Friday, February 19, 2010

David Brooks seems Confused

Not that it's terribly surprising. I don't think of him as a terribly good columnist. Nor is he entirely a terrible columnist. Mostly he spouts things that are deemed "conventional wisdom"...so deemed by people who, typically are neither conventional nor wise. This column is a pretty good example.

While he states some definite truths--our systems today are more open and merit based than they were 100+ years ago, people do feel very disconnected from most "leaders" of our community be they government or top business execs--he has plenty of other comments that are either confused or just wrong--that common people (serfs, workers, slaves) were more connected to "leaders" in the past (royalty, business tycoons, plantation owners) or that we have, in fact, established something approaching a meritocracy. For every Barack Obama story there are tens (and likely hundreds) of millions of stories about someone doing about the same as their parents, give or take a tiny margin. Rich people and families stay rich. Poor families pretty much stay poor. Moreover, he comments on Ivy League schools, and how all these Wall Street execs went to Harvard or some other, but the best and the brightest are not attending Harvard: the best of the people with the means to go to Harvard get in along with a handful of idiots whose families provide well for their endowment.

On top of that, lots of elites are respected. People have lots of respect for doctors, architects, engineers, and, despite the sometimes veiled insults from the intellectually challenged on the right, most people have lots of respect for scientists and professors. Really, people even have lots of respect for some politicians.

No comments: