General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: This: Dems went from being party of the people to [View all]Willie Pep
(841 posts)We want qualified people to perform surgery and fly airplanes. But the problem with a meritocracy is that it would likely create the most arrogant elite class imaginable because they would see their right to rule as something they earned while those who failed would theoretically have nobody to blame but themselves. This is the dystopia that Michael Young wrote about in his book that I mentioned in my earlier post.
Thomas Frank also mentions this when it comes to the issue of solidarity. If your ideal worldview is that of the educational meritocracy, those who fail to "make the grade" are by definition without merit and then the problem is whether or not their views and interests should matter, politically speaking. Frank is not arguing that we have unqualified people in jobs that require certain qualifications, but he is arguing against a political theory that sees educational success as the end all and be all of merit. Frank argues for solidarity between people no matter what their educational attainment is or where they fit on the professional ladder.
I don't think a meritocracy is even something that we can achieve anyway, since you can't equalize opportunity. You cannot give everyone equal genetic endowment or equal upbringings. Meritocracy is just another argument designed to uphold an elite class, in this case a technocratic one based on education. And such an elite would also have interests that differ from those of the mass of the people, so I see no reason to think that they would be benevolent.