning on the house of personal self-interest. They become more deeply compromised the further they go up.
"A statesman" is not going to solve this conundrum. The roiling masses need to wake up and actually pay attention. A collective temper tantrum is not enough. Daddy will not be coming to make it all better . . . so I guess that leaves us.
28
@Saddha
White male wealth is "merit".
Billions did not make Reginald Lewis, Bob Johnson, Shirley Johnson, Oprah Winfrey nor Bill Cosby as white as Melania Trump.
Being President of the United States did not make Barack Obama as white as Ivana Trump.
1
Good article! Illuminating!
I am a liberal who supported Bernie Sanders in the last presidential primary. Many people, myself included, think that if Bernie Sanders had been the candidate, he would have beaten Donald Trump.
He is considered by many to be a populist, and if he had been elected, he would have been that statesman you seek.
20
@Paul Marsh If only! and the same here in the UK, some of us think that Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell, between them, who came within shouting distance of winning the 2016 election could have taken up the mantle of reforming government that delivers what is needed in the moment, just like earlier Labour governments under Clement Attlee and Harold Wilson did at earlier watershed times.
2
@Paul Marsh
Bernie Sanders, like him or not, did not get nominated to run for a government office. The Democratic candidate for President was Hillary Clinton, selected by a national primary process that Bernie Sanders supporters became convinced by Russian bots and GOP media outlets had been unfair to Bernie. If you were then one of the millions who stayed away from the polls in disgust or tossed your vote to Jill Stein, then you are the reason Donald Trump is President. Our democratic institutions are at risk and we are all suffering from your disillusionment and malaise.
6
@Paul Marsh: Sanders's hopes for becoming the Dem. Party candidate in 2016 were dashed when,instead of taking to the "steamy streets"(Earl Caldwell's favorite words)in Philadelphia and marching with his supporters, he remained inside the convention hall with the establishment of the Dem. Party and essentially gave in to Clinton, and thus lost his credibility, Now its too late and old age looms. Moreover, he's a 1 percenter,which people have forgotten, and his unrealizable promises would have never been adopted by Congress, slave to chambers of commerce! Great phrase from V.S.Naipaul's "The Return of Eva Peron " in which Naipaul wrote, and I paraphrase that those on top have always been there and a not about to relinquish their position to anybody. Arthur Miller had the novel notion that instead of politicians identifying themselves by party, they should designate themselves as lobbyists of ATT&T, Dow Chemical, Johnson & Johnson, well, you all get the story!
1
Are we to go on scratching at the surface of what was long ago termed Original Sin? Perhaps the next big thing for H. sapiens might be the reassembly of a Neanderthal genome, with some additions, and the cloning of that new species. Sapiens is caught between the brain stem and the neocortex, part brute, part god. We're hung somewhere way above the insects, but can't decide if we want to be all altruism, like ants and bees, or all self-centered greed, like gators or the wandering, lone sea turtles. It's certainly a challenge. But at the root lies stuff like man's inhumanity to man. That's a sad reality, but the fact that we recognize it is a plus for humans. As for the golden rule... can we possibly maintain that to be nice to Trump and his battalion of gators is the cure for our politics?
10
Keep digging Mr. Douthat. Maybe one day the truth will be revealed to you: progressive taxation, education, separation of church and state. Not a flat tax, business schools or tax free religious institutions.
A society for all not just the minions of money, commonly know as a meritocracy.
98
@Dwight McFee - The US currently has the most progressive taxation system of any developed nation. How has that worked out for us?
Public education and universal healthcare would go a long way towards bringing together the meritocracy and populists. It seems half our country doesn't believe in them. Weird world getting weirder.
33
@Knucklehead - Yes, but the costs of these two programs would require a tax of 75% on all incomes. That is why our politicians, in their desire to avoid being hanged from lampposts, have not implemented them.
Re the leader described in the last paragraph. We once had one: Franklin D. Roosevelt.
23
@jdc
Nonesense.
Harry Truman..
Ross, the point is that in France, the so called meritocracy is institutionalized; it's an exclusive, systemic, structured breeding ground called Les Ecoles Superieur. These Harvards of France were set up by Napoleon specifically to train the "best minds" to assume all leadership in politics, business, science and military. Graduate from one of these schools and your life and comfort are guaranteed. Everyone else gets the scraps and 5 weeks paid vacation. One only needs to ask the French; "How's that workin' out for ya?"
16
Patriarchy is by definition a magician with lots of tricks up its sleeve. Magic, religion, science, hero worship, politics, mass media, propaganda, sex, advertising, education, money...
But none of these shell games can disguise for long patriarchy's basic intent, the control and imminant destruction of existing Nature. The male growth industry, that is the maximization of population, weapons, wealth and resources by competing regional, racial or national groups identifying with different male god-heads, will not cease until one group has beaten the others.
The strict male model.
The question is never should we be using up the world, but rather who among us will be most successful at using it up. The problem gets exponentially more complex with each generation as patriarchalists perfect their convoluted theories and supposed solutions.
So what is the solution? Too simple to understand. Female led families with names passed down Mother to Daughter. Men returning to their Natural state, competing to serve their Mother families, Mother communities, Mother tribes. When women reclaim their family names and common land "ownership”, populations will stabilize and people will cease to be the source of pollution, war and extinction on the planet.
Impossible? Not really.
6
Ayn Rand, another fiction writer, who the right adores, was all about meritocracy. Conservatives have aligned with her for decades so the meritocracy is hardly a product of the left alone. We aren’t seeing a rise in meritocracy or populism, we are seeing a rise in right wing fascism. Far more insidious.
31
@AG No, we are seeing both. In my humble opinion the rise of the right is a direct result of the failure of the left to provide an inclusive progressive vision for the future of the majority. As the writer says, this ossified version of meritocracy has been promoted by the establishment of both left and right.
2
Can't let this go, huh? Not all systems are total; meritocracy and technocracy aren't meant to be complete systems. Please, and I mean this kindly, read Horkheimer's Critique of Instrumental Reasoning. And never use the phrase "well-bred" ever again.
20
Floating through life facing multiple struggles for both existence and meaning, having the world constantly defined and ordered into neat dichotomies that bear no reality to the horrors and pain I face, reading Ross is always a warning where too much thinking and out of touch feeling gets you.
9
Is there a Buzz Windrip in the wings? An Elmer Gantry to take the reigns from the pulpit of power?
Sorry be the day, when a plain spoken authentic talent rises above the fray. One who charms by yarns that metabolize to the masses. A podium poet who posits a lack of omnipotence.
When simple homespun fare, without the glaze is the Will Rogers candidate.
1
Do you know, Mr. Douthat, that you have described Donald Trump as your savior. Not the real #45 but the savior he sold himself to the sheeple as.
The answer is simple. Redistribute wealth.
5
Mr. Douthat writes, "A governing class that has vaulting self-confidence and dwindling credibility, locked in stalemate with populist movements that are easily grifted upon and offer more grievances than plans."
I think it's more complicated than this; for the populists, too, have their statesmen who grift. And spokesmen who pave the way for that grifting.
As a graduate of Yale and conservative columnist for the NYT, Mr. Douthat could well be a living example of this phenomena of "elites vaulting self-confidence and dwindling credibility;" he's aided the grift by years of supporting undemocratic norms of the Republican Party, despite his continued disdain for that grift, simply because he perceives the Democratic Party as too liberal on sexual issues. He cannot criticize the right without first criticizing the left; and cannot ever speak a good word about the left.
You helped build this, Ross Douthat.
32
"..... to weld populism’s motley grievances into a new agenda suited for the times, to manifest an elitism that is magnanimous instead of arrogant."
.....what are you talking about ?
France has the same issues we do - over a decade of deficits and record levels of debt - and no clear paths of how to keep economies growing with such leverage.
We have a failing political system that lends itself to divisiveness. The UK looks like it's splitting apart - all for carrying out the decision of a referendum.
Meritocracy and populism......ridiculous flowery language - what's real is that all of our leaders have reached an impasse on how to run their countries, and are ignoring what's in the best interests of their citizens.
