NYT: Why our elites stink

[Sargon]

......

 

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.

 

First, you said he does not wish to change something that he wishes to change. So, seems there's a logic error there. Actually, there is exactly a logic error there so I leave it to you to comprehend that whenever you will.

 

Second, you presume (your word is "obviously" ) that racist exclusivity is the cause of this "failure" of the modern elites. That's a laugh. President O is black and grew up somewhat Muslim in African and Asia. I guess POTUS is not "elite" according to you and your NYT "conservative" writer. This country's morals are in fact caving but liberals do NOT know why and it is NOT most apparent when looking at the small group of folks known as big CEO's.

[Sargon]

OK Zoogies.....you tell all of us now please the name of a serious conservative in the Employ of the NYT. Some of us will follow up and see how conservative we think she is. And why don't you....since you claim to know....just tell us her most rock solid conservative credentials?

[zoogs]

First, you said he does not wish to change something that he wishes to change. So, seems there's a logic error there. Actually, there is exactly a logic error there so I leave it to you to comprehend that whenever you will.

I'll quote from the article: "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."

 

Ergo, he is most certainly not advocating for a change from meritocracy.

 

Second, you presume (your word is "obviously" ) that racist exclusivity is the cause of this "failure" of the modern elites.

No -- not modern, but their predecessors, the "racist, sexist and anti-Semitic old boys' network" referred to in (again...) the article. These are indeed shortcomings, and we are talking about the shortcomings of that non-meritocracy to which neither you, the author, nor I would like to see a return.

 

The premise of the article seems to be that today's elites are not elite enough. They prefer instead to rail against the establishment rather than embrace their status. Namely -- " The problem is that today’s meritocratic elites cannot admit to themselves that they are elites. 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."

 

What I feel this article truly attacks is such silly counter-establishment movements such as the pitting of the "We are the 99%" vs the 1%, and other such ilk. There's certainly a question as to whether the 'good ole boys' were as good in comparison as he makes it out to be. Or, indeed, whether today's elites are as in need of having a greater sense of responsibility. Regardless of either of those, a message of "be more responsible" and "embrace your elite status, and recognize the importance of living up to it" is one I can get on board with.

 

Now, your argument, if I've been following correctly.... - 'Author works for NYT, must be a liberal, and cannot comprehend morals.' Brilliant, sir.

 

OK Zoogies.....you tell all of us now please the name of a serious conservative in the Employ of the NYT. Some of us will follow up and see how conservative we think she is. And why don't you....since you claim to know....just tell us her most rock solid conservative credentials?

I think I've already said, the author of this article. Brooks describes himself as a once-liberal who came 'to [his] senses'. He consiers himself a moderate, has been labeled a neocon, was eidtor of a book entitled 'Backward And Upward: The New Conservative Writing', wrote 'We [conservatives] should insist on gay marriage...it's going to be up to conservatives to make the important, moral case for marriage, including gay marriage.' He's been referred to as a conservative columnist a number of times over the years, including by Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid.

 

You may argue one way or another if he is satisfactorily conservative for your tastes, but I find it puzzling we would seek to pigeonhole the author into a certain label for the sole sake of deciding whether or not he's worth agreeing with.

[carlfense]

You may argue one way or another if he is satisfactorily conservative for your tastes, but I find it puzzling we would seek to pigeonhole the author into a certain label for the sole sake of deciding whether or not he's worth agreeing with.

But how am I to know whether or not to agree with the author if I don't know if he is a conservative?!