Why Our Elites Stink • Hacker News Board

Re: Why Our Elites Stink

#11

Post by awkward » Fri, Jul 13, 2012, 4:44 PM UTC

He manages to hit a lot of the terrible points that normally make his essays unbearable - comparing the 50s favorably to today, and an abject worship for a poorly defined patriarchal elite, but this part was spot on:

"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."

Or in the tech press, where multi-billion dollar companies are "disruptive".

Re: Why Our Elites Stink

#12

Post by rubashov » Fri, Jul 13, 2012, 4:46 PM UTC

lindowe wrote: post #9

I would love to know by what metric 1950s & 60s elites were 'better'. Brook's seems to be ignoring the fact that elites in these times were more effective because they could ignore other interest groups. It's easy to get a highway built when you can override the largely poor or minority groups who live in these areas (i.e. Robert Moses). Also the widespread lack of transparency meant that the crimes of elites were fa…

Fair point on the disastrous social engineering and urban redevelopment schemes of the 20th century. But, what about sending men to the moon or designing and building the sr-71 in a few years? Or for that matter conquering Japan and Germany in the space of a few years.

I argue these are all things our society today would simply not be able to do if placed in the same circumstances. We are less effective.

Re: Why Our Elites Stink

#13

Post by bejar37 » Fri, Jul 13, 2012, 4:50 PM UTC

The interesting point that I got from this article is that the old aristocracy had a sense of responsibility to society and acknowledged the fact that they were privileged. Now that we're in a society where people tend to not think of themselves as wealthy or privileged, how does this self-ignorant meritocratic elite know that they do have a responsibility?

Re: Why Our Elites Stink

#14

Post by freyr » Fri, Jul 13, 2012, 4:50 PM UTC

The current system favors easily quantifiable performance metrics (GPA, SAT, ranking of degree-granting academic institution) and social networking. We end up with socially-adept individuals who look good on paper running the show. As we have seen in some stunning recent displays, individuals can rise within this system and succeed despite an off-kilter moral compass or a sense of purpose beyond their own personal gain. Hayes claims that elites are corrupted by meritocracy when they attempt to preserve their power. Brooks argues that the rise of morally bankrupt elites are a cultural byproduct, rather than a inherent issue with meritocracy itself.

It's a potentially interesting distinction, but Brooks doesn't justify it coherently or delve into the implications at all. He compares and contrasts yesterday's elites to today's, but these comparisons hold under either hypothesis. It would have been more interesting if he provided a coherent argument for his claim, or offered any prescriptions to treat the underlying problem (or even to quell the symptoms).

Re: Why Our Elites Stink

#15

Post by drumdance » Fri, Jul 13, 2012, 4:51 PM UTC

rubashov wrote: post #7

The assertion that "elite" status is more meritocratic today than in the past (in America) is highly questionable. Go look at 100 year old university admissions tests. Note that they didn't care what "clubs" you were in. Brooks goes on about diversity and the decline of WASP dominance as an obvious sign of the shift to meritocracy. This out of hand dismisses the possibility the WASPs just actually were/are elite. Why…

Yes, but they cared very much whether you were Jewish, black or female. And they still care if your parents went to school there.

Re: Why Our Elites Stink

#16

Post by bwanab » Fri, Jul 13, 2012, 4:54 PM UTC

brown9-2 wrote: post #3

Here is an excerpt of Chris Hayes' book for anyone interested: http://www.thenation.com/article/168265/why-elites-fail I think David Brooks is over-summarizing Hayes' thesis and also making it sound like he is interested in violent overthrow of "the elites" by comparing him to the French Revolution.

Thanks for that. Hayes' actual arguments are much more subtle and thoughtful than Brooks gives them credit for.

Re: Why Our Elites Stink

#17

Post by ericd » Fri, Jul 13, 2012, 4:57 PM UTC

majormajor wrote: post #10

ritchiea wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree that he's nostalgic and full of shit but you're putting words in his mouth when you say the problem is "those who rise to power do so with the personal story that they earned it." Brooks is arguing that they DID earn it, he says the mechanisms that put people at the top tend to be honest and that people at the top work more than others. What he's saying when he's being nostalgic is that the old people at the…

Yes, he asks if we would say government is working better now than 60 years ago, and given (just for starters) the huge difference in opportunities available for women and minorities, I'm not seeing why I shouldn't say that. The whole thing rests on a premise that, in some vague and mostly-unspecified way, "things used to be better," or at least "people used to think things were better." But this doesn't seem backed…

There are a many, many more axes for government performance than just equality of opportunity for people under it, though. Simply comparing the reaction of the government to the recent financial crisis to the past reactions makes it easy to see that something has been lost. In previous financial crises, significant regulations were brought to bear to patch the bugs. This time, despite some extremely significant structural problems that are easy to identify (complete regulatory capture of the ratings agencies and the SEC, for example), relatively little has been done.

Re: Why Our Elites Stink

#18

Post by Evbn » Fri, Jul 13, 2012, 4:57 PM UTC

Why do we keep up voting articles that we all agree are nonsense? Because they are published by an "elite" newspaper?

Re: Why Our Elites Stink

#19

Post by rubashov » Fri, Jul 13, 2012, 4:59 PM UTC

drumdance wrote: post #15

rubashov wrote: post #7

The assertion that "elite" status is more meritocratic today than in the past (in America) is highly questionable. Go look at 100 year old university admissions tests. Note that they didn't care what "clubs" you were in. Brooks goes on about diversity and the decline of WASP dominance as an obvious sign of the shift to meritocracy. This out of hand dismisses the possibility the WASPs just actually were/are elite. Why…

Yes, but they cared very much whether you were Jewish, black or female. And they still care if your parents went to school there.

On black and Jewish I'm not going to take your point as granted. I'd need an unbiased analysis.

Re: Why Our Elites Stink

#20

Post by sp332 » Fri, Jul 13, 2012, 5:05 PM UTC

moron wrote: post #4

As far as whether Wall Street is working better than it used to, depends who you ask. But, really, this talk of "elites" tends to put me on edge, because a lot of times it's really about who you define as the elite. I came of age politically at the time when anybody to the left of Rush Limbaugh was an effete "latte liberal", and the word "elite" basically referred to anyone who had a college degree and saw through th…

I think "elites" are people who consider themselves elite, or more specifically, any one who thinks: 1. They can make better life choices, financial decisions etc. than "other" people, and 2. Therefore they should be in charge of other people's lives.