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.