Regardless of how Democrats may feel about the last election—meaning how depressed and despairing they are—it is time to move past fantasies and caricatures. The fantasy centers on the continued insistence by some on the left that their resounding defeat was due to Harris’s failures as a candidate, including her inability to articulate a persuasive message, lack of a convincing economic program, a poor choice of running mate, and an unwillingness to give effective interviews. The conclusion that springs inevitably from these perceived flaws is that a different nominee could have won, although Harris critics are vague on just who that might have been.
Trump supporters think America has moved away from the meritocracy it was supposed to be? They feel the country is dominated by liberal elites? Hmmm. Not sure many of them would be happy with any kind of dominating elites. I'd like to see what your critique of what David Brooks says about meritocracy in his article in The Atlantic, "How the Ivy League Broke America."
The point is not judge what they're thinking--that's the easy part. It's seeing the world through their eyes without imposing our own judgments on it. One of the first rules of intelligence work is work is to think like the enemy, not think the way you would have your enemy think. The critique of their position could not be more simple--they elected the most loathsome person ever to run for the office, ignoring every principle of not only democracy, but of choosing a leader who can actually do the job. And in doing so, they put the country in the greatest peril in almost a century. But that does not absolve us of the need to try to see them objectively for no other reason than finding ways to fight them more effectively...which we did not do this time.
I'm not judging them, and I am trying to see things from their point of view. In fact, I'll decline to use military metaphors since they're my fellow citizens and not my enemies. My point is that I don't think they're looking for a meritocracy. A level playing field yes, but not rule by the most able or best qualified. Brooks' article details (if he's right) how we've moved from rule by elites based on connections due to birth to rule by elites based on connections due to education. But according to Brooks, they're still self-perpetuating elites.
Consider how complex we have made our society. If you don't understand the way it works with all its laws, regulations, and procedures, and you can't seem to get ahead while others do, it's not hard to conclude the system is rigged against you. As Edmund Burke once said, "It's hard to say whether the doctors of law or divinity have made the greater advances in the business of mystery."
The arguments in this piece don't represent reality but rather the reality they wish to exist. No, they do not want a meritocracy, that is just an excuse for being upset they are not getting the advantages they think they deserve. They're not looking for a level playing field, just to have it tilted back in their direction where they think it belongs. As to Brooks, he has become a lost soul--his party has deserted him and his ideology, intellectual conservatism, has become shopworn. You can almost see the flies come off. To be honest, I never thought he had that much to say even when he was mainstream, and he has less to say now.
Trump supporters think America has moved away from the meritocracy it was supposed to be? They feel the country is dominated by liberal elites? Hmmm. Not sure many of them would be happy with any kind of dominating elites. I'd like to see what your critique of what David Brooks says about meritocracy in his article in The Atlantic, "How the Ivy League Broke America."
The point is not judge what they're thinking--that's the easy part. It's seeing the world through their eyes without imposing our own judgments on it. One of the first rules of intelligence work is work is to think like the enemy, not think the way you would have your enemy think. The critique of their position could not be more simple--they elected the most loathsome person ever to run for the office, ignoring every principle of not only democracy, but of choosing a leader who can actually do the job. And in doing so, they put the country in the greatest peril in almost a century. But that does not absolve us of the need to try to see them objectively for no other reason than finding ways to fight them more effectively...which we did not do this time.
I'm not judging them, and I am trying to see things from their point of view. In fact, I'll decline to use military metaphors since they're my fellow citizens and not my enemies. My point is that I don't think they're looking for a meritocracy. A level playing field yes, but not rule by the most able or best qualified. Brooks' article details (if he's right) how we've moved from rule by elites based on connections due to birth to rule by elites based on connections due to education. But according to Brooks, they're still self-perpetuating elites.
Consider how complex we have made our society. If you don't understand the way it works with all its laws, regulations, and procedures, and you can't seem to get ahead while others do, it's not hard to conclude the system is rigged against you. As Edmund Burke once said, "It's hard to say whether the doctors of law or divinity have made the greater advances in the business of mystery."
The arguments in this piece don't represent reality but rather the reality they wish to exist. No, they do not want a meritocracy, that is just an excuse for being upset they are not getting the advantages they think they deserve. They're not looking for a level playing field, just to have it tilted back in their direction where they think it belongs. As to Brooks, he has become a lost soul--his party has deserted him and his ideology, intellectual conservatism, has become shopworn. You can almost see the flies come off. To be honest, I never thought he had that much to say even when he was mainstream, and he has less to say now.