The Late, Great American WASP(online.wsj.com)
online.wsj.com
The Late, Great American WASP
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304367204579268301043949952?mod=WSJ_hps_LEFTTopStories
28 comments
> these WASPs of the past that the chap in the article is lamenting so much were pure, unabashed racists
And sexist and elitist - but not more so than the society they lived in. Holding them to the norms accepted today is about as pertinent as calling them uncool because they lacked iPhones. Plus, it erases distinction between people like Lincoln who, while expressing very racist views, did a lot to bring things closer to equality; and others like say John C. Calhoun, who did their utmost to push the opposite way. History makes no sense unless you take it in context, my friend.
And sexist and elitist - but not more so than the society they lived in. Holding them to the norms accepted today is about as pertinent as calling them uncool because they lacked iPhones. Plus, it erases distinction between people like Lincoln who, while expressing very racist views, did a lot to bring things closer to equality; and others like say John C. Calhoun, who did their utmost to push the opposite way. History makes no sense unless you take it in context, my friend.
> And sexist and elitist - but not more so than the society they lived in.
So let's not celebrate, or even justify, that. We don't have to call them uncool, we don't have to call them anything. Instead, let's celebrate the progressive voices (for the time) who fought against racism, sexism, elitism and who probably paid a heavy price for it. Unfortunately, those are the ones who don't get to write their autobiographies, and who we know very little about.
So let's not celebrate, or even justify, that. We don't have to call them uncool, we don't have to call them anything. Instead, let's celebrate the progressive voices (for the time) who fought against racism, sexism, elitism and who probably paid a heavy price for it. Unfortunately, those are the ones who don't get to write their autobiographies, and who we know very little about.
Ruling classes have a lot of influence in society, and thus define the social norms. If the society was racist, sexist, and elitist, it is extremely likely that it's because the ruling class is such.
Thus they get to take responsibility for their views. Be it from ignorance or from spite, bigotry is still bigotry.
Thus they get to take responsibility for their views. Be it from ignorance or from spite, bigotry is still bigotry.
Holding them to the norms accepted today is about as
pertinent as calling them uncool because they
lacked iPhones.
History makes no sense unless you take it in context, my
friend.
In the future, there is likely someone who will be equally able to look back at some primitive activity we're currently engaged in right now and call all of us idiots for some reason or another.
If you eat meat, or plants, perhaps you'll be referred to as a barbarian.
If you drive electric cars, perhaps you'll be called a planet killer.
If you don't bathe in milk, perhaps you'll be called a Typhoid Mary.
Ignoring the context of the times is a naive way to look at things. In 1996, the Defense of Marriage Act was passed, and many rejoiced. In 2013, the Defense of Marriage Act was declared unconstitutional, and many rejoiced; in a lot of cases, the very same people. I was a complete homophobe in 1996, and attend rallies and champion gay rights in 2013.
Society moves quickly now, but it didn't always. Yes, I was stupid for my homophobic ways in 1996, but so was almost everybody else. It's hard to hold an opinion, even one you know to be true, when everybody else disagrees with you. It's even harder to be the oddball that tries to advance the cause for equality.
Just because the WASPs were once racists, that doesn't mean the same people would be now. Times change, and smart people change along with them. By not acknowledging that, the inverse of your argument is just as laughable.
"those slaves of the past that the chap in the article is lamenting were totally spineless lackeys and yes men, completely subservient to white people. For this reason alone, I'm bloody glad that they're not in power."
If you eat meat, or plants, perhaps you'll be referred to as a barbarian.
If you drive electric cars, perhaps you'll be called a planet killer.
If you don't bathe in milk, perhaps you'll be called a Typhoid Mary.
Ignoring the context of the times is a naive way to look at things. In 1996, the Defense of Marriage Act was passed, and many rejoiced. In 2013, the Defense of Marriage Act was declared unconstitutional, and many rejoiced; in a lot of cases, the very same people. I was a complete homophobe in 1996, and attend rallies and champion gay rights in 2013.
Society moves quickly now, but it didn't always. Yes, I was stupid for my homophobic ways in 1996, but so was almost everybody else. It's hard to hold an opinion, even one you know to be true, when everybody else disagrees with you. It's even harder to be the oddball that tries to advance the cause for equality.
Just because the WASPs were once racists, that doesn't mean the same people would be now. Times change, and smart people change along with them. By not acknowledging that, the inverse of your argument is just as laughable.
