David Brooks’s conscious oversight about America’s ‘elite’

Pinterest LinkedIn Tumblr

David Brooks lately published a column in the Times, “Why Our Elites Stink,” faulting the new elite for a lack of a sense of “leadership” and “service.” He often speaks of the old WASP leadership in the column: 

a more diverse and meritocratic elite has replaced the Protestant Establishment. People are more likely to rise on the basis of grades, test scores, effort and performance. Yet, as this meritocratic elite has taken over institutions, trust in them has plummeted. It’s not even clear that the brainy elite is doing a better job of running them than the old boys’ network….

The best of the WASP elites had a stewardship mentality, that they were temporary caretakers of institutions that would span generations. They cruelly ostracized people who did not live up to their codes of gentlemanly conduct and scrupulosity. They were insular and struggled with intimacy, but they did believe in restraint, reticence and service.

Today’s elite is more talented and open but lacks a self-conscious leadership code. The language of meritocracy (how to succeed) has eclipsed the language of morality (how to be virtuous).

At the American Conservative, Scott McConnell notes that in an earlier book, Brooks acknowledged that Jews had played a large role in the transformation of Establishment cultural values. Brooks wrote, “the Jews were the vanguard of a social movement that over the course of the 20th century transformed the American university system and the nature of the American elite.”

McConnell adds: 

Brooks doesn’t go into this in his current column. He never does. Perhaps there’s no need to: in a way, his key criticism of the new elite–that its members insist on perceiving themselves as outsiders even though they  are insiders–stands as implicit acknowledgment of a sociological fact best left, most of the time anyway, unspoken.

Why the reticence? Perhaps somewhere there is a fear of awakening a slumbering beast of heartland anti-Semitism. There has never been much anti-Semitism in America, but  given the global historical record, this is, to say the least, an understandable concern.

I would surmise the greater reason is connected to the one area where Brooks most sympathizes with the prejudices of the current elite and most favors their prejudices over those of the old one. American foreign policy is very different under the new meritocracy. The generation of Harrimans, Lovetts, Achesons, Marshalls, and Kennans would have no difficulty imagining a corrupt and self-serving Wall Street class — they had lived through the 1929 crash, when WASPs ran the show and ran it badly. But I doubt they could imagine an America which so completely perceived its foreign-policy interests–its choice of enemies, its choice of wars–as so congruent to those of Israel.  The old WASP elite were, almost to a man, opposed to the creation of Israel and to American recognition of the state;  they saw nothing but trouble arising from America’s support for Israel. They can be faulted, certainly–none of them lobbied for America to make room for the hundreds of thousands of Jewish war refugees (displaced persons, in the jargon of the time) languishing in refugee camps in 1947, many in Germany of all places.

They made their peace with President Truman’s  decision, and went on to serve their country in important ways. And for a generation at least, it could be fairly argued that their fears were much overwrought.

41 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

It’s no secret that, in contrast to the OLD WASP Establishment, the current Establishment is much more disproportionately Jewish, and it’s more than arguable that is why there’s a conflation of US and Israeli interests that has brought the reputation of the USA down in the eyes of the world. It follows that “the language of meritocracy (how to succeed) has eclipsed the language of morality (how to be virtuous).” This extends to American governmental… Read more »

Ummm, Phil – not for nothin, but you could have written Brooks’ column, in fact, his line about not changing the social order, only its ethos, is right outta the phil weiss playbook. good luck to both of you on that, by the way

“Brooks doesn’t go into this in his current column.” No, I don’t suppose that … the previously undistinguished jewish guy, who openly talks about his affection for Israel, who is hired by … the New York Times to opine on things like our foreign policy vis a vis Israel, with the Times’ present and past Israeli correspondents likewise being jewish with deep Israeli connections, and with the Times general foreign affairs opinionist likewise being jewish,… Read more »

Brooks gets some things right and wrong. I do have some quibbles. The WASP establishment have been maligned over and over. But they were actually worse than everyone thinks. Because WASP is a racial/cultural thing. But the phrase he uses, the ‘old boys network’ gives insight. First, it wasn’t only an establishment based on race/culture. It was also an establishment based on gender. But perhaps most important: it was an establishment based on class. This… Read more »

Here is an interview by Jonathan Miller of Arthur Miller on the subject of atheism. While that might seem irrelevant to the issue, Arthur Miller discusses the pervasive climate of Antisemitism in prewar American, one example being the popularity of the notorious Father Coughlin.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iwk8F3UUZ-c&feature=related