3
I might edit this to state Trump is steered by Russian interests rather than the Republican party which has shown very little steering power - the inevitability of encompassing 20 years of financial disillusionment in rural America into a populism movement has been a dream come true for the real functioning deep state on our soil, Putin and an army of trolls. Imagine the genius of letting your nemesis self destruct at very little cost to you?
2
Ross, you have neglected to include Animal Farm in your discussion of populist revolt. The displacement of humans, like any displacement of a ruling class, required violence. The more intelligent pigs had convinced the other animals of the wisdom of their revolt. But once in power, they became more oppressive than the humans and praised, not so much by their subjects, but rather other humans for their dominance. Just like the unintelligent and moderately motivated lower animals, the populists can't get their act together enough to organize and displace the meritocracy by extreme measures.
3
A little Darwin: the long-lost meritocracy will, unless controlled, regulated and managed (see China) produce a concentration of wealth and power.
The meritocrats create optimal paths for their offspring, the others struggle with student loans and bad schools. (See: New York liberals.)
This worked for the dinosaurs when mammals were little shrews.
We, The People, await the Asteroid
3
Ross,
"Each case is a variation on the same theme, a slightly different intimation of the meritocratic endgame..." you tell us.
This is a macro, right? You type control-m and it comes out all at once?
2
Brit Michael Young has a more recent prophet in America.
Novelist Walker Percy perfectly predicted the GOP’s descent into racism, fundamentalism, reactionary anti-science postures, etc, in his 1970s book, Love in the Ruins. It was set in the then-future of the 1990s. And lo, there was Newt Gingrich, Pat Buchanan, etc
7
I haven’t read Young’s book, but it seems to me that he was writing what he knew about the first half of the 20th century. Back then we had Lenin and Hitler, and rising up Ho Chi Min and later Pol Pot and Pinochet. All men who attempted to harness the people’s fury at the elite - with varied, though similar, motives - and ended up killing a lot of innocents.
But we also had FDR, that class traitor, who somehow understood the ways that white shoes and yellow vests might work together. He wasn’t perfect, but overall he ushered in social programs that maintained a balance and demonstrated, in my opinion anyway, that people with different skills can work together.
Macron is no FDR, and maybe Europe will never really be able to rise above feudalism. The US could lead here, but as we’ve seen the current crop of US leadership has cynically co-opted populism and used it as cover while they loot the treasury. Is it worse for a nation’s leadership to be perceived as dismissive of a large percentage of its population or to actively lie to them? I think we’re about to find out.
9
The problem is not our intelligent students, it began back in Reagan's time with the unleashing of uncontrolled competition for profits. This has resulted in climate change and a brutal arms race, moving the "doomsday clock" to an untenable position.
Yet the competition continues unabated, now encompassing Facebook, Amazon and all of Silicon Valley. We are engulfed in an ocean of data driven by advertising, but enabling surveillance of populations by govenments and outside interference in elections.
So in removing the restraints on competition, we sacrificed our right to life (the doomsday clock is ticking) and liberty (Big Brother never sleeps.)
3
There isn't a chaotic European situation. This is a classic piece of ignorant US journalism. The EU is 28 different countries all marching to somewhat different tunes. The exaggeration surrounding these demonstrations in France is immense and is not dissimilar to the hysterical predictions a few year ago of the end the Euro during the Greek debt crisis and the break up of the EU. More recently we've seen similar hysteria about Italy leaving the Euro and the EU. What the EU's handling of the negotiations for British withdrawal have shown is actually considerable unity while the British are engulfed in chaos. Similarly the Italians have been compelled to climb down from their budgetary bravado by a combination of market and EU pressure; and the Poles have been forced to step back from their anti democratic attempts to suborn the judiciary. Chill out Mr Douhat the West isn't at an impasse.
4
I don’t agree with you. Your missing the slow boil coming to the surface.
@Stacy Hallas
The alleged slow boil invariably turns out to a damp squib Greece/Syriza, the Netherlands fascists, AfD 14% of the vote, Le Pen 31% of the vote, Italy isn't leaving the Euro.
If aristocracy and meriticracy will inherently fail because they don't serve the "average" person, then what's left?
Socialism!
3
@Paul-A:
Not that simple. No ism will solve all problems. Each issue needs to be looked at afresh and a solution which fits the problem must be found. What will likely happen instead is that people will search for solutions that fit their preconceived notions. As Paul A suggests "Socialism as a panacea.
Barack Obama was that statesman. Hillary Clinton won the popular vote. Your inability to see the way out is like the Vatican's failure to foresee the Reformation and the wisdom of Luther.
12
Elites can't believe the presidential election of 2016 because they believe they are smarter, wiser, and more intelligent than anyone else. We the people are the dummies. You can read it everyday in these very pages. The people that voted for Trump are reviled. They are Americans and they love their children too. Macron is so smart that he taxed fuel that had already been taxed to $6.00 a gallon. Brilliant! I often wonder what is like to be so far over my head.
5
Give it up, Douthat. Stop trying to win an argument you lost last week. You were wrong: The public still prefers a society where promotion is based on performance rather than inheritance. We DO NOT miss the WASPS. And we regret Trump.
9
A performance based society IS desired. Yet, the rules used to win are ALWAYS gamed. The rules are never truly, genuinely fair.
2
"That’s what statesmanship is for — to bridge gaps between complacent winners and angry losers, to weld populism’s motley grievances into a new agenda suited for the times, to manifest an elitism that is magnanimous instead of arrogant. But can the system we have really produce such a statesman? The next one we find will be the first." Well said. That, I believe, is the best argument for Joe Biden (whether you're a Democrat or a Republican).
1
Give him a year or two, then look at the new Governor of Colorado. He very well may be such a man. Nice column Ross.
1
Interesting and on the mark. One thing uniquely French, though, is a great concept that is destroyed by the arrogance that leads to easily predictable (for the rest of us) problems. Phase in the gas tax and offset it for those without sufficient income or options? Nah! Treat them like poilu in the trenches, and be shocked when they mutiny.
The truly elite would be able to build this into a plan like Macron's.
Macron is the wrong kind of meritocrat. He has never actually achieved anything BUT good grades.
He has never been in charge of real people. Never had to make ends meet. Never had to raise a child. Never was conscripted in he French Army (he just missed out...). Never been surrounded by people who didn't admire him.
He hasn't actually earned anything, save a whole heap of money as a trader... His very election is a populist feat. He campaigned with a "movement", not a party. He campaigned with the promise of "change", in an environment poisoned by the abject incompetence of François Hollande's socialists and the fear of Marine Le Pen's Front National (FN).
He is a hot air balloon, not a beacon or a rock, who has no idea of how France actually functions.
Of course, the revelation of his ineptitude is in and of itself dramatic, because there is no-one else. The most powerful and best organized force is probably the xenophobic neo-fascist Rassemblement National, as the FN now calls itself. And they have NO IDEA of what to do with anything.
9
Best description of Macron I have yet to see. France has had a run of bad luck. Bad luck to be next to Germany in 1914 and 1940, bad luck with their overseas territories, bad luck with their choice of leaders. Good luck with vineyards and chefs which should count for something.
What's the real problem? We have a too-large welfare/entitlement class that grew up after the war when the U.S. and European economies advanced strongly and it looked like the sky was the limit for social spending--it went too far. For 50 years we said this was pump-priming, that marginal people would ultimately integrate into the society and pay their own way--they haven't. They've come to depend on public support, they think they have a right to it. Productive people are now seeing their own hard-earned prosperity being drained to carry these underperformers. People on the left see where this is heading, they're trying desperately to reshape the argument and deflect blame, saying it's the fault of the rich--no changes should be made to this 'social contract', the unproductive should continue to ride free, the middle class and the well-off should pay more. Society is beginning to reject that idea, it's beginning to signal that they should start supporting themselves. Long-time beneficiaries of public spending are trying not to get the message.
