David Brooks has an
interesting piece in this mornings New York Times entitled
The Power Elite. In it he argues that as our society has become more fair and more meritocratic both the reputation of our chief institutions and their quality has decreased. As proof he cites public distrust of journalists, bankers and politicians. He gives five reasons why this maybe the case:
1. Our meritocracy has too narrow a definition of merit. We reward technical and specialized knowledge, which often does correlate well with other qualities we value in our leaders like empathy.
2. A lifestyle gap has emerged between the working class and the elite.
3. The elite are less socially connected then they were in previous generations.
4. Meritocracy encourages short term thinking by removing the incentives to long term thinking that came from a system inherited wealth.
5. Society has become too transparent as a result people now see how the sausage is made, which makes them less likely to trust the process.
I think the first, second, and fourth points are spurious.
As for the first item, our definition of merit is too narrow, I don't think this is the case at all. We value different qualities in different professions. Among our doctors and politicians we value empathy. Among our engineers we value technical knowledge. This is as it should be.
Even a facile examination of history would show us that Brook's second point, the emergence of lifestyle gap between the working class and the elite, is off the mark. The elite have always lead lives that were very different from the common folk. Brook's assertion that if you ran a local bank you "might have married a secretary...You would have had similar lifestyle habits as other people in town." Seems to me to be a nostalgic reading of history more reflective of
It's a Wonderful Life than reality. Chances are if your ran a local bank you would have married the socialite daughter of the largest rancher in the county and had a secretary for a mistress. You would have belong to a country club, summered on the east coast or in Europe, and would have never seen the local grocery store because your chef would have handled that.
As for the fourth point, there is some validity to the point that you care more about ensure systemic stability when you know the happiness and well being of your relatives and descendants is at risk than if you're just looking out for yourself. However, I don't think the decline of a system of inherited wealth is to blame for this shift in thinking. I believe a break down in rich social networks is to blame. People no longer feel connected to their families, their friends, their neighbors, their coworkers. Thus, the incentive structure become skewed toward personal, short term gain.
This brings us to Brook's third point: the elite are less socially connected then they were in previous generations. The break down of rich social networks is to blame for much of our countries ills. When people stop feeling connected to each other there are fewer limitations on strife, their are fewer incentives to compromise, more of the worlds business occurs in formal settings that limit out-of-the-box thinking. I think this is the key issue.
So, how can we fix this? I don't
Posted via email from Karthik's posterous
Posts
