Twilight of the Elites: America after Meritocracy: A personal review

[GopperStopper2680]

Hello fellow readers.

I'd like to offer you my thoughts on a book I finished reading recently. Now, I'm not a professional book reviewer or critic but I do read a LOT. I've been reading habitually since I was a child-everything from fiction to documentaries and how-to. So I feel qualified to at least recommend or disrecommend a book.

As for Twilight of the Elites by Christopher Hayes, I would put this one low on my list of reading priorities. I would not suggest NOT to read it but I wouldn't rush on it- First off I thought the subject matter was disappointing. It seemed to me that out of the seven chapters in the book the author spent six of them more or less stating the obvious. The final chapter 'Reformation' suggested some various ways in which we COULD very simply reform the nation's government and cited various other nations' strategies for creating more egalitarian societies. He then goes on to state, again, the obvious problem: It would hinge upon forcing the elites already in power to give up much of that power.

So the title of the book is a bit misleading: What with national approval of Congress at an all time low, along with trust in our pillar institutions, and with new books damning the failures of our nation's elite month by month it wouldn't be hard to imagine that Twilight of the Elites points to the eminent demise of this situation in our country. But it's more of a discussion of why such a system must eventually fail. (So far unfortunately, it hasn't-which is what I was hoping to hear in the book.)

As far as the last chapter goes, speculation on how to make a more egalitarian nation-well I will say this: Speculation is only any good if it leads to a solution. Otherwise it becomes simply grasping at straws, and even takes time and resources from actively searching for an answer.

I won't say the book doesn't have its up sides. The author is a clearly accomplished speaker and is good at making his points. I just don't think the points clued me personally into anything I wasn't either already privy to, or would have been had I bothered to meditate on it.

One more thing I found highly unusual about this book is that the author frequently curses openly in the body of the book using phrases like 'fucked up' and 'hot-shit'. I'm not against cursing personally-in fact I'm quite fluent in vulgarity. But I can honestly say that though I've been curses a plenty IN QUOTATIONS in a documentary I've never seen them directly in the body of the work. I would not disrecommend the book merely on that point but it is highly irregular.

In closing this short (and admittedly inexpert) review I would like to suggest you put reading this one off for a little later.

[nashville_brook]

1. it's easily the most important/radical book of the year & should be at the top of everyone's list.

Chris has laid down some smack in claiming that meritocracy no longer exists (amazing in that no one has said it yet...it's so obvious), which might not mean much to you if you're not hip to the intellectual history of politics in America. if true, this is the biggest political shift since the death of the Divine Right of Kings. it's a BIG FUCKING DEAL (<--cursing!). Further he shows that meritocracy contains the seeds of it's own destruction and always ends in oligarchy. that's another BIG FUCKING DEAL. this overturns the conceptual foundation of America that we've all taken for granted, and whether or not you buy into this is going to determine your quality of life (personally), and will determine the character of a nation (generically).

It's perfectly valid/expected and intellectually honest that Chris would lay out a descriptive assessment of the death of meritocracy, without a prescriptive "what to do next" discussion open for debate. it's not for one person to decide what comes after meritocracy.

so how do we fix this? well, it would be highly ironic for someone to level this charge and then say, "but fear not, for I have the answer!" that's exactly the dark Ayn Randian "meritocratic" mechanism that he's critiquing. this is a conversation we all need to have together.

in his interview on Sam Seder's Majority Report, Chris says that this is a debate we need to have, and perhaps we don't go back to advancement by merit. perhaps it's advancement by labor. perhaps it's advancement offered equally across all

Here's a link to Chris' interview with Seder:
http://majority.fm/2012/06/21/621-chris-hayes-twilight-of-the-elites-america-after-meritocracy/

[GopperStopper2680]

3. I'm glad you enjoyed it.

I personally didn't think it was particularly seminal. There was very little in it I could not have gleaned without having had him point it out to me.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

2. Doesn't he say we don't have a meritocracy?

I thought he said we DID have a meritocracy, and then turns around and says that the people running corporations and big institutions are not competent. I think he's talking about "rule by the rich" instead of "rule by the meritocracy".

We have seen plenty of CEO types saying to Congress "I don't know, I don't know..rinse and repeat ad infinitum".

They are NOT the brightest. They don't take responsibility for their actions.

[GopperStopper2680]

4. Actually...

he said we live in a post-meritocratic society that's stagnated. The point he seemed to be making was that meritocracies give way to aristocracies once the ones that have made their way to the top find ways to stay there and make sure only their selected associates get there as well.