2
What a sad, mean view of the world and our country you have. A world of "marginal people" who need to "integrate". A world split between the "productive" and "underperformers". Presumably, the fact that the richest 1% own 90% of the nation's wealth represents their "hard-earned prosperity". And the fact that, adjusted for inflation, average wages have not meaningfully increased in decades is because most of us are "unproductive". We liberals don't want to "blame the rich". We simply see through the greedy hoax that conservative politicians have been selling to you and many others over the years. Most of us are realistic enough to know that the rich, most of whom inherit their wealth, will continue to rule. We just want the pittance that we were given in the post- WWII era restored. As recently as the 1970s, we could afford health insurance and college tuition. Tell me, has the "marginal" class grown significantly in that time? Or is it the fact that taxes on the wealthy have been dramatically reduced and CEOs now make 271 times the average worker, compared to 20 times in 1975.
4
@Ronald B. Duke - What we could really use is decent jobs for working-class men. As long as employers prefer to hire illegal immigrants for these jobs, salaries will be low and US citizens won't want to work. The recent enforcement against employing illegals has already improved the work prospects of millions of men, including many minority men who couldn't find a job at all until recently.
To use Ted Kennedy’s phrase, and while all this was happening Where was PaulnRyan?
Articulated well Ross. What I might add, which will sound elitist itself, is that essential to a universal balance is the division of labor. We may want to deny it but there is and always will be a master class and a surf class and gradations in between. What we lack is a respect for all of those variations and their contributions to a well oiled machine, or a functional and productive community and or society... is a living wage and dignity for all.
7
@Josh Young,
Before he died, an American friend of German origin, first a communist in youth; a socialist capitalist in maturity, he married a woman from a nation in Africa and their son was the apple of his eye.
'Have you ever read "IF", he once wrote. It is by Rudyward Kipling, and perhaps you will note that it relates in some way to your input here.
Compare what our country is going through now to a different era. After WW2, America invested in education by sending millions to college. We built the Interstate Freeways, putting people to work all over the country, leading to the most tremendous economic growth the world had ever seen. The government backed home loans and construction loans, so the great Middle Class could flourish. Regular jobs supported a middle class life. The wealthiest Americans paid taxes at rates more than triple what they pay today. Taxes on investment income were the same as earned income.
At the same time Black Americans were largely shut out. Racism thrived all across America, not just in the South. Mexican migrants, who came here to work and find ways to build better lives for their families were treated in the most openly racist ways by our own federal government.
Over the last fifty years, the wealthiest Americans have used racial divisions to end investing in regular American lives, while protecting and growing their great fortunes.
Donald Trump has brought this racist war to an apex. You can almost see our great country teetering, back and forth.
I was raised to believe in America. While the dark side of my country was hidden from me. Now that the darkness has been revealed, I am still blessed with a belief in the American people. All of them.
Consider an era, like the one after WW2, only without the terrible, destructive racial divides.
12
@Michael - Actually, the taxes paid in the 50s were very similar to today, they were just structured differently. The richest people paid about 35% of their income in tax, and ordinary people paid about 20%. When you look at today's FICA, property tax, and state income tax, there is little difference in the totals.
The big difference in the 50s was that the government was spending very little on entitlements and medical care. Today, about 72% of the Federal budget goes for Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. The states are spending 30-50% of their budgets on Medicaid. This leaves little money for the general budget, such as infrastructure improvements.
Rather than look at the social system, Douthat looks again for leaders, a savior to put things RIGHT. Did those with merit ever have real political power? Scientists, scholars and engineers for the most part make poor leaders. They are more interested in accurate and precise investigations of their specializations. They seldom have the rhetorical skills needed to master the local myths of anonymous diverse populations seeking comfort. Douthat can set them up as strawmen -- "elitism and arrogance" -- but in reality they are pushed and pulled along as much as those currently neglected by the distribution channels of the current economic system.
This system puts power into the hands of the rich men who manage the stored resources of society -- capital -- for personal gain. The false hope, of course, is that this private enterprise will bring happiness for all -- even as it is directed by the self interest of a few.
But capital must grow and cannot stay put. It can never reach a state of economic equilibrium. For the time being it relies on skilled technocrats to produce the new and promote envy. But even those with some personal skill will soon be replaced by machine intelligence having greater skill and effectiveness than biological humans. To be human is to be a tool making technician and human history is dominated by the history of technology.
What we see now is a crisis of capitalism as it pairs technology with continuous growth on a finite planet.
7
The elites have betrayed America and its middle class with their embrace of hyper-globalization. Such betrayal, where elite citizens willingly sacrifice the well-being of the vast majority of their fellow citizens so that citizens of other countries may prosper, even those of the country's adversaries, must be unprecedented in history.
We, along with many Europen countries, are on a trajectory leading towards violent social unrest, at scale.
The next demagogue may actually be competent, which will change everything.
Everything.
7
"That’s what statesmanship is for — to bridge gaps between complacent winners and angry losers".
Statesmanship? Sure. But what would that "first" statesmen do to bridge that gap -- not the sales job -- but the governance?
A more redistributive tax system? Enforcement of laws against financial misbehavior by the wealthy and corporations? Guaranteed access to health care? Need blind access to higher education backed by sufficient government funding? Attack big problems (like climate change, aged infrastructure, impacts of automation and AI, etc.) seriously and collectively before the problems have disparate impacts based on wealth?
Mr. Douthat, could such a statesman make a good start by taking the Republican agenda of the last 50 years ... and just do the opposite?
7
Please, this talk about meritocracy is a smokescreen, The problems in our country stem from a desire for "smaller government." This soon translated into criminal behavior by big business (lies about tobacco, lies about asbestos, sub-prime mortgages), the spending of huge amounts of money for lobbyists ascending on Congress and every regulatory agency, executive pay long past bordering on the obscene, corporate profits above quality products. and wage suppression destroying the middle class.
7
Mr. Douthat, what kind of "meritocracy" elects a President like Donald Trump? What kind of "meritocracy" allows a Mitch McConnell to wield so much power? And what kind of "meritocracy" allows an incompetent shortstop to earn millions of dollars a year to hit in the low .200s? A faux meritocracy, that's what kind of meritocracy we have in this country now. A true meritocracy would elect leaders who express the will of their constituencies; who are beholden to no ideologies. If meritocracy has failed, it's because it hasn't actually been tried.
12
The United States and Western Europe should follow the lead of Sebastian Kurtz in Austria; someone who is polished (an opportunist for sure but not a blowhard like Trump or Boris Johnson) and suited for politics yet was able to take the wind out of the populist sails.
We cannot go back to the “old GOP” as some Never Trumpers would like, as the neglect of the Republican Establishment emboldened people like Trump. We need someone who is Trumpian on policy but is, frankly, a normal human being.
1
The arrogant meritocracy in the fiction is not so different from the tale of "Atlas Shrugged" by Ayn Rand, which has proudly graced the desk of Paul Ryan.
I am a physician from a very small town in Maryland. I have treated watermen, and women (a term that means fisher, crabber, oyster harvester), farmers as well as tradesmen of all kinds in my practice. They are not simple hayseeds, they are very smart capable people. These are the people that are revolting against the so-called "elite", who make policy based on statistics and market forces. They should be taken seriously as the canaries noticing a break in the social contract we all had agreed to in the past. They have noticed that they and their families are becoming a lower class, not appreciated and being cheated of their effort by big banks, Wall Street and anything Big with clever lawyers (Trump?).
An example: Our community has a small hospital, with the usual financial problems, the University bought it and immediately closed the Pediatrics and Maternity ward, downsized the ICU and expanded the ER and began transferring people out of the community to other system hospitals 1-2 hours away. Now the plan is to close everything but the ER. Guess what, the community is not using the hospital, with the University name on it. The sales pitch was a central regional hospital, but the richer, bigger community was promised the new hospital 30 miles away (on paper) and ours community gets an ER. Nobody won, we lost.
8
@William Trainor Agreed, exactly the same in France. We make people have to drive more miles for basic services like maternity, and then we blame them for not being "environment friendly" and finding unfair the increase of gas taxes and high freeway tolls (just after a huge cut on wealthy people's taxes).
4
I have no idea what point Mr. Douthat is trying to make, other than that he doesn't really seem to know either.
"The evidence of our own era suggests that they might not be so capable."
Someone should tell Fulgencio Batista. I'm sure he's dying to hear how the Cuban Revolution went.
2
We don't have a meritocracy. We have a cohort of very wealthy individuals and businesses who control politics by manipulating public opinion. That cohort is international; they socialize and intermarry.
