Meritocracy, Democracy, and the MIddle Path

In his column today, David Brooks explores the apparent dichotomy between "meritocracy" and "government."  "One one side," he writes, "there is the meritocracy, which widens inequality.  On the other side, there is President Barack Obama's team of progressives, who are trying to mitigate inequality.  The big question is: which side is winning?"

He goes on to note that one factor in the meritocracy is what he calls a "sorting system."  People who benefit from the meritocracy tend to live together, go to the same schools, etc.  And, people who do not benefit from the system, also tend to be sorted out.  One could argue, of course, that this has little to do with "merit" and more to do with money.  And, perhaps, one should argue that merit and wealth should not be used synonymously.

It is interesting that, while we have given a name to the idea of wealth and status through achievement--the meritocracy--Brooks does not give a name to the idea of equality through purposefully helping other people.  That is described as" President Obama's team of progressives."  Perhaps it would best be labeled "democracy"--the idea that we are all created equal and have equal right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

Brooks  notes that his is not taking a partisan stand--"The Republications do not have a better approach.  It is simply to say that the liberal agenda is not very good at addressing the inequality problem it seeks to solve."

I will argue that, as with many things in our political sphere, the answer is not simply to pit "meritocracy" against "democracy,"as we do with so many issues today.  Instead, the goal should be to create a social commitment to the idea that (1) everyone should be encouraged and, where needed, supported to achieve the best they can do and (2) that we should then recognize the importance of sharing our success in a way that helps others get off to a good start.  We should establish a social expectation that those who see themselves as beneficiaries of the "meritocracy" will, in turn, help others.  This is a question of social morality.  Do we, as a democracy, want to honor the selfish or do we want to honor those who help others?

The middle path toward a democracy that honors merit and also helps helps people achieve their best requires us to find common moral purpose.  This is the missing piece as we seek a new middle way for American democracy. 

A Lesson from Jane Addams

Back in 1919, at the end of the first World War, Jane Addams published an article called "Americanization" in the Publications of the American Sociological Society.  She focused on the different ways in which the idea of "Americanization" was perceived before the War and after it.  Before the war, she wrote,

"Americanism was then regarded as a great cultural task, and we eagerly sought to invent new instruments and methods with which to undertake it.  We believed that America could be best understood by the immigrants if we ourselves, Americans, made some sort of a connection with their past history and experiences."   

However, after the war, she notes, "there is not doubt that one finds in the United States the same manifestation of the world-wide tendency toward national dogmatism, the exaltation of blind patriotism above intelligent citizenship . . ."

There is a lesson here for our times, when our national politics on almost every front (including, still today, immigration) has become weighed down by dogmatism, leaving us little space to find the middle path that makes democracy work.  As Addams herself noted,

"When we confound doctrines with people, it shows that we understand neither one nor the other.  Many men, not otherwise stupid, when they consider a doctrine detestable, failing to understand that changes can be made only by enlightening people, feel that they suppress the doctrine itself when they denounce and punish its adherents."

 Too often, these days, our elected representatives feel themselves morally bound to adhere strictly to a dogmatic vision, either the one they campaigned on or the one held by the people who funded their elections.  As a result, we have seen a virtual paralysis of government.  American democracy is performed through argument and discussion, but ultimately achieved through negotiation and compromise--finding a common ground on which we can all agree to work together as a community.  

As a first step, we need to ask our elected representatives to see their colleagues not as adherents to a different dogma, but as fellow citizens.  In turn, they need to educate the public--and lobbyists--that their job is to advance the total community, not just their partisans.   One place where that job can be engaged is in the news media.  Too often, as has been said before in this blog, the news media serve to reinforce the differences in dogma rather than to help viewers find the middle ground where good policy can be developed.

We just began a new four-year political cycle.  Let's hope that Congress and the Administration can find a middle path and that the news media, rather than simply inviting the dogmatic extremists to butt heads on every issue, will foster a fair analysis that will help everyone educate themselves about what can truly be done to find common ground solutions.

More Memoirs

A while ago, I wrote a piece on "Reading Memoirs" that focused on remarkable memoirs by Joan Didion and Patti Smith.  This month, I want to focus on two memoirs by men.

