3 ms·

Most people would probably call my views "liberal", and I think that's a funny way of characterizing the liberal viewpoint. I, for one, am deeply distrustful of

Most people would probably call my views "liberal", and I think that's a funny way of characterizing the liberal viewpoint. I, for one, am deeply distrustful of what we call meritocracy in this country. For one thing, we project the merit of parents (or lack thereof) onto their children. We do this in how we allow massive intergenerational transfers of wealth. But also, as you point out, the schools a child can attend are very dependent on who their parents are. In Chris Hayes' excellent book, Twilight of the Elites [1], he rejects meritocracy. Not only does he reject it in practice, for reasons like those I presented, but he also rejects it even in theory. He suggests that the idea of showering people with resources that show promise is an affront to the concept that every human being has fundamental value and that all should be invested in. Liberals, broadly speaking, do love schools. But I don't think that's for lack of concern about other issues of social justice! Perhaps you mean economic liberals (e.g. classical liberals and neoliberals)? [1] http://www.amazon.com/Twilight-Elites-America-After-Meritocracy/dp/0307720462 http://www.amazon.com/Twilight-Elites-America-After-Meritocr...

Oxitendwe 9y ago
>In Chris Hayes' excellent book, Twilight of the Elites [1], he rejects meritocracy. Not only does he reject it in practice, for reasons like those I presented, but he also rejects it even in theory. He suggests that the idea of showering people with resources that show promise is an affront to the concept that every human being has fundamental value and that all should be invested in. That's insane, why shouldn't how many resources people get be dependent on their potential value to society? Why shouldn't we reward people who are faster, smarter, stronger, more than their lesser peers? We're not all equal, we do not all have "fundamental value" (see: murderers, child rapists, people who seek to do you harm for their own benefit, etc), and it makes no sense to invest the same amount in everyone. You wouldn't call your stock broker and tell him to invest the same amount of money in every stock. On another level, what sort of person can you really hope to aspire to if you have the same "fundamental value" as everyone else? If you don't yourself believe that you're smarter, or faster, or deserve more than everyone else because of your gifts, what reason do you have to ask for the resources to help you succeed better? The concept that you shouldn't optimize for utility to society is so fundamentally silly that I can't believe anyone could seriously believe it.
rayiner 9y ago
> I, for one, am deeply distrustful of what we call meritocracy in this country. From my observation is that the minority. I'm in D.C. where our liberals are of the highly educated, latte-sipping variety. Most believe quite deeply in at least the idea of meritocracy. That's why they're so focused on education: it's easy to point to "failing schools" as the reason for observed injustices if you believe that the meritocracy is otherwise sound. That's why "college for everyone" has become such an issue in mainstream liberal circles.
- acjohnson55 9y ago
  I get what you're saying. With the emergence of the New Left, the Democratic Party captured the lion's share of the white collar class. Many folks who think of themselves as liberal today are actually pretty status quo. I think the liberalism you speak to prizes being #woke, but without necessarily believing that the neoliberal system we have today is deeply broken for most Americans. This divide between modern liberals and leftists was laid bare in the Bernie insurgency during the campaign for the nomination. And the lack of resonance this has with most of "real America" was laid bare in the defeat of Hillary Clinton by Donald Trump. Although HRC handily won the popular vote, the fact that status quo liberalism wasn't strong enough to defeat right-wing nationalism by our bizarre and archaic electoral rules is still quite remarkable. Even more so given that the avatar of said nationalism is a buffoon. Now that I understand your semantics, I think I largely agree with you.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

Oxitendwe 9y ago

>In Chris Hayes' excellent book, Twilight of the Elites [1], he rejects meritocracy. Not only does he reject it in practice, for reasons like those I presented, but he also rejects it even in theory. He suggests that the idea of showering people with resources that show promise is an affront to the concept that every human being has fundamental value and that all should be invested in. That's insane, why shouldn't how many resources people get be dependent on their potential value to society? Why shouldn't we reward people who are faster, smarter, stronger, more than their lesser peers? We're not all equal, we do not all have "fundamental value" (see: murderers, child rapists, people who seek to do you harm for their own benefit, etc), and it makes no sense to invest the same amount in everyone. You wouldn't call your stock broker and tell him to invest the same amount of money in every stock. On another level, what sort of person can you really hope to aspire to if you have the same "fundamental value" as everyone else? If you don't yourself believe that you're smarter, or faster, or deserve more than everyone else because of your gifts, what reason do you have to ask for the resources to help you succeed better? The concept that you shouldn't optimize for utility to society is so fundamentally silly that I can't believe anyone could seriously believe it.

rayiner 9y ago

> I, for one, am deeply distrustful of what we call meritocracy in this country. From my observation is that the minority. I'm in D.C. where our liberals are of the highly educated, latte-sipping variety. Most believe quite deeply in at least the idea of meritocracy. That's why they're so focused on education: it's easy to point to "failing schools" as the reason for observed injustices if you believe that the meritocracy is otherwise sound. That's why "college for everyone" has become such an issue in mainstream liberal circles.

acjohnson55 9y ago
I get what you're saying. With the emergence of the New Left, the Democratic Party captured the lion's share of the white collar class. Many folks who think of themselves as liberal today are actually pretty status quo. I think the liberalism you speak to prizes being #woke, but without necessarily believing that the neoliberal system we have today is deeply broken for most Americans. This divide between modern liberals and leftists was laid bare in the Bernie insurgency during the campaign for the nomination. And the lack of resonance this has with most of "real America" was laid bare in the defeat of Hillary Clinton by Donald Trump. Although HRC handily won the popular vote, the fact that status quo liberalism wasn't strong enough to defeat right-wing nationalism by our bizarre and archaic electoral rules is still quite remarkable. Even more so given that the avatar of said nationalism is a buffoon. Now that I understand your semantics, I think I largely agree with you.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]