Some of them are intelligent, but intelligence isn't the necessary ingredient. That ingredient is wealth.
Wealth often gets distributed by havey-cavey means. We see that in the stories about the Trump empire. How often have contemporary oligarchs used shady methods to accumulate their wealth? I think the answer is: more often than we or they would like to admit.
Populism is one of the ways that group of very wealthy manipulate public opinion. Appeals to hate and fear are very effective, especially when rural regions of many nations are rapidly falling behind. That's key to the success of populism.
The belief that free markets are the answer to all problems enables the dominance of the very wealthy. Nationalism enables them to function outside the bounds of laws. I don't think this is the reality that Douthat imagines, but I think he is like a blind man trying to discern the nature of an elephant.
11
Young's cynicism about meritocracy goes along with David Halberstam's when he wrote "The Best and the Brightest."
Mr. Douthat says that the meritocrats do not know why the public hates them, but this sort of anger has long been present in our politics. Richard Hofstadter wrote about embedded class jealousies in the 1960s when he wrote about "Anti-Intellectualism in American Life" and "The Paranoid Style in American Politics."
It is hardly a shock that, as class mobility decreases and economic inequality grows, anger would escalate. When the US came out of WWII the upper 1% held about 8% of assets--they now approach 40%. A single statesman (using this in gender neutral sense) is not going to fix this. Many of our politicians, so far, seem more concerned with making matters worse.
9
I would take a different tact: blame the Republican Party. (And their equivalents in Europe) For 25 years time and again the populace has rejected their policy prescriptions. As a consequence, as they learned from Nixon, to stay in power they’ve relied on nativist appeals, and the duel totems of abortion and guns. The Democrats aren’t perfect but they will at least talk about real problems. The GOP just focuses on fake problems. Just look at the Affordable Care Act. Dems wanted to expand health coverage. The GOP talked about death panels.
If you can’t win on policy, revert to tribe.
9
The "gilets jaunes" have hardly as suggested "wrecked Macron´s centrist-technocratic plans" - the reform program with which Macron was voted president is in no way abandoned and the country is not at a standstill.Macron´s project to modernize France remains a daunting task considering it is a nation burdened by a harrowing amount of regulations. Yet he has accomplished more since he took office 19 months ago - such as reforming the labour market - than any of his predecessors thought possible. The "gilets jaunes" movement brings to attention the failure of an economic policy that has not worked for 30 years. In character the movement is similar to the Italian Five Star party the main difference being the gilets jaunes´utter and total lack of organisation. Nor are the low points of popularity for Macron special - his Socialist predecessor Hollande hit the same level just as the Rightist president before him, Sarkozy.
4
Teddy Roosevelt fought the entrenched power of monopolies and in so doing laid a groundwork of laws and expectations that until recently has protected Americans from abusive corporate enterprises.
In recent weeks we have seen in Michigan and in Wisconsin and in New Jersey attempts by elected legislators to use their caucuses to rig new rules against political opponents, to the frustration of citizens who find elections to curb bad actors require an attention to local sustained action.
These legislators are no more meritocratic than the monopolists of the gilded age.
Abuse of power by undermining good governance is the cause of past and current illness.
Citizens are rightly frustrated when clear violations of fairness leads to little punishment or change in failed policies.
Perhaps it’s time to admit that democracy is not the swiftest or easiest system, that it doesn’t automatically weed out bad actors and tin pot charlatans. Our present moment calls us to think more clearly about the votes we cast and to pay better attention to the politicians we ask to represent our interests.
7
In America, disparities in the quality of public education - inevitable given the disparity in resources between rich and poor school districts - leave many promising pupils uneducated enough to compete with their privileged peers of the same age cohort. Rural or urban, these frustrated, disadvantaged, smart individuals become the strategic leaders of populist dissent. Ironically, the elite could co-opt them by ensuring a level playing field at schools nationwide, discovering them young and cultivating their abilities through to adulthood. Such cherry-picking of the best and the brightest would benefit the nation, while depriving their disaffected home communities of dissident superstars. Instead, America leaves them undeveloped, stuck in the sticks or in the slums. Uncoopted by any meritocracy, their talent necessarily flows into the enraged populist movements now threatening the union.
4
Mr Douthat ignores the influence of malicious, divisive disinformation, spread by the Russian government, in the United States, Britain and France. Entirely apart from Russia's campaign of lies in social media, UKIP, the pro-Brexit party, and the fascist National Front in France were actually supported financially by the Russians, and proud of it. We still await Donald Trump's tax returns, which many expect to demonstrate infusions of funds laundered by the Russian mob. Before we start taking "nationalists" seriously, let's find out who is really behind them.
3
It seems to me that a meritocracy in practical terms ends up being a form of social Darwinism which has nothing to do with natural selection and everything to do with giving those who manage to gain power unfettered justifications for ruling over, exploiting and discriminating against those who they arbitrarily deem unworthy of shared power and sometimes even of existence. The problem is “merit” comes in a myriad of packages none of which predict good leadership skills in themselves. I know some brilliant engineers who would make terrible, dangerously bigoted leaders. I also know some articulate, open-minded leaders who would make the world a better place if they just collected the garbage. Being a truly decent leader is all-to-often a tough, painful, and thankless job prone to getting oneself derided and even hated by those who have willingly given you power. Why would anyone worthy of such a job want it? Therein lies the real question - it’s not about merit, it’s about motivation.
7
The terms are thrown about with such confidence! Meritocracy! Populism! Elites!
Douthat's analysis asks that we stipulate to their meaning - to the notion that the world is divided into these identifiable slices.
But their meaning is dubious and the world pie is not so easily sliced.
First, the meritocrats and "elite" are one and the same. The so-called meritocracy is based on privilege and a set of rules established by the gatekeeping elite. So, SAT-type intelligence, as defined by Howard Gardner, is accepted as the measure of merit when it is, in fact, primarily a marker of economic and social privilege. The legacy admissions at most supposedly superior schools insure that the next generation of the "elite" can also claim to be meritocrats. They rig the game, win it, and declare that it was done because of superior worth.
Douthat's piece is riddled by another, more egregious, assumption to which we are expected to stipulate. Populists, whether revolting in France or simmering in the United States are de facto less intelligent. Here, the same flaw plays a different tune. By Douthat's implication, a worker with no Ivy pedigree - probably no college degree - is a bumpkin who wrecks "centrist-technocratic plans." He makes no account for the brilliant plumber, the farmer who reads Hegel, the electrician who listens to opera and the autoworkers in the Midwest - back when there were such folks, who had revolutionary intelligence and poetic souls.
7
The point is, if our meritocracy really was a meritocracy, this unfortunate populist thing would never happen.
I am afraid, something essential is missing in the education provided for the best and brightest by the top- schools (such as ENA in France) as President Macron proves on a daily basis.
He obviously expected his fellow countryman to follow his lead no matter what: a rather infantile, narcissistic assumption based on an astonishing 'hubris'.
Únfortunately, our meritocracy seems to be highly inflexible and 'weltfremd' and there by proves to be a caste.
5
"But can the system we have really produce such a statesman? The next one we find will be the first."
Actually the system did produce a popular statesman who rose on merit. He won both the electoral college and the majority vote for the presidency -- twice -- and led the country with calm intelligence and integrity for eight years. Don't you remember Barack Obama?
7
Interesting that RD equates a meritocracy with what are essentially neocons and neoliberals. The people at the top fell in love with big business whether the right wing oil and defense companies or the left wing Silcon Valley. So I look at Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez, as meritocratic as you can get and say, folks, it doesn't have to be this way.
2
I am a meritocrat. A midwestern first generation college student now with an advanced degree, I having been job hopping on the east coast for a few years. I prefer cities, don't have a car and receive promotions every year. And, most importantly, this is exactly what my parents, teachers, church leaders, community, etc. told me to do. I was a good boy - studied hard, worked hard, stayed focused. I was told "out in that big world, no one will look out for you - you need to look out for yourself." So, I did. I do. In their eyes, I was a success - for awhile, anyway. Then the rules seemed to change. The ground shifted underneath my feat. I kept doing what I was told - but suddenly I was not a success, I am now an "arrogant elitist" dividing our country. I am resentful. I just want to scream at my Trump supporting family "I only did what you told me to do! And, now you hate me for it!?" And when they complain about how their their declining economic prospects, I say - "out in that big world, no one will look out for you - you need to look out for yourself." I doesn't go over well.