"those slaves of the past that the chap in the article is lamenting were totally spineless lackeys and yes men, completely subservient to white people. For this reason alone, I'm bloody glad that they're not in power."
the fact that "smart people" go along with bad social mores says more about the faults with who we denote as "smart people" than about the way we should judge people from the past.
you say "if they were smart today they wouldn't be racists", I say "they probably don't deserve as much credit as they get, if they were racist while a tiny minority of people was aware of the problem and trying to move past it".
there have always been people against slavery, against the oppression of women, against homophobia. don't dismiss their efforts and achievements in examining society just because you don't want to sully the image of technocratic heroes.
you say "if they were smart today they wouldn't be racists", I say "they probably don't deserve as much credit as they get, if they were racist while a tiny minority of people was aware of the problem and trying to move past it".
there have always been people against slavery, against the oppression of women, against homophobia. don't dismiss their efforts and achievements in examining society just because you don't want to sully the image of technocratic heroes.
I'm speaking out of context from those people specifically as, for the most part, I don't have any particular adoration for them.
Regardless, you simply cannot take things out of the context of history. In that day, it was common to find scientific evidence (or at least reports masquerading as scientific from otherwise esteemed scientists) suggesting that non-caucasian races were inferior, and weren't meant to be treated as equals.
It wasn't too long ago that the common knowledge was that homosexuality led to increased and unavoidable risk of diseases.
It's too easy to look back on history and decry those idiots for succumbing to common knowledge, but it is naive to do so.. and is analogous to mocking them for letting so many die of Polio, when it is so easily vaccinated against now.
Regardless, you simply cannot take things out of the context of history. In that day, it was common to find scientific evidence (or at least reports masquerading as scientific from otherwise esteemed scientists) suggesting that non-caucasian races were inferior, and weren't meant to be treated as equals.
It wasn't too long ago that the common knowledge was that homosexuality led to increased and unavoidable risk of diseases.
It's too easy to look back on history and decry those idiots for succumbing to common knowledge, but it is naive to do so.. and is analogous to mocking them for letting so many die of Polio, when it is so easily vaccinated against now.
Those in power are the phony overly politically-correct types. People who get outraged when comedians say racist things at comedy shows, but then unfairly target black people in the war on drugs. Those not in prison get to enjoy stop and frisk's 100,000/year. Kids grow up with no fathers with single mothers on welfare. Rinse and repeat.
The wealth gap between black people in America is higher right now than apartheid South Africa.
So I wouldn't celebrate the end of racism by those in power. It just happens quietly now, with a phony smile.
The wealth gap between black people in America is higher right now than apartheid South Africa.
So I wouldn't celebrate the end of racism by those in power. It just happens quietly now, with a phony smile.
it's a mistake to throw left-wing types concerned with the impacts of casual, everyday racism adding up to systemic obstacles (etc. etc.) in the same bag as prudish types wanting to shield their kids from swear words and sex.
they're very opposed groups, even if from the perspective of the South Park watcher they may seem allies. the former is almost always opposed to the war on drugs to go along with its righteous dismissal of low-brow racist jokes.
they're very opposed groups, even if from the perspective of the South Park watcher they may seem allies. the former is almost always opposed to the war on drugs to go along with its righteous dismissal of low-brow racist jokes.
> Those in power are the phony overly politically-correct types.
Sure, but the guys described in the article are much more likely to have brushed the concerns of anyone but their own upper-class, Ivy League set under the carpet.
No one is saying racism (or any other kind of disparity) is done -- as you said, it is very much alive underneath the surface, and often in a hypocritical manner; but there is basic equality under law, and policies like the one you described can be openly criticised.
Sure, but the guys described in the article are much more likely to have brushed the concerns of anyone but their own upper-class, Ivy League set under the carpet.
No one is saying racism (or any other kind of disparity) is done -- as you said, it is very much alive underneath the surface, and often in a hypocritical manner; but there is basic equality under law, and policies like the one you described can be openly criticised.
> and was responsible for the Sith-sounding Executive Order for internment of Japanese Americans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_9066).
IIRC there were just two national-level politicians who publicly took a stand against the internment order: Norman Thomas, the head of the Socialist Party (edit: and very much a WASP!), and the Republican governor of some flyover state. Saying FDR was responsible for the internment is legally true but it might be rather myopic, especially as to the point you're trying to make about WASPs vs. everybody else.
IIRC there were just two national-level politicians who publicly took a stand against the internment order: Norman Thomas, the head of the Socialist Party (edit: and very much a WASP!), and the Republican governor of some flyover state. Saying FDR was responsible for the internment is legally true but it might be rather myopic, especially as to the point you're trying to make about WASPs vs. everybody else.
Do you not see the hypocrisy in your comment? Referring to a group of people as "rubbish" and "better off without this sort"? Of course, only a white person can be 'truly' racist. Now where is that link to the Indian diplomat oppressing their servant. Ah yeah, there it is.
