The Opposition…

Twilight of the Elites: America After Meritocracy

Christopher L. Hayes

Discussion: 2012-Jul-Aug-Sep

Why we're reading this: August 2, 2012
[close] August 2, 2012

Find A Copy At

Libraries

Group Discussions About This Book

Showing 2 of 3 topics — 3 comments total

2012-Jul-Aug-Sep

This topic has been closed to new comments.

* September 2012
By Tiffany , WristStrong · 1 post · 25 views

last updated Sep 29, 2012 02:37PM

* August 2012
By Tiffany , WristStrong · 1 post · 23 views

last updated Sep 01, 2012 05:16PM

What Members Thought

Aug 24, 2013 Andy rated it it was ok

The main thesis of the book relies on a weird definition of meritocracy. According to Hayes, we have a problem in this country because the meritocracy system selects for incompetent people to be in charge of everything. This is not logical; if the people are incompetent, then by definition they do not deserve to be in the positions that they hold. So the issue is not that we have meritocracy; the issue is that we do NOT have a meritocracy. Or, that the meritocracy we are supposed to have is brok The main thesis of the book relies on a weird definition of meritocracy. According to Hayes, we have a problem in this country because the meritocracy system selects for incompetent people to be in charge of everything. This is not logical; if the people are incompetent, then by definition they do not deserve to be in the positions that they hold. So the issue is not that we have meritocracy; the issue is that we do NOT have a meritocracy. Or, that the meritocracy we are supposed to have is broken. This is not a trivial distinction. What he's doing is like saying that democracy itself is bad because democracies don't function perfectly. So we should have what instead- fascism? He actually praises the thinking of a writer who switched from backing meritocracy to supporting Mussolini!

His arguments rest on the assumption that people are all equally able to perform various tasks. This is preposterous. He knows it is, because he keeps hedging it with "of course we want surgeons to be qualified" type of statements. If we want people in any position (not just political leadership) to be qualified, then we want a meritocracy. What is wrong with matching people with what they are good at?

He throws a straw-man argument into his discussion of meritocracy by saying it involves "matching the hardest working and most talented to the most difficult, important, and remunerative tasks." This is a tangent about inequality, which the book then focuses on, but this is not inherently about meritocracy. If you are well matched to your job, whether important or not, it shouldn't be difficult, and there's no particular reason for important jobs to be super-remunerative. Cleaning toilets, putting out fires, taking care of children are all important, and potentially very difficult but are not highly remunerative in our current system.

As far as I can tell, Hayes's beef is really with a certain class of "cheaters, shirkers and incompetents" who never actually do anything useful but feel entitled to rule the world. They are ambitious and competitive. When they get in charge, they cause disasters that destroy companies, institutions, countries, etc. Again, this is not meritocracy, but the opposite.

If this situation obtains, a major part of the responsibility belongs with the press, which keeps failing in its responsibility to be a watchdog and fact-checker. So perhaps the most galling thing in the book, is that Hayes admits he likes to "trust authority." Whatever happened to "newspapers should have no friends" ? Perhaps he is not matched well with his job.

Very disappointing. I do not watch MSNBC so I bought this on the basis of reviews from Publishers Weekly etc. I expected an "erudite" investigation of an important problem (widespread incompetence in many fields). Instead I got inexpressive gutter language and spurious arguments. This is a shame because it would be good to know more about how a society can make meritocracies function better. As Thomas Jefferson said, "we must dream of an aristocracy of achievement arising out of a democracy of opportunity." ...more

23 likes · Like · see review