10
@Mike
"out in that big world, no one will look out for you--you need to look out for yourself."
Some, while looking out for themselves, take much more than their fair share. This causes disaster.
1
@Betty
I agree.
Don’t you see that you are reinforcing my point? The world is not binary (meritocrat / populist). The author (and you) are painting with too broad a brush. I am not the 1%. There are people like me that worked hard to be in the upper middle class and are being grouped in - at least politically - with Wall Street and Silicon Valley plutocrats. It’s just not reality.
@betty durso - What is your 'fair share'? If your employer is willing to pay you a high salary for the work you do, are you supposed to say you don't really deserve it?
"Brownie, you're doing a heck of a job." George W. Bush, 2005
Once upon a time, a patrician gazed upon his amiable but doltish son. The son was fluent in the language and rituals of their social class. He knew how to dress, how to dine, how to drink, converse, and ingratiate. And the father convinced himself that these characteristics, and his own blood, were more important attributes to judge the worth of a man than things like ability or work ethic or morality. And so despite unremarkable test scores and grades, the son goes to Yale, an institution that depends on the largesse of wealthy alumni and so therefore values legacy.
A meritocracy is no more than efficient markets. The better doctors usually (but not always) save more lives. The better lawyers usually (but not always) win more cases.
It should follow without controversy that the better students should usually (but not always) get the better opportunities for learning and training.
When you pull strings to get your beloved but intellectually unremarkable child a space in an elite leadership academy (i.e., the Ivys and their equals) it dumbs down the system (creates market inefficiencies). And it has a compounding effect because the monied and well-bred believe that those are instrinsic qualities and seek others like themselves. Or they may just assume that competence and subject matter expertise aren't as important as finding the right person for the job.
4
Two major problems with how this grubby little resentful populist vs. the meritocrats discussion always goes from the point of the populists. 1) The so-called current "meritocracy" is not a meritocracy. Look around you. The US has been a plutocracy for over thirty years. Those making the decisions are the plutocrats or those serving the plutocrats. Our leaders, the people who pull the public policy strings in our non-democracy have not been the smartest people in the room for some time. They are, however, the richest and they are boot-lickingly catered to by the greediest - a bought and paid for political class that knows where the hedge fund jobs for the kids, stock tips, and 6 figure post-public service career speech payments are coming from. 2) An Ivy league degree was always designed as a fig leaf for what was always a favor-trading, nepotistic, cronyism infested system that occasionally had to engage some people to do the actual work. When they did so they made sure they hired the avaricious and morally flexible. Every year as the number of Ivy League graduates expands and includes, well what can we say... not the "right kind of people." The degree has become worth less and less. The plutocrats are now trying to maintain the elite favor trading nature of these schools by resurrecting the private clubs and secret societies that can insulate them from the plebian rabble now polluting their confines. Yes, that's some "meritocracy" you got going there.
9
@Belasco - That is pretty much what the populists are saying - we're not really any dumber than those guys, but the system is rigged. There is just enough truth in that to get a lot of votes.
1
Ross Douthat has written a series of columns denigrating what he calls "the meritocracy", and today he reveals that he doesn't understand what it is.
He thinks that "the meritocracy" relies on SAT tests and consists of "the most intelligent". In my role as a physics professor at Oberlin College, I have seen many intelligent students, many students with high SAT scores, fail miserably.
Mr. Douthat is dead wrong. The "meritocracy" is based on accomplishment, not on test scores or on promise or on intelligence or on letters of recommendation.
Given that Mr. Douthat is dead wrong about what the "meritocracy" is, it is unsurprising that his conclusions are also dead wrong, if not laughable.
4
Belief in "meritocracy"might be our era's moral equivalent of belief in white supremacy. The idea that money & power reflect merit would never occur to those who have been deemed undeserving. It certainly would not occur to anyone who looked objectively at the country led by Mr. Trump and the GOP, the economy driven by the entitled overgrown adolescents of Silicon Valley. Inheritance, dishonesty and greed would come to mind long before intellectual or moral "merit." Some people might even question the morality of seeing money as a measure of human worth. "Meritocracy" is simply the self-fulfilling prophecy of the people who have merged financial & power, writing the rules that favor them, then congratulating themselves for winning the game.
Have they failed? Are we at a standoff? The supposed "populism" of Mr. Trump is populism created by the elite. Mr. Trump's fascist scripts were written years before he entered politics, and wildly successful as the bait of GOP politics, on Fox, am radio, Drudge & the like. When people took democracy more seriously than the politicians did, voting for the bait instead of the switch, was that the "meritocracy's" success or its failure? Mr. Douthat's solution is "an elitism that is magnanimous instead of arrogant." How about democracy instead of elitism? If your goal is to win the public's allegiance while working for the interests who rip them off, meritocracy might work, but democracy won't.
1
The system has already produced such statesmen. They are Gilbert and Sullivan. Listening to Trial by Jury may provide a clue as how to break out of the impasse.
The trouble with this article is that it relies on a simple understanding of the dynamics of individuals interacting in a society. Like Ayn Rand attempting to sell us the benefits of capitalism it misses the point. A meritocracy based only on tests leaves much to be desired. How many of us have met a stupid doctor or lawyer while the janitor seems smarter than all.
In a pure meritocracy I would not be a practicing engineer. How was I to compete against the prep schools and giant, well-funded public schools on the SAT? My first roommate proclaimed himself a genius: his scores were stellar compared to mine; he was the winner of several distinguished academic scholarships. I was a poor boy from northern Michigan: I started at the bottom in college. But, next year, he failed in 300 level organic chemistry; his dreams of being a doctor were squashed. I struggled through freshman year but gradually beat out the competition. Off the 600+ people in my field as freshman I survived to be among the 55 seniors who graduated.
I wonder what happened to roommate. How did the meritocracy fail him?
1
A true meritocracy is different than what currently ills society, which is exploitation of the well positioned. It needs to be understood that government has to set policy on the structure of wages in relation to the size of companies. Without a progressive increase in wages for the entire class of employees as a company grows, instead of the lion share of increased profits going to a small percentage in upper management; what happens is that the larger society remains stagnate while a few reap more wealth and influence. This is not a meritocracy because a vast majority of society isn't being compensated fairly for it's essential role in the larger system.
1
When politics overlooks a significant group of unhappy people, it takes a while for them to organize into effective political action --- longer if protests are successful at getting the policy change the mob wants.
In America, if Trump had been a genuine Bernie-type with a modicum of competence, we might have seen significant political change. As it is, he's implementing a number of policies that some people (none of them experts) think will help --- reducing environmental regulations so coal mines can pollute, expand and hire, upending trade deals so (in theory) China no longer takes American jobs, trying to build a wall to end illegal immigration.
If the experts had had some ideas for ameliorating the devastating impact of technological change, then maybe there'd have been no opportunity for Trump.
1
Meritocracy is perfectly fine - as long as the path to leadership is equally open to all. That means providing the same opportunities for advancement to the poor . And that means some redistribution of wealth through taxation and government spending. And all that requires is leaders who won't crumble when their opponents scream "Socialist" at them.
8
@Yo - Sadly, that is not possible. Children born in chaotic impoverished households will reach kindergarten miles behind the children of the middle-class, and never catch up. What they need is a mommy and a daddy helping and teaching them from age 1 to 4, and that is what the government cannot supply.
2
Another essay telling us what we here already knew way back when Bernie Sanders did so well in the hinterlands that then went to Trump.
When we had a Bernie bumper sticker on our car and driving in small town WI and across the taiga to our cabin in the UP of MI strangers would come up to us in parking lots and comment favorably on the bumper sticker.
In all of our many years of displaying our fealty to Democratic candidates that never happened until Bernie was there on our car.
So just perhaps what Bernie is saying is at least part of the solution to the rural,White and all of those who are feel left behind.
