Posted on 07/06/2012 6:56:58 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
In what starts out as an American Interest book review of Christopher Hayes' "Twilight of the Elites," Walter Russell Mead makes some fascinating points about the downside of meritocracy. If Hayes makes a secular liberal argument in bringing "skepticism to the McNamara-Obama vision of a technocratic, meritocratic society run by the 'best and the brightest'," Mead also makes a compelling case for why meritocracy presents unique challenges for people of faith.
In short, unlike feudal societies where it was natural for one to believe his lot in life was predestined by the Almighty, meritocratic societies give the winners the illusion that they --- and they alone --- earned their success. A little of this is perhaps good. But it can also lead to arrogance. As Mead notes,
Your ability to score 800 on the math section of the SAT is something for which you can personally take no credit whatever. It’s like a pretty face or perfect pitch: it’s very nice to have, but it’s God’s sovereign choice, not your sublime inner nature, that is responsible for this. And of course, he doesn’t give his gifts without a purpose. And guess what: the reason God made you smart wasn’t to make you rich and to make you special and to allow you to swank around in the White House or at Davos. He made you smart so that you could serve — and the people he wants you to serve are exactly all those people you feel so arrogantly superior to.
In short, Mead argues that our meritocratic society makes it harder for us to remember that everything comes from God — makes it harder for us to remain humble. This, perhaps answers some important questions: Why are many who live in nations with less economic (and religious) freedom more devout and dedicated? Why does Christianity seem to be more energetic in developing parts of the world? Why are so many successful Americans so unhappy and unfulfilled?
People who work hard to get ahead tend to think they deserve all the credit (The opposite phenomenon exists among the “gauche caviar” trust fund kids who didn’t earn their wealth, and turn to socialism.) This, I think, also helps explain the noblesse oblige phenomenon, whereby aristocrats are sometimes kinder and more understanding of the poor than are middle-class folks who were once poor (but worked their way up.)
Meritocracy, I believe, is incredibly important — and a vital reason for our nation’s success. Rewarding effort and success tends to breed more effort and success. And, though not perfect, meritocracy is a hell of a lot fairer — and more productive — than rewarding birthright. But in this flawed world, nothing is perfect. And it is interesting to note that there are valid criticisms to be made of it from both the left and the right.
More emphatically, the notion that this socialist led state is a "meritocracy" is an absurd notion.
And, finally, when did the notion of advancing by merit, using one's talents for the betterment of society, as opposed to other ways of organizing society, become, anti-Christian?
“Is meritocracy undermining Christianity?”
The answer to the question is obviously “No.”. Just look who is in the pulpits and who runs national church organizations.
Next question...
We didn't ever have a true meritocracy and given that human is prone to producing more people who want to game the system than who want to work hard, I don't think one is possible in this country.
LBJ used the cover of aiming for a meritocracy to formalize and fix the game to favor a fascist nobility, and now King Barry has gone a step further by making it clear that a nobility will rule with no regard to merit.
"Just look who is in the pulpits and who runs national church organizations."
ROTFL, good one.
So far as I can tell the question is absurd. I see no evidence of meritocracy in our society today.
From the banksters who fiddle with the LIBOR rate, pay themselves fat bonuses, sold mortgage-backed securities that should have been rated BBB- as AAA rated bonds; to the kakistocrats of the Obama administration; to the jet-setting self-aggrandizing CEOs of NGOs and non-profits like universities; to the leaders of various and sundry Christian dioceses (both Latin and Orthodox), mega-churches and television ministries who have become embroiled in scandals whether financial or sexual, whether directly or through cover-ups, I see no evidence that merit is advanced.
I'm not sure what you are saying. I know three homeschooled kids who virtually aced the SAT. One who did. And many more who are national merit finalists (PSAT performance)). These kids and many more were taught by my wife to write (see Andrew Pudewa's program (Institute for Excellence in Writing). The truth is that form is critical to successful writing.