He was also responsible for the New Deal, Social Security, and much of the legislation that enabled blue collar Americans to bargain with their employers among other things. But yea, he was a racist and once approved a plan to unjustly victimize and temporarily detain a minority group (which was incredibly humane when compared to literally any other world super power's camps -- think Nazi Concentration camps, Soviet Gulags, and the incredibly terrible things the Japanese did to POW's and millions of Chinese) so he was a terrible person and in no way ahead of his time </sarcasm>.
I'll take not shaking Jesse Owens hand and harsh treatment of Japanese over what could be our world today...Nazis, Communism. Cmon.
how about neither? It's possible to not be a racist and still lead a country, especially a country built on the backs of immigrants.
No, it's not possible.
To lead a country one has to be elected - hence his public position must reflect core beliefs of the majority of the electorate.
To lead a country one has to be elected - hence his public position must reflect core beliefs of the majority of the electorate.
Not actually true. People usually vote for the candidate who more closely reflects themselves, yes, but the fact that that candidate got up and got nominated already puts them a world of difference away from the "majority of the electorate".
One of the core beliefs of this electorate, after all, is that politicians are liars.
One of the core beliefs of this electorate, after all, is that politicians are liars.
see zeteo's comment above
Buried in the paragraphs of treacle is an important point about supposed "meritocracy":
"Having been a good student, no matter how good the reputation of the school—and most of the good schools, we are coming to learn, are good chiefly in reputation—is no indication of one's quality or promise as a leader. A good student might even be more than a bit of a follower, a conformist, standing ready to give satisfaction to the powers that be so that one can proceed to the next good school, taking another step up the ladder of meritocracy."
I don't think it's necessary to wax nostalgic about the heyday of WASPism to recognize this, though.
"Having been a good student, no matter how good the reputation of the school—and most of the good schools, we are coming to learn, are good chiefly in reputation—is no indication of one's quality or promise as a leader. A good student might even be more than a bit of a follower, a conformist, standing ready to give satisfaction to the powers that be so that one can proceed to the next good school, taking another step up the ladder of meritocracy."
I don't think it's necessary to wax nostalgic about the heyday of WASPism to recognize this, though.
The first paragrap suggests that the US currently is a meritocracy; whereas in the past few years, I've had the impression it was a kleptocracy run by bankers. It's probably just my own impression, though. Is there really any kind of meritocracy that goes beyond lip service in the US? (Or anywhere else, for that matter, since there was no such thing in any country I've lived in.)
>I've had the impression it was a kleptocracy run by bankers.
Is this really the view that foreigners have the how the states is run?
We actually rank among the least corrupt nations in the world depending on if you trust Transparency International or not. I guess you could say it's legalized corruption through lobbying and political donations, which I agree with to some extent, but even than it wouldn't be bankers. Pharmaceuticals top that list with room to spare, where as "Securities and Investments" don't even make top 5.
Lawyers are really the people who run America and anyone who has any sort of political ambitions will get a law degree, not become a banker.
Obviously the Citizens United case (the one that allows Corporations to donate) was fucked, but it's not like 20+ years ago everything was fine either. I really think this is just a result of HN/reddit having such a young demographic, no one remembers how bad things used to be as well.
Iran Contra? MK Ultra? The FBI under Hoover? Police assaulting union workers because why the fuck not? Rampant political corruption by organized crime in the 20s/30s?
You know the phrase "I wan't America to be the way I grew up in"? It's not because America was different, it's because you were a kid and didn't see any of it.
Is this really the view that foreigners have the how the states is run?
We actually rank among the least corrupt nations in the world depending on if you trust Transparency International or not. I guess you could say it's legalized corruption through lobbying and political donations, which I agree with to some extent, but even than it wouldn't be bankers. Pharmaceuticals top that list with room to spare, where as "Securities and Investments" don't even make top 5.
Lawyers are really the people who run America and anyone who has any sort of political ambitions will get a law degree, not become a banker.
Obviously the Citizens United case (the one that allows Corporations to donate) was fucked, but it's not like 20+ years ago everything was fine either. I really think this is just a result of HN/reddit having such a young demographic, no one remembers how bad things used to be as well.
Iran Contra? MK Ultra? The FBI under Hoover? Police assaulting union workers because why the fuck not? Rampant political corruption by organized crime in the 20s/30s?
You know the phrase "I wan't America to be the way I grew up in"? It's not because America was different, it's because you were a kid and didn't see any of it.
> Is this really the view that foreigners have the how the states is run?
Might be just people I interact with, but terms like plutocracy, kleptocracy, and theocracy all come up fairly regularly. As does police state, for that matter. Terms like republic or democracy seldom get mentioned -- not seriously anyway.
(Not saying the grass is so much greener elsewhere, mind you.)
> We actually rank among the least corrupt nations in the world depending on if you trust Transparency International or not.