The immediate negative response that "practical" Democrats always spout to Sanders message gave us HRC as a candidate and Trump as President.
4
The trouble is not that we are run by elites but we are run by the wrong elites. The meritocracy in this country rewards people who hoard money and collect rents. They have no sense of public service and are antidemocratic. The populace are just as anti-democratic in their own way. The problem is that we confuse riches with wisdom, and allow the rich to have their way with us.
57
Most of us want the surgeon operating on our child to have arrived in his position by merit. Similarly, we want the lineman who has traveled hundreds of miles to help restore power at 1 a.m. in a frozen northeastern city to be well-paid. In short, we want a system that adequately compensated people for the work the do. That is why many of us are content knowing that Bill Gates is a multi-billionaire and angry when we see CEOs who added no value to a company, it’s shareholders or employees leave with millions of dollars in severance pay.
Our problem is not figuring out the right approach—meritocracy or populism or capitalism or socialism or communism. Our problem is a moral one. We are sinful creatures who too often make selfish, not selfless, choices. And as we become increasingly secular, we don’t even have that weekly reminder to love your neighbors. Without that, no -ism is going to much improve the quality of life for people.
12
Yes -- our problem is in our nature: humans are individual organisms which cannot see that they are intregal parts of an interdependent social whole and so are usually selfish, defined by what we have and do and so are often defensively aggressive. We are simply blind to our actual milieu.
And, limited by thought to abstract categories (e.g. "populist" "technocrat" "meritocracy") which reinforce divisions and conflicts, we cling to our team affiliations (I am a "Democrat", a "Republican") which are mutually exclusive and so institutionalize our conflicts.
It's our blindness that perpetuates our suffering. Has it not always been so?
This is an excellent piece, Ross, although you leave out some connective elements. We have meritocractic "centrists" and we have kakistocratic "populists" to be sure. but I use scare quotes to emphasize that the meritocrats are no more centrist than the thieves posing as populists are actually the latter. Our definition of "centrist" has become muddied by Third Way discourse that is actually quite grounded in conservative and, I would argue, outdated, economic dogma. As for "chicken in every pot" populists, who would normally ally themselves with the left and the use of the collective agent of government to obtain favorable economic outcomes, they are nowhere to be seen (even Bernie Sanders resists deficit spending - now adopted whole hog by the kakistocrats). So while you correctly identify the conflict to come, I think there is a far greater opening for real leadership on the left.
3
@Daniel Alpert
This is a very confusing comment. Please slow down and connect more clearly the elements of your argument. I agree with your last sentence.
Hereditary rule had one key difference over elected rule: Ordinary people - people that would have had neither the opportunity or the inclination or the will to power - exercised power.
Not a hard and fast rule, obviously - Henry VIII and Louis XIV come to mind - but many of histories sovereigns were perfectly ordinary people content to muddle through, attempting to govern an imperfect world by imperfect means.
Elected leaders are usually anything but ordinary - Nixon, LBJ, FDR, Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, Wilson, etc. - are not like the rest of us.
Again, not a hard and fast rule, obviously - Millard Fillmore, Warren Harding come to mind - there are others.
Am I advocating hereditary rule?
Of course not - I don't know any responsible individual that is.
Some of our better Presidents have been men who never aspired to national power, never sought it, but, when confronted with it, did unexpectedly well, often in very difficult circumstances.
Gerald Ford and Harry Truman are in that category.
Again, not a hard and fast rule - Andrew Johnson.........
2
What does it mean to be a rural citizen today? If agribusiness is replacing the small and medium sized farms, then an increasing number of small farmers are becoming employees of corporations. Maybe the resentment of people in rural areas against the liberal coastal elites is misplaced because the real source of their problem is right in their own backyards. Whom do they think all the people in cities work for, other than the large financial interests and corporations that also control the rural areas. Farming has grown increasingly capital intensive and automated. The jobs in cities and suburbs are also becoming increasingly subservient to capital, automation, and artificial intelligence.
As far as I can see, rural and urban workers have similar interests and similar challenges.
Tribalism is the arena for anarchists, racists, film-flam artists, and demagogues. Elderly politicians who already have gained their wealth in the 1960's thru 2000 are ill equipped to handle such important issues such as the redistribution of wealth and global warming. They are ill equipped to hold a national discussion concerning where we all fit in with the new technologies and systems of trade among nations. There are too many self-serving interests blowing smoke who are making it increasingly difficult for us to put our finger on the source of problems and rational solutions.
2
As our founders understood, inherent in the idea of direct democracy is an antagonism against experts, elites, meritocrats, ("eggheads" in a different era), etc. In a democracy, we're all equal - no one is better than anyone else. So, in some way, people who are "experts" or who stand out in their field might appear "undemocratic," especially if what they do or study (like climate science) has consequences for all of us.
To combat this problem, our founders wisely created a representative bicameral legislature, so that the "cool heads" of the "elite" in Senate would serve as a balance to the "passions" of the people represented in the House. Unfortunately, the Senate is now little more than an extension of the House.
Mr. Douthat's essay does not address this deeper tension of the role of "elites" in a democratic society. Like it or not, we all need experts in our lives, to do surgery, fly planes, etc. And as we've learned, electing a no-nothing populist President simply to "stick it" to the elites is a terrible idea, especially when that President is an elitist grifter himself.
Can the impasse Mr. Douthat identifies be overcome? Yes, our founders did it over two centuries ago. Perhaps we can learn a lesson from them on respecting the structures and processes of democracy before we lose what they built.
4
I suggest, Ross, that you look at the Great Prosperity (GP), 1946 - 1973. You might look at the period 1933 - 1946 which started by FDR doing exactly what you say never happened--using the forces of the meritocracy to address the grievances of of populism, but WWII makes that analysis difficult.
I understand that there were problems in the GP--McCarthyism, segregation in the South, etc., but these were largely eventually overcome. The country was run mostly by the meritocracy, generals (Eisenhower), members of the upper class (FDR, Kennedy), but the populist were represented also (Truman, Johnson).
The point is that inequality was low. The Gini was half of what it was in the 1920's and today. The real incomes of ALL were rising. Real median household income rose 74% during the GP.
The federal government was not afraid to go into deficit to build what the country needed. The largest project in the history of the world, the interstate highways, was started. We had deficits for 21 of the 27 years and the federal debt increased over 75%.
Contrast this situation with post WWI when we had no deficits for 10 years and paid down the debt almost 40% by 1929, when inequality was high and financial speculation was rampant.
"Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it"
5
@Len Charlap
As a wise friend once observed. Virtually everything that’s broken in modern America can traced back to Reagan/Reaganism.
3
Our great Presidents---Lincoln, both Roosevelts--were able to bridge the gap between governing and listening. Doris Kearns Goodwin's book, Leadership in Turbulent Times, is instructive on this problem. All the presidents in her book, experienced humbling life changing events in their early years, which, informed how they executed policy in their later years.
3
You've been riding false dichotomies for a while now, my friend. It is time to work on your definitions. The problem isn't "meritocracy"--the idea that those who have the greatest competence are rewarded (as opposed to other systems which reward skin color or birth or religion). It's technocracy, which the Europeans take very seriously. (Their educational systems are designed to recognize and cultivate future technocrats.)
Nobody likes technocrats and the backlash against expertise has been global and will prove to be catastrophic.
11
Where do you get the impression that our governing class has ever been a meritocracy? Do you remember the Bush/Kerry election, when one issue that came up was how both candidates got into Ivy League schools on connections and mediocre test scores and then earned Gentleman-Cs while they were there? The problem is that our governing class runs and has always run on connections and partisan fealty, not meritocracy. Most of our best and brightest actually have no interest in joining the governing class because they can see this, and prefer to stay in the private sector where they can make more money and do more good for the world.
33
@Aoy - They also both used influence to get into the reserves during the Vietnam era, Bush into the Air Force Reserve, Kerry into the Naval Reserve.
Unfortunately for Kerry, his plan didn't work out and his unit was activated.
1
The notion that governance oscillates between meritocracy and populism is interesting and probably more right than wrong. Well, maybe not in a regular and orderly pendulum, probably more in frenzied thrusts and inertia glides, but the overall theme is still interesting.