I do agree that this socialist led state is NOT a meritocracy. It is the age old system of helping friends and harming enemies. Not merit, favor.
This calvinist tac is ridiculous. (I'm sick of this filter). Kids do well because they work at it, not because they've been necessarily gifted. I know many gifted kids who just won't do the work. And that is a formula for failure.
I have always had concerns with the SAT as a test of grammar and writing, even before the present essay test, because classical forms of grammar that have been dropped by the ignorant Ebonics modern crowd are considered wrong (the dropping of the subjunctive form in English is but one). More recently I have discovered how the SAT essay portion is actually graded and I was appalled. Grading is based upon the rigid applications of "accepted" model sentence structures and accepted model composition forms that would serve the 1925 secretary well in the composition of a business letter, which is a creditable standard of writing, but not a particularly high standard, except measured against the excrescences of what passes for modern writing.
But none of it has anything to do with excellent writing, compelling writing, writing that invites the reader to want to read the piece, and, as I discovered in a colloquy with an experienced SAT essay grader, the writings of a Hemingway or a WF Buckley would not do well. They don't follow the set format.
And so we exult not in merit, but in mediocracy.
I have always had concerns with the SAT as a test of grammar and writing, even before the present essay test, because classical forms of grammar that have been dropped by the ignorant Ebonics modern crowd are considered wrong (the dropping of the subjunctive form in English is but one). More recently I have discovered how the SAT essay portion is actually graded and I was appalled. Grading is based upon the rigid applications of "accepted" model sentence structures and accepted model composition forms that would serve the 1925 secretary well in the composition of a business letter, which is a creditable standard of writing, but not a particularly high standard, except measured against the excrescences of what passes for modern writing.
But none of it has anything to do with excellent writing, compelling writing, writing that invites the reader to want to read the piece, and, as I discovered in a colloquy with an experienced SAT essay grader, the writings of a Hemingway or a WF Buckley would not do well. They don't follow the set format.
And so we exult not in merit, but in mediocracy.
I have always had concerns with the SAT as a test of grammar and writing, even before the present essay test, because classical forms of grammar that have been dropped by the ignorant Ebonics modern crowd are considered wrong (the dropping of the subjunctive form in English is but one). More recently I have discovered how the SAT essay portion is actually graded and I was appalled. Grading is based upon the rigid applications of "accepted" model sentence structures and accepted model composition forms that would serve the 1925 secretary well in the composition of a business letter, which is a creditable standard of writing, but not a particularly high standard, except measured against the excrescences of what passes for modern writing.
But none of it has anything to do with excellent writing, compelling writing, writing that invites the reader to want to read the piece, and, as I discovered in a colloquy with an experienced SAT essay grader, the writings of a Hemingway or a WF Buckley would not do well. They don't follow the set format.
And so we exult not in merit, but in mediocracy.
AJ, I heard you the first time! Thanks for your elaboration/clarification.
Now for 'meritocracy'
clip...
Meritocracy
Meritocracy is a system of government based on rule by ability rather than by wealth or social position. Ironically, the term was first used in a pejorative sense in Michael Young's 1958 book, the Rise of the Meritocracy which was written from a standpoint of an future in which one's social place was determined by IQ plus effort. In the book, this social system ultimately leads to social revolution which as the masses overthrows the elite, who have become arrogant and disconnected with the feelings of the public.
Despite the negative origin of the word, there are many who believe that a meritocratic system is a good thing for society. Proponents of meritocracy argue that a meritocratic system is more just and more productive than other systems, and allows for the end to distinctions based on social class or race.
There have been other criticisms of the notion of meritocracy in addition to Young's original criticism that system in which social position was determined by objective characteristics would still be unegalitarian and unstable. One which is often made by proponents of critical theory concept argue that merit is defined by the power elite simply to legitimize a system in which social status is actually determined by class, birth, and wealth.
http://www.fact-index.com/m/me/meritocracy.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Young_(politician)
Ironically, the term was first used in a pejorative...
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.