David Brooks makes my face hurt. In his column he pines for the good-old common sense of oligarchy, using increased criticism as evidence of poor performance. Never once will it occur to him that more criticism might mean people are finally brave enough to speak out. Idiot.
One of the great achievements of modern times is that we have made society more fair.
I agree, but this work is hardly over. (And in some cases it has hardly begun.)
Yet here’s the funny thing. As we’ve made our institutions more meritocratic, their public standing has plummeted.
This is the whole point of his essay. But, is it even true? People have always lacked trust in those who are in power-- I would argue that what we see today is more vocal, open criticism of powerful people and institutions. I would imagine that their actual standing in the minds of the general public has remained much the same-- it's just that my grand parents would never criticize, the justice system, for example, since they were well known for locking people up simply for being critical. Now there is more criticism of the justice system, but it is without a doubt, a more fair system that it was 40 years ago. Far from perfect, but better. There are many other examples like this one.
It’s not even clear that society is better led. Fifty years ago, the financial world was dominated by well-connected blue bloods who drank at lunch and played golf in the afternoons. Now financial firms recruit from the cream of the Ivy League. In 2007, 47 percent of Harvard grads went into finance or consulting. Yet would we say that banks are performing more ably than they were a half-century ago?
Why not talk about what was going on 80 years ago, David? Our current baking woes are nothing new and caused by the same old gimme-gimme, something for nothing, speculation and magical thinking that has caused other crisis. At root they may be a refection of the need for a shift in economic activity (especially with respect to manufacturing and trade... but that is another post.) Still, there is something more wrong with what Brooks is saying here...I don't think that there is that big of a difference between blue bloods and Harvard grads-- if you are saying that the Ivy League is a meritocratic you're nuts-- they have improved in the past 30 years, but connections and wealth etc. still matter.
Government used to be staffed by party hacks. Today, it is staffed by people from public policy schools. But does government work better than it did before?
Yes. Absolutely. Are you kidding me?
Journalism used to be the preserve of working-class stiffs who filed stories and hit the bars. Now it is the preserve of cultured analysts who file stories and hit the water bottles. Is the media overall more reputable now than it was then?
I think more people can find sources they feel are reputable, though there is no consensus on what those sources are. And you know what? That's great! Media are more diverse if you count internet and other sources. I think it is much easier to get correct information, and good reporting now than in the past. It is true there is also a lot more crap out there. But, the limited one-to-many old style journalism really limited what would be considered "news" and much of what was published was shockingly biased. I had a job reading old news papers to create and index for them once. They sucked. Every story was from the same point of view-- a lot was left unmentioned. For a laugh go read how the civil rights movement was reported-- If you wanted different take back then you'd have to talk to your neighbors...
Now the lifestyle patterns of the college-educated are very different from the patterns in other classes. Social attitudes are very different, too.
This just strikes me as being.... well... totally false. Is he really trying to say that there is a bigger divide between college-educated people now than in the past? Is he kidding?
It could be that Americans actually feel less connected to their leadership class now than they did then, with good reason.
This is the essence of David Brooks in a single sentence. A sweeping statement filled with nothing that is totally false on closer examination. Yes, some people may feel more disconnected. Many others feel more connected. Maybe Brooks feels less connected so he thinks everyone must?
Fifth, society is too transparent.
(this is when I started laughing out loud...) OK. I'm out. It's not transparent enough. End of story.