The role of the aristocracy of such movements is probably what determines whether populist or meritocratic leadership has staying power. "Aristocracy" in this context defined as the top decile of people who benefit most from the leadership in power; eg, those who innovate & maintain, those whose intellectual, financial and organizational assets make the system work.
Today, the meritocratic advocates are the self-described cognitive elite. They have ridden the high tech curve successfully, contributed to the wealth gap, and live good lives. By the way, nearly all of them worked harder than the average person by a long shot. They rightly believe that they have earned their advantages.
The problem today is that today's aristocracy has not held its leaders accountable for ensuring that the bottom 90% quality of life still offered spiritual promise, reasonable growth, reasonable opportunity, and reasonable material comfort. As the leadership and the aristocracy have become more indifferent to the aspirations of the bottom 90%, especially the next three or four deciles in the "middle," oligarchs like Trump and Putin emerge. They are conmen to be sure, but their promises resonate with the disenfranchised.
12
@TDurk "nearly all of them work harder than the average person by a long shot"...proof, please...
1
The first? No Ross, not the first. Statesmen (and women) have existed, and they are not difficult to locate in history. FDR was one such statesman, who was influenced by the likes of Eugene Debs - a true populist. He delivered for the populists, and in so doing, saved the elites from inevitable revolution.
10
Ross, our problem is one of insularity.
I believe passionately in the virtues of meritocracy - but there's nothing meritorious about leaving the people that you grew up with, but who may have not been born with the same intellectual or physical gifts that you were, behind.
IMHO, we must always encourage solidarity within communities. The challenge we face, however, is finding a defensible basis for establishing this solidarity in the modern age.
Conservatives insist that this sense of solidarity can only come from adherence to organized religions, an adherence with introduces oppressive mythological and behavioral elements that might have been unobjectionable 500 years ago, but that today tend to inhibit true intellectual, spiritual, and emotional development.
Liberals and progressives believe this sense of solidarity can be derived from a 21st century humanitarianism - an approach that might include elements like mandatory national service, progressive taxation, universal healthcare, and universal access to low cost higher education (and lifelong learning).
The primary challenge to implementing this kind of program is the conservative elite extreme resistance to progressive taxation - and preference for a "divide and conquer" strategy that leverages frankly fringe cultural elements, like religion (as opposed to an evolutionary spirituality) as a wedge against economic solidarity (and higher taxes).
IMHO, that's why we're at this impasse.
28
@Matthew Carnicelli - "....oppressive mythological and behavioral elements...."
Yeah, like not stealing anything that's not nailed down, and treating women with respect.....a bunch of primitive superstitions that we have put behind us.
@Jonathan
Oppressive like "Lord I am not worthy to receive you, but speak only the word and I will be healed" coupled to a shame-based attitude towards sexuality.
As for theft, if you study the history of western religion, you quickly discover that it is the princes whom the clergy sucked up to that did most of the stealing, while the Church mostly defended their right to do so - despite Jesus' actual teaching of the respective virtues of the rich and poor.
Conservatives like religion because it tends to support what historians call "the great chain of being", and thus keep peasants in their place. Otherwise, they pay it no mind.
@Jonathan So you throw out two random things that likely do not represent the commenter's viewpoint? I think that could be called vacuous conservatism. (I would also say it's the wealthy oligarchs, like Trump, who are more apt to steal anything not nailed down and to not treat women with respect – though such behavior is not necessarily tied to political or religious affiliation, or lack thereof.)
You see a conflict between the educated elitists and those left behind. It is today's conflict and it is almost worldwide. On one side is an educated, economically secure elite that provides the labor, creativity and skill needed by today's mega-corporations. On the other, is a growing segment of the population that has been left behind and endures economic insecurity.
This conflict between an educated, economically secure elite and a population left behind to endure economic insecurity has recurred in different contexts throughout history. It is a conflict that played out in both the American and French Revolution. Those elites enjoyed the patronage of monarchs and they provided the intelligence, creativity and skill the monarchs needed to govern their countries and colonies. Those revolutions freed the Americans from King George and the French from King Louis. America produced a democracy that has endured, France not so much.
The same conflict arose as the industrial revolution spread around the world in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. We had a gilded age of laissez-faire capitalism that produced an elite of educated, intelligent and creative men and women who provided the creativity that J.P. Morgan and John D. Rockefeller needed to build and expand their monopoly trusts.
The gilded age also produced the Roosevelts. Our democracy has endured because Washington and the Roosevelts believed in democracy.
Who will step up from the elites today?
10
"But can the system we have really produce such a statesman? The next one we find will be the first."
"Statesman-a skilled, experienced, and respected political leader or figure."
Ross you sure don't have a lot of confidence in our past leadership. In the 20th century, Franklin Roosevelt, Bill Clinton, John F. Kennedy, Ronald Regan, to name a few. And in the 21st century, Barack Obama, John McCain, and we're just at 2018 with 82 years left to 2100.
Your selling our country short Ross, there have been and will be great stateswomen and statesmen in the future.
5
Mr. Douthat’s thesis against meritocracy gradually devolves instead into an argument against centralized government, not meritocracy. His chief concern with meritocracy is that its leaders are coopted into a central government, thus leaving their home areas more devoid of leadership. As a Libertarian very much against strong and huge central governments, I welcome Mr. Douthat to join us!
3
It’s very frustrating to hear generalizations that lump together diverse people and label them. “Elites” come in many shapes and sizes. Sone are aristocratic, and have a little use for the rest of society. Others recognize that change is inevitable and that we all need to work together.
Likewise, many populists recognize a need for government intervention, while others have bought into the notion that any help from the government is evil.
Currently, short-sighted populists and muopic elites are in control in this country. Shortsighted elites don’t recognize the need for a more even distribution of wealth. Shortsighted populists are only interested in having more than other populists.
The result is a distorted idea of “merit.”
Is it really more intelligent to focus on short-term profits, and destruction of our environment?
The answer to many of our problems this is actually rather simple we need a more rigid, graduated income tax, and a focus on employment rather than profit and stock market scores. Having all the wealth world is of little value, if you can’t generate economic activity. An intelligent tax plan that redistributes wealth will benefit all of us.
Oh, and the most important thing, elections should all be publicly funded.
41
The world is changing faster than many can adapt to the new reality. One of the answers is education but many in our rural areas don’t want to be re-educated in their forties and fifties. The old manufacturing jobs pretty much just required that you show up for your shift on-time. A high school education was more than enough and the day was regimented. Today that isn’t necessarily so. One has to be engaged with ones work mentally and not necessarily in the workplace. One can work from home, from Starbucks, etc. The new reality is a tough one for generations caught in the upheaval but there is no going back. Governments are going to have to step in and provide help in the form of health care, food stamps, higher education, and jobs themselves. What we cannot do anymore is cut taxes on the rich in some fantasy that it trickles down. They will have to pay to keep democracy strong. There is no other way.
137
Meritocracy will be good, except it has been replaced this last 10 years by money and connections. The one who has money can buy the influence the laws, the right to bully. Many countries, as well as the US, should change their moto to “For the company by the company” we stand united behind the mighty money.
14
Perhaps Mr. Douthat would be happy to revert to a WASP like aristocracy that was not Protestant but Catholic.
Perhaps he could support a meritocracy that evolved though seminaries and Catholic prep schools and universities.
His real problem with meritocracy is that people who are the "best and brightest" tend to be thinkers and questioners of the status quo. Strict religious dogma has never risen to the top when it has been questioned by well educated people.
He is right to push back at "elites" who wish to speak for "the people" but he is wrong when he pushes for the peoples religion to be the law.
In the end we have more to fear from right wing populism than from left wing elitism. The difference is education and the ability to think beyond oneself and to hold two conflicting ideas in ones head until a conclusion is reached. Also the right wing populism of today is driven not by "the people" but by big business and Fox News. The left wing "elitism" has no dark entity behind it. Like Will Rogers said "I don't belong to an organized political party, I'm a Democrat".
37
@mike
"His real problem with meritocracy is that people who are the "best and brightest" tend to be thinkers and questioners of the status quo. "
No, it is precisely the opposite of this.
