Is there Merit to a Meritocracy?

For the past couple of weeks, I've been trying to digest the meaning of the November 2 election.

One question is, what does the election portend for the future. It may not bode well. I fear for the future of our grandchildren. That's the subject for a future post.

A more immediate question is, what does it say about today's America?

Noam Scheiber, writing in The New Republic, analyzes the appeal of leading Tea Party figures such as Sarah Palin and Rand Paul as stemming from a politics of resentment - resentment at being led by snobs who think that governing requires expertise. Or who labor under the illusion that knowledge is better than ignorance.

To some extent, this is nothing new in American politics. We have, as David Hackett Fischer details in Albion's Seed, his cultural history of the United States, always been dominated by identity politics. We have also had examples of politicians who became successful by attacking intellectuals and other so-called elites. The example of George Wallace comes to mind. Himself a well-educated man, he attracted a following by attacking "pointy-headed intellectuals."

What seems new is the degree to which the poor and elderly have allowed themselves to be persuaded to vote against their own economic interests.

Americans once believed that the way to free the country from the grip of an aristocracy was to replace the self-appointed and self-perpetuating institutions of those with wealth and power with a meritocracy. The idea was that it is more democratic to be governed by those who achieved their positions by hard work and demonstrated excellence, rather than by family connections.

Not surprisingly, the wealthy and connected have fought back.

This phenomenon was examined a few years ago by Thomas Frank in his book, What's the Matter with Kansas? Frank highlighted what appeared to be effective use of explosive social issues to redirect the anger of those in economic distress away from the wealthy and powerful who caused the distress toward "liberal elites." When the book appeared, some pollsters disputed Frank's analysis.

This year, however, the Washington Post has taken a detailed look at congressional districts where Republicans gained enough seats to change the party in power. "The Republican Party's big gains in the House," the Post reports, "came largely from districts that were older, less diverse and less educated than the nation as a whole. Democrats kept their big majorities in the cities." This seems to confirm Frank's analysis.

A new feature is the extent to which a particular media conglomerate has lent its voice to supporting the interests of the wealthy and connected by whipping up anger against those with knowledge and expertise. See Paul Krugman's recent comment.

Experts may not always be right about what needs to be done. Still, when planning for the future, knowledge provides a better basis for planning than ignorance. Judgment is important, but judgment at variance with facts is fraught with peril. There is still merit to a meritocracy.

"...wisdom is better than folly, just as light is better than darkness.
The wise have eyes in their heads, while the fool walks in the darkness...."

Ecclesiastes 2:13-14