4 ms·
Clearly Mr. Douthat means something very different than I do by "meritocracy." If "meritocracy" means existing political leaders or (as in his linked article)
by mquander 16y ago
Clearly Mr. Douthat means something very different than I do by "meritocracy." If "meritocracy" means existing political leaders or (as in his linked article) "D.C. elites", who appear to come by their positions through some combination of oligarchy and cronyism, then I suppose I am against it.
On the other hand, please bring me the "meritocracy" comprised of leaders who have the intellectual capacity and willpower to make rational decisions based on actual evidence and honest debate. You know, meritorious ones.
- Ardit20 16y agoI think the author doesn't really believe in meritocracy. The issue really doesn't seem to be as to whether the best are getting the places. The author seems to imply though not state that anyone can be able and meritorious of being part of the elite. His problem seems to rather be as to people from which background should we open the door to and which to close to, background, or colour, or sexual orientation, or add some other divisive label, not meritocracy. He probably is talking rather about mediocrity :P
- mquander 16y agoIt's the usual stance of a media that cares about being "objective" but not being informed: everyone has an important opinion, and we had better consider them all equally! Nobody dares suggest that some of the opinions are right and some are wrong, and if you do, then you're "partisan" and you're out of the club.