Posted on 10/12/2010 1:52:02 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
In 1958, an English sociologist and Labor Party politician named Michael Young imagined a future in which the British establishment dissolved itself, abolished all forms of hereditary power and created instead a meritocracy (a word Young invented) based on IQ. In Young’s fable, the academically talented from the working class happily join the elite. But the less-talented resent them even more than they did the old dukes and duchesses. By 2034, this resentment leads to a violent populist revolution that sweeps the meritocracy away.
To some, this story has always seemed like a warning to America. In 1972, the American sociologist Daniel Bell cited it and predicted, with amazing prescience, the rise of an anti-elite-education populism. Bell got one thing wrong, however: He thought the coming attack on universities would take the form of enforced quotas and lowered standards. In fact, American universities staved off that particular populist wave in the 1970s by expanding their admissions to include women and minorities, while keeping standards high.
The result of that expansion is now with us: Barack Obama, brought up by a single mother, graduate of Columbia and Harvard Law School, is president. Michelle Obama, daughter of a black municipal employee, graduate of Princeton and Harvard Law School, is first lady. They brought with them to Washington dozens more people, also from modest backgrounds, mostly not with inherited wealth, who have entered high government office thanks in part to their education. Not that Washington wasn’t stuffed with such people already: Think of Clarence Thomas, son of a domestic servant and a farm worker, graduate of Yale Law School, Supreme Court justice.
Despite pushing aside the old WASP establishment — not a single member of it remains on the Supreme Court — these modern meritocrats are clearly not admired, or at least not for their upward mobility, by many Americans. On the contrary — and as Bell might have predicted — they are resented as “elitist.” Which is at some level strange: To study hard, to do well, to improve yourself — isn’t that the American dream? The backlash against graduates of “elite” universities seems particularly odd given that the most elite American universities have in the past two decades made the greatest effort to broaden their student bodies.
Because they can offer full scholarships, the wealthier Ivy League schools in particular are far more diverse, racially and economically, than they were a few decades ago. Once upon a time, you got into Harvard or Yale solely because of your alumnus grandfather. Nowadays, your alumnus grandfather still helps, but only as long as you did well on the SAT, captained your ice hockey team and, in your senior year, raised a million dollars for charity (the last was not a requirement when I got into Yale, but it seems to be now). If you did all that and come from a broken home in Nevada, so much the better.
At one level, the use of “elite” to describe the new meritocrats simply means that the word has lost its meaning. As Jacob Weisberg points out, when Sarah Palin, Christine O’Donnell or — bizarrely — Justice Thomas’s wife fling the word “elitist” at opponents, it often means nothing more than “a person whose politics I don’t like” or even “a person who is snobby.” But after listening to O’Donnell’s latest campaign ads — in which the Senate candidate declares proudly, “I didn’t go to Yale . . . I am YOU” — I think something deeper must be going on as well.
I suspect the “anti-elite-educationism” that Bell predicted is growing now not despite the rise of meritocracy but because of it. The old Establishment was resented, but only because its wealth and power were perceived as undeserved. Those outside could at least feel they were cleverer and savvier, and they could blame their failures on “the system.” Nowadays, successful Americans, however ridiculously lucky they have been, often smugly see themselves as “deserving.” Meanwhile, the less successful are more likely to feel it’s their own fault — or to feel that others feel it’s their fault — even if they have simply been unlucky.
No. And Canadian liberal Frum is irrelevant.
IQ is utterly meaningless. I knew one girl in high school academically quite bright got As in everything. She did however cling to every liberal cause the “cool” kids were following and take it to a frightening extreme did much the same thing with fads. She’s in college now according to her facebook working on a useless degree.
I’m sure she has a very high IQ score and she didn’t strike me as a bad person. However in terms of the real world she’s dumb as a sack of rocks. And in the end thats all that matters.
I think the elites are hated because they think they are better and that know better and, yet, when it comes time to perform in the real world...the elites usually fail miserably.
