Why Our Elites Stink

NY Times ^ | July 12, 2012 | David Brooks

[C19fan]

Through most of the 19th and 20th centuries, the Protestant Establishment sat atop the American power structure. A relatively small network of white Protestant men dominated the universities, the world of finance, the local country clubs and even high government service. Over the past half–century, a more diverse and meritocratic elite has replaced the Protestant Establishment. People are more likely to rise on the basis of grades, test scores, effort and performance.

[dirtboy]

Why Our Elites Stink

Pretty funny headline coming from a so-called conservative who spends his days with his lips affixed to the elite's arses.

[Macoozie]

Meritocracy?
Today it’s anything BUT merit. It is gender, race connection and every other corruption one can imagine.
Mr Brooks is a case n point.
He ain’t no conservative, but is always highlighted as such by the rags. He should have been passed over years agao.

[gunnyg]

bottom line.............

“There ain’t no ticks like poly-ticks. Bloodsuckers all.”
-Davy Crockett (unsourced)
Ref
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Davy_Crockett

[LoveUSA]

Everybody thinks they are countercultural rebels, insurgents against the true establishment, which is always somewhere else. This attitude prevails in the Ivy League, in the corporate boardrooms and even at television studios where hosts from Harvard, Stanford and Brown rail against the establishment.

Interesting bit of self-psychoanalysis performed by Mr. Brooks. (who, btw, writes like a college student)

[Reo]

"Why Our Elites Stink"

Because they are self-absorbed and boring, David, just like your article.

[andy58-in-nh]

"Over the past half–century, a more diverse and meritocratic elite has replaced the Protestant Establishment. People are more likely to rise on the basis of grades, test scores, effort and performance."

Horse flop. In business - yes - people are in fact much more likely to succeed due to effort and performance. But our Elites largely do not come from the ranks of businessmen and women - they come from interconnected families whose members have worked in government for several generations, who all attend the same handful of universities (where last names and endowments matter more than grades), and who obtain employment based upon the access such connections afford.

[oncebitten]

I think a lot of the failure of our “elites” is the lack of classical education and a focus on the soft subjects like law, political science (sic), psychology and others. The lack of classical education means they have little appreciation for western culture and no perspective on history. The lack of science and math (hard subjects) means they have mushy thinking and can't tell hard facts from half-truths.

[P.O.E.]

[ClearCase_guy]

Short summation:

Character counts

We’ve been saying this for many years, and the media elite (including Brooks) have been telling us we’re crazy — “Clinton is brilliant! Obama is awesome!”

Virtue matters, and the Left has none.

[wiggen]

I have no doubt one of the things hidden away in obumblers transcripts is his total lack of comprehension of mathematics.

[Rummyfan]

Over the past half–century, a more diverse and meritocratic elite has replaced the Protestant Establishment. People are more likely to rise on the basis of grades, test scores, effort and performance.

Ignoring that this explanation of the state of our elites comes from one of the said elite, I have to ask: is Brooks this dumb or just naive? Or both?

[Poison Pill]

Over the past half–century, a more diverse and meritocratic elite has replaced the Protestant Establishment.

To test this theory, call Jesse Jackson Jr.'s office and ask when he will be returning to work.

[Texas Fossil]

And for the first time in the history of the nation, there is not a Protestant on the Supreme Court. Not one.

[Clay+Iron_Times]

And for the first time in the history of the nation, there is not a Protestant on the Supreme Court. Not one.

Wow, I was beginning to think no one else was connecting the dots. Very astute observation

[DManA]

The difference in the 19th century the “elite” mostly left the 99% alone to live their lives as they saw fit.

Today they want to control how much pop we drink.

The problem isn’t that there is a small elite or how people get into that group. The problem is the elite is try to enslave us all. This is new since 50 years ago.

[CharacterCounts]

Character counts

We’ve been saying this for many years, and the media elite (including Brooks) have been telling us we’re crazy — “Clinton is brilliant! Obama is awesome!”

Yep!

I've been saying it since 1998.

[Kenton]

People are more likely to rise on the basis of grades, test scores, effort and performance of their non-WhiteMaleness.

Fixed it...

[danielmryan]

I'm going to break with the general panning. Brooks has put his fingers on something - and, believe it or not, it is conservative in a way.

His thesis is that the elites of our day don't recognize themselves as such. He's not denying that the ruling class exists. What he's saying is that they don't recognize themselves as such. Rather than being disingenous, they sincerely deny that they're anything of the sort.

He's credible on this point because he hobnobs with them, so he knows what they're really like. Sure, his worldview can be charitably described as restricted. But, this subject is one of those areas he knows about because he sees them on a day-to-day basis. An analogy: a CEO may be a mercantilist jerkwad in politics, but the same person is going to be knowledgable about management issues.

His point is that the "non-elite" elites duck out of the responsibilities that elites have traditionally assumed. Although sincere in their protestations, today's ruling class have the advantage of denying responsibility for their blunders because they think the other guy is the "real" elite (and therefore should be held accountable.)

Had the ruling class been a real elite, they would have cultivated a sense of honor and sacrifice that would make them more accountable for their actions. It's a Tory argument at heart: if society must have elites, better that they cultivate a sense of social responsibility which would keep them from screwing things up and blowing off responsibility for it.

However...I'm begging the question, as does Brooks himself by conflating dislike of the ruling class with Jacobinical leftistm. Would American society be better without a ruling class? If "yes," then what he wrote is little more than an unconvincing think-piece.