In the end, Sandel flinches: in spite of accusing the new ruling order of \u201ctyranny,\u201d he fails to locate any tyrants. This silence on the meri\u00adtocracy\u2019s self-deception, in what is otherwise a singularly powerful critique of the pathologies of meritocracy, is telling. Sandel is remark\u00adably incurious about whether meritocrats\u2019 justifications of their moral eminence might in fact shroud the deeper \u201cwill to power\u201d one would expect to find among tyrants.<\/p>\n
For instance, Sandel evinces a lack of suspicion when listing a string of dubious actions by the meritocrats, concluding simply that they \u201chave not governed very well\u201d\u2014not<\/span> that they have governed with malevolence. He cites a string of failures from 1980 to the present, includ\u00ading \u201cstagnant wages for most workers, inequalities of income and wealth not seen since the 1920s, the Iraq War, a nineteen-year, incon\u00adclusive war in Afghanistan, financial deregulation, the financial crisis of 2008,\u201d and so forth (29). In each instance, however, these were not \u201cfailures\u201d if you were a member of the meritocracy. Almost to a person, the ruling class benefited from these crises, or at the very least, were not harmed by their consequences, even as they collectively diminished the prospects for flourishing among the meritocracy\u2019s losers. Sandel regards these outcomes as failed policies of otherwise well-intentioned leaders, rather than identifying them as the expected outcomes of a ruling class\u2019s efforts to maintain its position.<\/p>\n We return to where we began. At its outset, meritocracy, like most regimes, was defended as a just and beneficent new departure. It would replace the injustice of the ancien r\u00e9gime by encouraging and rewarding people for their talents. If inequality was to be an inescapable result, nevertheless the \u201cindustrious and rational\u201d would afford benefits to the society as a whole. Prosperity, progress, and enlightenment would spread even to the \u201cquarrelsome and contentious\u201d: as Locke wrote, the life of the day laborer in England was better than the mightiest king of the Indians in America. Unlike in a vicious regime, the ruling meritocrats would govern not (merely) for their own advantage, but for the advantage and even common good of all.<\/p>\n Although it has barely been a century since Conant began his transformation of Harvard, and about a half century since the full realization of the new meritocratic regime celebrated by Gardner with the ascent of the \u201cbest and the brightest,\u201d overwhelming evidence suggests that the meritocracy\u2019s claims are altogether unbelievable, useful mainly as the self-serving subterfuge of an oppressive ruling class. For those outside the charmed meritocratic winner\u2019s circle, prospects for flourishing have precipitously declined in recent dec\u00adades, as documented in such works as Charles Murray\u2019s Coming Apart <\/em>and Robert Putnam\u2019s Our Kids<\/em>. Among the noncredentialed, life spans are declining, deaths of despair increasing, material circumstances have worsened, social stability and moral formation have cratered. By their own admission, meritocratic elites have failed to improve race relations in America. The meritocrats\u2019 claims to benefi\u00adcence might once have been widely believed before this accumulating evidence, but now they largely function as a form of self-deceit among the rulers. Awareness of the potential for malevolent, even tyrannical intention behind these developments seems to be missing in Sandel. Yet such evidence seems increasingly apparent: approximately half the country showed its disbelief and contempt for elite ruling claims by voting for a demagogic anti-elitist. The reaction of the ruling class was four years of denying the legitimacy of the election, denouncing those who dared to vote for the demagogue, and unremitting efforts to \u201cresist\u201d\u2014with<\/span> hardly a moment to spare to reflect about their complicity in bringing about this wrenching period in our national history.<\/p>\n Sandel\u2019s title, The Tyranny of Merit<\/em>, is arguably more accurate an assessment of meritocracy than the ultimate thrust of his book. Ac\u00adcording to the classical definition, meritocracy is a tyranny because its ruling class accrues benefits for itself while causing material, social, and spiritual impoverishment among those it governs. Sandel states that \u201cmerit can become a kind of tyranny,\u201d but avoids discussing the motivations of the tyrants<\/em>.<\/p>\n Read it all<\/a>.<\/p>\n As college acceptances roll out, I'm recalling #MichaelSandel<\/a>'s humble & provocative idea about merit: \u201cInsisting that my success is my due makes it hard to see ourselves in other people\u2019s shoes\u201d The tyranny of merit (Michael Sandel|TED2020)https:\/\/t.co\/jZgWHJzKbv<\/a> via @TEDTalks<\/a><\/p>\n — Ben Courchesne (@bdcme) March 7, 2021<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n \n