The Power Elite

As the diversity and talent level of people at the top of society has increased, the trust in elites has declined. Full Story »

Posted by Lawrence Shore - via New York Times (Opinion), Opinion Source, New York Times (Most Emailed), AllTop
Tags Help
Subjects: U.S., Business
Topics: U.S. Economy
Member Tags: hiring and promotion, executives and management, ivy league, sociology, meritocracy, ethics
Editorial Help
Posted by: Posted by Lawrence Shore - Feb 18, 2010 - 10:19 PM PST
Content Type: Article
Edit Lock: This story can be edited
Edited by: Kaizar Campwala - Feb 19, 2010 - 10:25 AM PST
Jon Mitchell
2.8
by Jon Mitchell - Feb. 20, 2010

Well, "clubbable" is a ridiculous word, and it took me a few seconds to even hazard a guess as to what Brooks meant by it, but apparently it's a very old and real word, and I was right about its definition. Brooks pokes some interesting holes in our notions of meritocracy, but I think his claims get progressively weaker until the last one, where he begins to scare me. "Society is too transparent," he says, arguing that transparency makes people less trusting of government, because it exposes the ugly truth. Well, no duh. Is he saying he'd prefer a shadowy elite? No, "this is not to say" that, Brooks clarifies. Then what IS it to say? He offers only a poorly worded, lazy non-suggestion in the last sentence.

See Full Review » (11 answers)
Kaizar Campwala
3.3
by Kaizar Campwala - Feb. 19, 2010

Brooks is good at identifying some of the problems with "elites" today, but in his comparison he fails to point out how problematic it was in the past. His conclusion isn't followed up with actionable advice.

See Full Review » (11 answers)
Mike LaBonte
3.0
by Mike LaBonte - Feb. 19, 2010

This is an example of the common genre of the opinion piece that lays out and analyze assertions believed to be widely accepted, without a shred of proof for any assertion. Well this one has a shred but that's it. The insights are worthwhile, but some of the assertions would be fodder for hours of debate.

See Full Review » (11 answers)
James Jackson
4.0
by James Jackson - Feb. 20, 2010

Brooks' has a nostalgic view of the "Protestant Establishment". You know, back when people knew their place. Still, his critic of merit is worthy of discussion.

See Full Review » (11 answers)
John Hamer
3.9
by John Hamer - Feb. 19, 2010

Yes. Strong opinion and provocative perspective based on fact. However, Brooks omits a major reason for lower trust in the power elites -- lack of accountability. Whether business, government, journalism, law, medicine, nonprofits or other institutions, leaders who screw up are not always held sufficiently and publicly accountable. Result: No trust.

See Full Review » (6 answers)
Phil Snead
4.4
by Phil Snead - Feb. 20, 2010

Brooks on the inverse trends of diversification and effectiveness in cultural/governmental/financial leadership. "It is less necessary to be clubbable. It is more important to be smart and hard-working." "[A]mass[ing] technical knowledge[ . . . ] is only marginally related to the skill of being sensitive to context." Diminished social connectedness (in geographical context).

Mr. Brooks once again steps into a delightfully disputable conceptual void, with his contention that democratization/meritocratization of paths to power has correlated with increasing public disapproval and cynicism. Characteristically Brooks plunges into the nebulous in a way that leaves us all mumbling, "Is that meant to be a complete thought?" Brooks is a highly educated and well-informed commentator. His cognitive and creative grasp frequently lead his readers and listeners ... More »

“[H]ere’s the funny thing. As we’ve made our institutions more meritocratic, their public standing has plummeted. We’ve increased the diversity and talent level ... More »

See Full Review » (8 answers)
Lawrence Shore
5.0
by Lawrence Shore - Feb. 19, 2010
See Full Review » (3 answers)

Comments on this story (1)Help (BETA)

NT Rating | My Rating

Ratings

3.5

Average
from 8 reviews (55% confidence)
Quality
3.4
Information
2.9
Insight
3.8
Style
4.1
Context
3.5
Expertise
1.8
Originality
4.0
Relevance
3.0
Responsibility
2.2
Popularity
3.7
Recommendation
3.8
Credibility
3.9
# Reviews
4.0
# Views
5.0
# Likes
2.0
# Emails
1.0
More
How our ratings work »