The first is Along the Way, a dual memoir by Martin Sheen and Emilio Estevez that focuses on their father-son relationship over the years and, as well, their relationship as actors during the production of The Way.  It is enlightening to see these two talented men talk about themselves and each other, revealing their own weaknesses and regrets, strengths and hopes and discussing the impact that the other's strengths and weaknesses had on their lives:  grown fathers and sons talking about each other and themselves in a way one rarely experiences.  This is a powerful book about life, about acting, about relationships.

The second is Elsewhere, a memoir by novelist Richard Russo about his lifelong relationship with his troubled mother, from the day she decided to accompany him on his cross-country journey to college and the rest of her life, as she alternated between living near him and returning to her own home town.  As Russo (author of Nobody's Fool, Empire Falls, and Straight Man) writes, "What a next of thorns the past can be."  For me, having grown up, like Russo, with a single mother who never quite realized her dreams, Elsewhere was full of insights.

These are both powerful, personal, revelatory books by people whose work I admire greatly.  It is wonderful that they, like Didion and Smith, have been brave enough to share their experiences and insights with us. 

Guns and the Middle East: We Need to Know More

-->

Two current issues in the news make me wish that one of the national news outlets would give us solid background reporting on the forces that shape government action in the U.S.

First, of course, is the issue of gun safety—the politically correct term for gun “control.”  Clearly, the U.S. is becoming a more violent society.  Clearly, too, we need to do something to make it harder for unstable people to get access to the kinds of weapons—like the military-style semi-automatic guns that were used in the Aurora theatre and Sandy Hook Elementary School massacres.   However, the National Rifle Association is putting on our elected representatives as much pressure as it can to dampen their enthusiasm for reform. 

Question #1:   In order to understand why it is so hard to get action, we need to know how much money the NRA has invested in elections over the past decade or so, who has received those funds, and how much each person got.  We also need to know what other ways the NRA—and similar organizations—have tried to influence the behavior of our elected representatives.   In order words, we need to know the extent to which the NRA and their like have compromised our governmental process.

The second event that raised similar questions for me was the quick and strident reaction of Republicans over the nomination of former Republican Senator Chuck Hagel as Secretary of Defense.   Here, the issue seems to be Hagel’s lack of support for U.S. military intervention in the Middle East, starting with his stance against the invasion of Iraq.  Right after the nomination, Lindsay Graham and others cited Hagel’s criticism of Israel as a source of concern.  As the story has continued, others have tried to position Israel as a “distraction”—not unlike the NRA’s idea that the issue with gun safety is not guns but mental illness—but very clearly elected representatives initially spoke openly about Hagel’s perceived lack of support for Israel as a primary concern—the issue on which concern over his actions and statements about other Middle East issues were based.

Question #2:  Over the years, most Americans have quietly accepted the idea that the United States must give unquestioning support to Israel.  Today, with Israel appearing to push us toward a confrontation—one that could easily result in American lives being committed to a war—with Iran, we should educate ourselves on our relationship with Israel.  It is often said that Israel is essential to American security because it is our chief ally in the Middle East.  What is the nature of the threat to American security that Israel is protecting us from?  How much money do we give Israel through foreign aid, arms sales, and other taxpayer-funded actions?  Then, we need to define the Israel Lobby and ask the same questions of the Israel Lobby that we ask of the NRA:  How much money has it invested in elections over the past decade or so?  Who received these funds?  How much did each elected representative get?

The reason these two questions are important is that these two policy arenas make it essential for the public to know what is influencing the actions of our elected officials.  In both cases, those actions could result in increasing or decreasing the safety of American citizens, be they children in our classrooms or citizen soldiers sent into combat overseas. 

We also need for these questions NOT to be politicized.  We simply need the facts about what is influencing the actions of our elected representatives.  We can then support those actions or not, but right now, we hear the politics but we are not well informed about the issues themselves.

The Center for Responsive Politics maintains a website--Open Secrets--that lists who gives money to candidates.  This is a good starting point:  http://www.opensecrets.org/