I read the title and don’t need to read the article.
The Tea Party hates the elites because the elites hate the tea party.
Once again, the Left falls back on its claim to be “the best and the brightest.” A claim that is utterly without merit but that even if true would accord them no innate superiority as leaders. Kennedy and his “brain trust” made a mess of things, and other nominally intelligent politicians have been dismal failures.
The term “elites” refers to a homogeneous political crowd whose two requisites to be in the group is left-wing politics and that they graduated from one of the so-called “elite” ivy-league schools or one of the large universities on the west coast.
To folks from the Midwest, the South, and all other points in between, we are treated as peasants and they look down upon as the “unwashed”. The main thing however, is that we are not part of their group, and so they bully us. It’s a form of class warfare.
The irony is that they are the least diversified group in the country, and the most bigoted as well.
Bear in mind for a minute, though, that Anne Applebaum (who does come from a privileged background, though not an extremely privileged one) did a lot to promote democratic anti-Communist movements in Eastern Europe twenty years ago.
Sure, she gets it wrong here, but she's not a horrible person.
Staved off that wave did they?
What do people expect from a guy who defends a gay pedo on his staff?
I personally hate the concept of elitism as counterintuitive to the American precept that “all men are created equal”. Elitism warps that dream.
Just like Barbara Boxer telling the military general that she had “earned the title of Senator”. We don’t bestow titles in this country.
The highest ranking in the entire world is that of “American Citizen”. It trumps every Emirate, Kingdom, or Dictatorship in the world.
That’s why Bammy should not bow to anyone. They all should bow to the “lowest” of us.
/end_soapbox
The Ubamas are meritocrats???
Oh, I don't know, Anne.
Maybe it has something to do with that whole "Flyover Country" thing.
And why did that grifter give up her law license? I can't ever find any reason for this...Anybody here know?
These two are the worst examples of affirmative action I've seen. What were his grades at Occidental? Crappy. Yet he gets to go to Columbia then on to Harvard? How does that work out? I had better grades that Me-chelle and didn't get a scholarship to Yale. And yet she bites the hand that feeds her with her whiney little paper. I can not wait until these two get the just rewards.
hahahaha.... With people like 57 states and jobs is a 3 letter word and food stamps are good for the economy and reid who thinks dead guys are the greatest living americans...
meritocracy??
hahahahahahaha
Obama has earned nothing based on merit, except our outrage.
People respect those who work hard, play by the rules, are successful, and don't look down on people and treat them like idiots. Elitist = ignorant arrogant fool with no practicality who thinks he knows what is best for you.
Obama has a Harvard Degree. So what. Jennifer Granholm and George W Bush have them too and f'ed things up. What has Obama done with it? He was a two bit attorney who became a lecturer and arguably a professor, while not knowing the constitution. He was also a state senator and was the affirmative action US Senator and got lucky because of Bush and McCain. Big deal. He hasn't owned a business. He never put up a shingle (Start law firm). He hasn't had to punch out a clock for thirty years while raising a family. Despite this, he sneers at ME? This dumbass couldn't fetch my coffee.
It is the liberals who feel that they are smarter and superior to “hicks from flyover country”. It’s so much manure.
They have “studies” to prove their superiority...studies done by their superior peers.
They are experts in the studies on their own superiority.
Drop em in Wisconsin in winter and they’d perish.
Yeah. Kind of like the word "is".
C'mon, Anne. You know what we're talking about. We don't mean "elite" in the sense that The Green Berets are elite.
We mean "elite" in the sense that they think they know how to run our lives better than we do simply by virtue of the fact that they attended a certain university or got a government job.
As far as Ubama's edumacation, how do we know how smart he is? Where's his college thesis? Where are his grades. Where are any of his writings? On what do you base your belief that he is so all-fired smart?
Your last line says it all. The self styled “elites” are hot-house orchids. Without the artificial atmosphere of academia and Washington they shrivel up and die!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.