Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why Our Elites Stink

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 74 posts

Re: Why Our Elites Stink

#51

Post by wdewind »

mjw wrote: post #31
wdewind wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, I think we agree: Brooks claims the mechanism that gets them there is meritocratic, but because they do not have the concept of being an elite (the patronizing attitude), which they do not have because they "earned it", they are worse leaders. "The problem is that today’s meritocratic elites cannot admit to themselves that they are elites."

Although I don't buy the whole article, I think this is an interesting viewpoint. One could argue that the brand of libertarian politics often espoused in american hacker circles is pretty much the politics of this "meritocratic elite who can't admit they're an elite". I worked hard to earn it, I deserve it, I resent the idea that society should impose on me any responsibility towards those who didn't/weren't lucky e…

I definitely agree that it's an interesting view point, but Brooks makes no effort to really show that things have ever been different. He defines the good old days as the opposite of today, rather than actually describing them.

The question of whether or not someone earned their place in society is one that people have and will always wonder: it gets at the nature nurture question and thus is totally wrapped up in our identities.

Re: Why Our Elites Stink

#52

Post by Spooky23 »

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…

I'd argue that government is more pervasively corrupt today because it pretends to be clean. We aggressively try to stamp out "transactional" corruption, but pretend that systemic corruption doesn't exist.

In 1960, a salesman would give a government buyer a bottle of whisky for Christmas. That's a serious crime these days. But today, we eliminated to a large extent the "upfront" influence and instead launder it through "lobbying" firms. A $30 bottle is a crime, $30,000,000 of advertising through a PAC is ok.

Re: Why Our Elites Stink

#53

Post by liber8 »

Our Elites have always stunk. Even during perhaps the most creative, innovative, and groundbreaking period in the history of political science (the time around the American revolution), our leaders ran smear campaigns, created laws to freeze out their competitors[1], and even killed each other[2].

But, those great men actually realized, at least to some extent, how much they stunk. They crafted a limited government because they recognized how easily corrupted people in power are.

This fantasy that everything will be okay if we simply pick the "right" elites has been persistent since FDR's administration. There's no such thing. Brooks argues that we just need to inject some ethics into the process. Good luck. If you can figure out how to do that, we don't need prisons, we don't need 99.9% of the laws we have, and we don't need 99.9% of the government we have. Of course, humans don't work that way. Which is why our government was set up the way it was in the first place.

[1] Our beloved Ben Franklin became postmaster just so he could scoop other peoples' stories for his own newspaper.

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaron_burr

Re: Why Our Elites Stink

#54

Post by crusso »

paulsutter wrote: post #47

"Everybody thinks they are countercultural rebels, insurgents against the true establishment, which is always somewhere else" This is a fascinating point, and predicts the crticisms here about how "elites" are defined. All the successful people i know in the tech industry feel like outsiders and rebels. And as such, it's an interesting question whether the tech industry feels more of a motivation for success than we…

I can't help but feel that much of the criticisms here are semantic in nature and result from zeroing in on sentences and phrases rather than the central idea of the article.

'Who the elites are', 'how they got where they are', and 'what their natures are' are the kinds of topics that people tend to think of in quasi-religious terms.

Breaking through the semantic quibbling and getting past the default set of political assumptions isn't easy -- even on a reasonably contemplative forum like HN.

Like you, I don't know the answer. Brooks' conclusions are a little weak since there isn't any way to gather statistics on the subject that would mean much. Interesting to think about, though.

Re: Why Our Elites Stink

#55

Post by freyr »

sp332 wrote: post #40
freyr wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This definition is entirely dependent on the internal mind state of the individual. The guy behind the counter of the local 7-Eleven may think he's smarter than everyone, and may think he should be in charge, but nobody thinks of him as an elite. I'd guess most people today consider an elite as somebody who wields influence within a political, corporate, or other type of entity that itself is highly influential withi…

Exactly, elitism is basically empire-building on a personal level. You can of course wield influence while still being strongly meritocratic. But feeling some entitlement or ambition to control aspects of other people's lives is elitist.

We're defining two different things here, elitists and elites. An elitist is defined by their state of mind, and how they classify themselves and others. You do not need actual power to be elitist.

Society's elites, on the other hand, have real influence (and may not even have an elitist mindset).

Re: Why Our Elites Stink

#56

Post by crusso »

tomjen3 wrote: post #45
sp332 wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That is nearly everyone.

As a Libertarian, I don't want to be in charge of your life.

There are lots of us who feel that way.

Re: Why Our Elites Stink

#57

Post by crusso »

Spooky23 wrote: post #52
majormajor wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I'd argue that government is more pervasively corrupt today because it pretends to be clean. We aggressively try to stamp out "transactional" corruption, but pretend that systemic corruption doesn't exist. In 1960, a salesman would give a government buyer a bottle of whisky for Christmas. That's a serious crime these days. But today, we eliminated to a large extent the "upfront" influence and instead launder it throu…

What you describe is the unintended consequence of thinking that we can legislate ethics by continuing to pile on detailed proscriptions or requirements within our laws.

As the number and detail of laws has increased, the fragility of the system has decreased. It's like software, the more special-case tightly-coupled components you have; the less robust the system.

Our laws could use a good refactoring.

Re: Why Our Elites Stink

#58

Post by freyr »

liber8 wrote: post #53

Our Elites have always stunk. Even during perhaps the most creative, innovative, and groundbreaking period in the history of political science (the time around the American revolution), our leaders ran smear campaigns, created laws to freeze out their competitors[1], and even killed each other[2]. But, those great men actually realized, at least to some extent, how much they stunk. They crafted a limited government b…

"Of course, humans don't work that way."

Whenever I find myself in doubt regarding liberal viewpoint, it usually can be traced back to this, a fundamental disconnect with the way the majority of humans actually behave.

In fairness, strong conservatives draw from an even crazier palette of false assumptions.

Re: Why Our Elites Stink

#59

Post by Domenic_S »

crusso wrote: post #56
tomjen3 wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is nearly everyone.

As a Libertarian, I don't want to be in charge of your life. There are lots of us who feel that way.

If you're not in charge of their life, they're in charge of yours because there has to be a power gradient when money (taxes) is involved.

I don't want to be in charge of your life, but I don't want to be responsible for paying for it, either.

Re: Why Our Elites Stink

#60

Post by sp332 »

Domenic_S wrote: post #59
crusso wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a Libertarian, I don't want to be in charge of your life. There are lots of us who feel that way.

If you're not in charge of their life, they're in charge of yours because there has to be a power gradient when money (taxes) is involved. I don't want to be in charge of your life, but I don't want to be responsible for paying for it, either.

Or maybe we could agree on something?
Post reply on HN