America’s longtime sources of strength have been its spirit of individual enterprise and innovation, people motivated to work hard and try new things, confident in their ability to succeed and confound naysayers. This is propelled by America’s freedom and openness, as a meritocratic egalitarian society – egalitarian not in results but, rather, with every person standing on his or her own merits (not pedigree or privilege). Of course it’s imperfect, but these fundamental characteristics are in America’s DNA.
Now, however, a different strand has crept into our national DNA – the ethos of entitlement. It’s a recrudescence of the old world paradigm of entrenched privilege that America was founded to get away from. But in today’s USA, entrenched privilege is everywhere, exerted not by some elite oligarchy but by practically every segment of society.
Thursday, April 15, 2010
Land of the free or land of the entitled?
Insightful post by the rational optimist well worth a read. Here's a nice excerpt (How could it not be nice if it uses the word "recrudescence"? Look it up. I had to.):
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
I have not read the entire article yet, but I already take exception to the writer touting meritocracy in America. We both know that for most people that is by and large a myth.
Fair point. It's all relative though. I think the overall point he makes is a fair one.
I imagine your concern about the term depends on which way you phrase it.
If it means that in America you can become darn near anything you want if you work hard enough at it, it's probably an ok representation within limits.
If it means that who you are, who you've become, or even more viscerally, how wealthy you are, is based only upon your own efforts, it would be a farce to say that such is a measure of the meritocracy.
Are there those that appear great that are in that place without merit? Certainly. Are there those that fail completely despite all their hard work, certainly, but I would estimate far less so.
Within this particular meritocracy, one can fail routinely yet over the long haul achieve greatness upon one's own merit, even if one hales from Davis County. At least I'm still holding out hope that's true.
P.S. This is why, despite my recent libertarian leanings, I am a fan of very, very high estate taxes. Each new generation should stand on its own. Someone born into wealth has enough of a headstart without also being handed a billion or two.
Pardon the post within a post, but I thought of a mathematical (!) way to explain what I mean.
Meritocracy does not refer to the relationship between where you are (A) and what you've done (D). It refers to the relationship between where you are relative to where you began (B) and what you've done.
D=f(A-B) but D<>f(A)
How's that for nerdy?
I'd agree with you on both counts. Especially the estate tax. I do believe that anyone in this country can greatly improve their situation by hard work, however, I think its a stretch to say they can become anything they want. You don't get to be President of this country with out some huge help. Obama is the closest to a self made man, and even he went to a very exclusive private school. There are a lot of unwritten rules in this country and if you aren't born with the smarts to figure them out or if you don't have someone to teach them to you, your rise will be limited.
Definitely. We stand on other's shoulders (if we so choose). [B=f(A)]
That said, I don't know of any place outside of Plato's Republic where that isn't at least equally so as it is here.
Post a Comment