But they aren’t. At least in terms of results it would be hard to argue that politicians who are wholly products of the new elite – basically the Boomers – have been more statesmanlike or wiser than their predecessors. The reason for this disparity between talent and results I think is reflected partly in the ideological differences between the bipartisan elite and the Eastern Establishment. Circumstances create opportunities and dangers but worldviews frame how those dangers or opportunities are perceived. Or if they are perceived at all.
There is not a simple partisan explanation for this either; though in a sense, the academic Left was, many decades ago, a prime mover in starting the change of worldviews among the elite, the outcome was probably very far from what they intended. An intent that was not geared to a specific policy result any more than Leo Strauss interpreting classic texts in the 1960’s was intended to influence neoconservatives to favor an invasion of Iraq in the 21st century. Unintended consequences ruled.
In Part IV. we will examine the ideology of the bipartisan elite and the growing disconnection with the American people, that if left uncorrected, threatens its political legitimacy.
Page 2 of 2 | Previous page
Dan tdaxp:
April 1st, 2006 at 4:22 pm
Remember though that the Elite’s opening of doors wasn’t always go-slow — sometimes it was go-backwards.
In college admissions, for example, criterea was specially designed to minimize the success of minorities and maximize that of less meritocratic Elite (“whole man” requirements to keep out Jews, “well rounded” requirements to keep out Chinese, etc).
Of course, a high-achieving elite has different things to fear from otehr high-achievinng elites (displacement within the existing system) than from low-achieving groups (social revolution).
Dan tdaxp
mark:
April 1st, 2006 at 9:06 pm
Changes of this kind are frequently two steps forward, one step back. Conant was an anti-semite despite his championing of meritocracy and knocking the often ridiculous preferences for children of alums down to a reasonable level didn’t become a reality until the 1970’s ( neither Bush nor Kerry were really Ivy League material except by birth).
The SAT wasn’t pefect but it was and is a fairly reliable predictor of aggregate academic aptitude – certainly far more so than familial ties.