zoogs Posted July 13, 2012 Share Posted July 13, 2012 http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/13/opinion/brooks-why-our-elites-stink.html Thoughts? This was an interesting read. As a result, today’s elite lacks the self-conscious leadership ethos that the racist, sexist and anti-Semitic old boys’ network did possess. If you went to Groton a century ago, you knew you were privileged. You were taught how morally precarious privilege was and how much responsibility it entailed... The best of the WASP elites had a stewardship mentality, that they were temporary caretakers of institutions that would span generations. They cruelly ostracized people who did not live up to their codes of gentlemanly conduct and scrupulosity. They were insular and struggled with intimacy, but they did believe in restraint, reticence and service. Today’s elite is more talented and open but lacks a self-conscious leadership code. The language of meritocracy (how to succeed) has eclipsed the language of morality (how to be virtuous)... If you read the e-mails from the Libor scandal you get the same sensation you get from reading the e-mails in so many recent scandals: these people are brats; they have no sense that they are guardians for an institution the world depends on; they have no consciousness of their larger social role. Link to comment
'SkersRule Posted July 14, 2012 Share Posted July 14, 2012 Interesting. I'm not sure what to make of this... Link to comment
huKSer Posted July 14, 2012 Share Posted July 14, 2012 Why our elites stink "Rolling in dirty money"? Link to comment
TheW0rld Posted July 14, 2012 Share Posted July 14, 2012 Watch the HBO special "41" on the first President Bush. HBO Go or on demand with your cable outfit since it already aired. Those men of privilege that are able to act with long term responsibility are more rare today. He was one of them. Link to comment
VA Husker Fan Posted July 14, 2012 Share Posted July 14, 2012 Ahh, the good old days. Would we say Wall Street is working better now that 60 years ago? Maybe not, but it's working better than 85 years ago. Selective memory forgets people like Harding and Coolidge we had leading the country. What code of leadership did the Hunt brothers follow when they tried to corner the silver market? It almost sounds like the author wants to go back to a monarchy where leaders are designated by birthright and the best you can do is to marry into this society to set up your heirs. Link to comment
knapplc Posted July 14, 2012 Share Posted July 14, 2012 Tremendously unshocking that the dude who wrote this is White. Our Elites do stink - but they stink toward everybody, not just minorities and women. Go ask a 60-year-old Black man how benevolent Elites of Days Past stunk. To them, nothing has changed. White People Problems. Link to comment
zoogs Posted July 15, 2012 Author Share Posted July 15, 2012 I don't think race is the message here, but rather, it is a critique of our society-wide aspiration to reject the 'elite' mantle. The privileged Harvard graduates "rail[ing] against establishment", for instance. Even those who rise to the top don't view themselves as wielders of great responsibility and power because there's always another "1%" against whom they are rebelling. Or so the argument goes. The author (of the article) is not advocating a return to the old days or any change other than a renewed focus on virtue - and it may be arguable whether or not this is lacking. Overall I think it's a good message. I mean, let's not all be racist again or anything, but maybe it would be more productive to hold to a standard that includes more than pure achievement. He specifically states this: I want to keep the current social order, but I want to give it a different ethos and institutions that are more consistent with its existing ideals. So , no monarchy. The author of the article is Jewish, by the way, and anti-Semitism was one of the characteristics of the 'elites of days past'. Link to comment
knapplc Posted July 15, 2012 Share Posted July 15, 2012 It cannot be ignored, whether it's the current issue or not. His filter was very different than other minorities. And while Jews were oppressed in America "back then," it was very different than the way Blacks were treated. Business leaders compared to ditch-diggers. Link to comment
Yossarian Posted July 15, 2012 Share Posted July 15, 2012 It cannot be ignored, whether it's the current issue or not. His filter was very different than other minorities. And while Jews were oppressed in America "back then," it was very different than the way Blacks were treated. Business leaders compared to ditch-diggers. Business leaders compared to Presidents? Applying today's standards to the distant past is just fine, I suppose. If you do that, then one half of those 58,200 deaths in Vietnam should have been women - instead of the 12 who did die in-country. Link to comment
knapplc Posted July 15, 2012 Share Posted July 15, 2012 It cannot be ignored, whether it's the current issue or not. His filter was very different than other minorities. And while Jews were oppressed in America "back then," it was very different than the way Blacks were treated. Business leaders compared to ditch-diggers. Business leaders compared to Presidents? Applying today's standards to the distant past is just fine, I suppose. If you do that, then one half of those 58,200 deaths in Vietnam should have been women - instead of the 12 who did die in-country. Nobody is doing that. It's a comparison, not an application. Link to comment
Sargon Posted July 15, 2012 Share Posted July 15, 2012 The New York Times is the elite of the elites (not in accomplishment or effectiveness but in spirit an attitude) and the New York times stinks. Never let hypocrisy cloud the liberal brain fog. Link to comment
Sargon Posted July 15, 2012 Share Posted July 15, 2012 The New York Times is the elite of the elites (not in accomplishment or effectiveness but in spirit an attitude) and the New York times stinks. Never let hypocrisy cloud the liberal brain fog. Attacking meritocracy is typical anti-federalist, anti-capitalist, pro-socialist dogma. Why does a non-producer merit the fruits of a producer? See...just a different definition of merit. Not a good one, either. Link to comment
zoogs Posted July 15, 2012 Author Share Posted July 15, 2012 This was an article written by a conservative, and I am not sure you took the time to read more than the headline and the "NYT" before jumping to your conclusion and standard-issue "liberal socialist blah blah" soundbites. It is not an attack on meritocracy, only a critical view of why the current system has produced more talented, but not 'better' elites. The current system which he does not wish to change, but only to imbue with a greater sense of responsibility. Putting forth the question of whether, for all the obvious shortcomings of their racist, exclusive predecessors, there isn't something we might now learn from them. Link to comment
Sargon Posted July 15, 2012 Share Posted July 15, 2012 This was an article written by a conservative, and I am not sure you took the time to read more than the headline and the "NYT" before jumping to your conclusion. There is no conservative in the employ of the New York Times. Did you seriously not know that? Anyway....now you can be sure I did read 'some' as my edited (but not really as it became a new post for some odd reason....and I will point out posted before your wrong guess about my post) reply commented on the centrally stupid theme of merit (and morals really is the theme but liberals are so lacking in them I chose to not degrade my day enough to contemplate and comment on that). Link to comment
zoogs Posted July 15, 2012 Author Share Posted July 15, 2012 If you think he was advocating for something other than the current system of meritocracy, you've missed something... There is no conservative in the employ of the New York Times. Did you seriously not know that? Again with the quick judgments! (and morals really is the theme but liberals are so lacking in them I chose to not degrade my day enough to contemplate and comment on that). Incredibly unproductive way of talking, really. Although I suppose, you being unwilling to contemplate the theme, we can agree to disagree. Link to comment
Recommended Posts