The group now referred to as "elites" are increasingly being drawn from the same circles, as Douthat highlighted in previous pieces about the Kavanaugh confirmation. In too many cases, high profile columnists and those they write about are being drawn not only from the same institutions that granted them college degrees, but also from the same northeastern prep schools.
8
@mike - That is an interesting point. Many populists would say that the problem with the elite is that they 'know' many things that simply aren't true, and human nature is far less malleable than they think. Conservatives argue that traditional values are better suited to human nature as it really is, and not as vacuous progressives wish it was.
1
@Jonathan Perhaps I am misreading you as your comment is general in nature, but what traditional values of conservatives are you talking about? If, say, you're talking about marriage being between a man and a woman, well, no, human nature includes homosexuals. If you're talking about men being monogamous, well, no, men have been chasing after women outside of marriage likely as long as there have been men (or marriage). If you're talking about the traditional values of Jesus (which tend to be liberal), they were revolutionary at the time and may actually go against human nature but are worth pursuing nonetheless.
2
Many, if not most of us, know that our country, and the world have to evolve. We’re at A, and we have to get to B. The problem is that getting there involves a hard journey, with pain and casualties. And, for whatever reason, offering aid — we’ll retrain you, we’ll subsidize you, we’ll take care of your family with housing and healthcare — has been soindly rejected. Sec. Clinton offered all this to West Virginia, and they’d have none of it.
The failure of the meritocracy is the failure to sell the journey to something better. Along the way, there are detractors everywhere—they say, "Vote for me and everything will stay the same, we’ll worry about the environment and the poor, and the homeless, as well as the poor arouund the world, only when we absolutely have to, and not a moment before then; YOU won’t suffer a bit, because we’ll delay the journey just a few years more."
I didn’t vote for Bernie, but maybe it IS the messenger that matters.
20
There's part of the argument missing. A lot of people who are successful under meritocracy don't like it either. It demands an astonishing amount of work, work that crowds out most other areas of life. And even then, the status can't be passed down like land or a company. The kids have to earn it anew, and many burn out in high-stress educational environments. There's no real point to living like that, except that it's better than poverty.
This level of extreme work is useful to the people who own everything, who are NOT the lawyers and MBAs who keep it humming. Those people at the top are very good at getting the populists to hate the upper servants of the system, rather than focusing their wrath on the correct targets.
253
@Maria Yes, I've been thinking about this too. I was a successful freelance performer for 30 years, and everything precarious, difficult, unstable about that job is now true of "normal" American jobs. I have been saying "universal healthcare for about 40 years and I admit that I have a small amount of pleasure now because finally--when it is touching all jobs and lives, not just artists etc--people are waking up.
But generally, work in America feels bad and demands fundamentally unsustainable sacrifices, both personal and global. I teach now, and that comes with its own sacrifices, certainly financial, but I actually have a life beyond work. I think many of us are exhausted and unconvinced by go-go-go capitalism, get more at all costs. I just want enough. What happened to doing your job well with pride and having ENOUGH? It seems impossible in this place and time.
70
@Maria - Actually, the people in the top 10% who are non-billionaires own a fair amount of the wealth. If there are at 10 million households with financial assets of at least $1 million, then people with assets of $1-10 million are holding a lot of wealth, probably more than all the billionaires put together.
3
@Maria Agreed. Part of the shift will happen when the majority of us no longer believe the idea that growth for the sake of growth is an unmitigated good.
The American worker has never been more productive, but who benefits? Not the worker, not society at large, and certainly not the environment. A handful of shareholders benefit, the current political class benefits, and somehow we passively accept this is how it should be. What is happening in France is more complicated than a 'protest'--and it will happen here too, it's only a matter of time. When it does, it will make the Occupy protests of 2011 look like a Sunday afternoon picnic.
Ultimately, we must move from an economy based on extraction to one based on reciprocity; the future depends on it.
5
We have been here before, it’s scary and it only happens once in a lifetime. Right now there’s a confluence of political, economic, and social forces that will form a new synthesis that will govern the world for about 50 or 60 years. Our job is to be good stewards of the process but that seems beyond us at the moment.
7
The plans are there and have been there; the problem is the GOP rejects them with elitist fervor.
1) Healthcare for all. (See GOP attorneys general and judges)
2) Increase the minimum wage and define it as a floor, so that states and cities can define higher ones if they want. (Ask any GOP supporter)
3) Stronger unions. (See Scott Walker).
4) Higher taxes on the rich, equal taxation for work and investment (See Paul Ryan).
5) Limit the use of arbitration in employment and commerce to when the counterparts parties are demonstrably equal. (See Mick Mulvaney)
6) Reinstate antitrust enforcement.
You don't see that there are any plans, because you don't like them, not because they are not there.
389
Although overlooking the 800 pound gorilla of climate change, this list provides a good start. Well done! I would also add the financial shoring up of public education by increasing teachers’ salaries by 10 to 20 percent depending upon regional COL and requiring school to start at age 4 and include a 13th academic year or year of modestly paid nonmilitary national service, and then reimbursing all tuition paid at any public college or trade school provided the student spends 3 years working in a needed field like teaching, nursing, building affordable housing etc.
91
@Mike1968 I notice no one mentioned seniors and Social Security. What happens to seniors whose SS benefits are 50% below the Federal Poverty level when property taxes are increased to pay teachers more?
16
Bernie Sanders would have addressed this problem by lifting the salary cap on SS tax - currently at around 128K, changing COL calculation and increasing benefits as well as providing for stability in the program beyond 2032.
72
Uh, the money it takes to run populism comes from the meritocracy. The populists want to take from the people who have shown merit and thus value and thus capital. It's hard to get someone to pay you for marauding around city streets burning stuff. The principle that works is very simple; I earn money for someone else's pocket so they have money to put in my pocket. Of course those who did not do the work are going to be resentful of those who did, that's why the workers make the laws to protect them from those who don't.
3
@Richard Mclaughlin
Again to paraphrase Animal Farm. We all have equal merit for equal effort, except that some equal merit and equal effort is more equal than others. There is a break in the social contract and it is qualitative as well as quantitative.
8
@Richard Mclaughlin 'Uh, the money it takes to run populism comes from the meritocracy.' Uh, maybe now, in a way. But the long-term viability of this approach is what Ross is exploring. There could be other ways, which could lead to better lives for a greater number of people. That's the challenge.
1
The "best and the brightest" once meant something. Back when "honor" was a lifestyle and not a concept in an Ivy textbook. I pinpoint the arrival of the Reagan administration in America as the pivot point for "what's in it for me." For populists and elitists alike. Now they are two sides of the same coin. Time to change our currency.
121
@Mark
Halberstam's title was cynical, just as Douthat notes for Young's work on meritocracy.
3
@JSK I am not referencing Halberstam. I lived it. There really was a different time. If you are not a member of the club, then you would not get it.
1
@Mark
I was also around during those times. Our interpretations are different. I am suspicious of assertions of honor, at least going back to the pre-Civil War south.
1
Macron was too busy passively aggressively scolding Trump for being a nationalist that he dropped the ball with his own working-class people. He also was too busy trying to impress globalist elites with his CO2 taxes that he incredulously did not take into consideration that these taxes would be crippling to French drivers living pay check to pay check.
The UN migration pact brought down the government in Belgium, but incredulously, the tone-deaf Belgium UN ambassador will still sign the accord. The elites still do not learn from or listen to their citizens, the vast majority of whom want tight border and immigration control. The UN was formed in an attempt to prevent war and conflict, not to advocate for migration from the global south to the global north.
Globalism is one of the biggest topics across the West. The elites have chosen for their citizens mass migration and offshoring of jobs via global trade organizations and policies such as WTO and NAFTA. Being hit hard by globalism, ordinary people of the West are pushing back. Western leaders would be wise to finally listen.
45
@Philly
Nice. It's a shame that the choice between globalism and localism/isolation is often described as either-or, rather than as finding the right balance.
10
@Philly ". . . he incredulously did not take into consideration that these taxes would be crippling. . . "
Off-topic, but I am noticing more and more people saying/writing "incredulous" when they mean "incredible."
7
@Helena Handbasket
Excellent comment. Excellent moniker, too!
3