I don't trust them personally, but I'm in full agreement with that point nonetheless, having seen and experienced corruption first hand in developing countries.
> I guess you could say it's legalized corruption through lobbying and political donations, which I agree with to some extent, but even than it wouldn't be bankers. Pharmaceuticals top that list with room to spare, where as "Securities and Investments" don't even make top 5.
Unless, perhaps, you count TARP and under-the-counter bailouts that Bernanke handed over in recent years. But I'll happily concede if I ever see material clawbacks and jailtime for the related ill-gotten gains.
> Lawyers are really the people who run America and anyone who has any sort of political ambitions will get a law degree, not become a banker.
The same is largely true in any country [and time] where a significant bureaucracy is leveraged to run a large enough political unit. Which is to say just about every country nowadays, bar warzones such as Somalia.
Also, that doesn't mean that these countries are run for lawyers. If anything, the cynic in me wants to compare them to valets who are content to cooperate with their masters in order to keep the small amount of privileges that they have over the masses.
Might be just people I interact with, but terms like plutocracy, kleptocracy, and theocracy all come up fairly regularly. As does police state, for that matter. Terms like republic or democracy seldom get mentioned -- not seriously anyway.
(Not saying the grass is so much greener elsewhere, mind you.)
> We actually rank among the least corrupt nations in the world depending on if you trust Transparency International or not.
I don't trust them personally, but I'm in full agreement with that point nonetheless, having seen and experienced corruption first hand in developing countries.
> I guess you could say it's legalized corruption through lobbying and political donations, which I agree with to some extent, but even than it wouldn't be bankers. Pharmaceuticals top that list with room to spare, where as "Securities and Investments" don't even make top 5.
Unless, perhaps, you count TARP and under-the-counter bailouts that Bernanke handed over in recent years. But I'll happily concede if I ever see material clawbacks and jailtime for the related ill-gotten gains.
> Lawyers are really the people who run America and anyone who has any sort of political ambitions will get a law degree, not become a banker.
The same is largely true in any country [and time] where a significant bureaucracy is leveraged to run a large enough political unit. Which is to say just about every country nowadays, bar warzones such as Somalia.
Also, that doesn't mean that these countries are run for lawyers. If anything, the cynic in me wants to compare them to valets who are content to cooperate with their masters in order to keep the small amount of privileges that they have over the masses.
It's a meritocracy because anyone can grow up to be a banker.
Edit: not 100% sure why this Got down voted but I was being serious. Meritocracy fits as long as the basis of assignment is merit. Just because the system is broken doesn't mean it's not a meritocracy.
Edit: not 100% sure why this Got down voted but I was being serious. Meritocracy fits as long as the basis of assignment is merit. Just because the system is broken doesn't mean it's not a meritocracy.
Not the kind of banker that makes up the aforementioned kleptocracy.
I mean, we're talking about high-powered investment bankers. Those come almost exclusively from Ivy League schools, and it's definitely not the case that just about anyone can get into them.
I mean, we're talking about high-powered investment bankers. Those come almost exclusively from Ivy League schools, and it's definitely not the case that just about anyone can get into them.
It's astounding that an article like this is published in 2013 anywhere but the dark corners of supremacist sites and the memoirs of fading British lords, where it belongs.
This is nothing more than moaning that the modern predominantly-white, predominantly-male, virtually entirely rich elite are too "new money" for the old predominantly-white, predominantly-male, virtually entirely rich elite.
This is nothing more than moaning that the modern predominantly-white, predominantly-male, virtually entirely rich elite are too "new money" for the old predominantly-white, predominantly-male, virtually entirely rich elite.
hyperbole much? See reader5000's comment below for a fairer assessment.
His argument is that WASPs were men of "character"? What a load of tripe.
I honestly cannot believe this is being published in the WSJ, an article wanting for a return to hereditary rule (not that it's gone far from that, but still). Awful, awful things.
I, for one , look forward to the last time that people try to use a "standards" argument in deciding things.
An interview with the Prime Minister of Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe) :http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0S2NKlMW0vc#t=1059
"All that we say is lets have some standards, in decency , in behavior , and in civilisation" , this is the argument to justify not giving 95% of the population franchise in elections.
The more I hear people talk, the more I feel that "moral standards" and "decency" are arguments that are only used to enforce some existing (usually racist) plutocracy.
I honestly cannot believe this is being published in the WSJ, an article wanting for a return to hereditary rule (not that it's gone far from that, but still). Awful, awful things.
I, for one , look forward to the last time that people try to use a "standards" argument in deciding things.
An interview with the Prime Minister of Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe) :http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0S2NKlMW0vc#t=1059
"All that we say is lets have some standards, in decency , in behavior , and in civilisation" , this is the argument to justify not giving 95% of the population franchise in elections.
The more I hear people talk, the more I feel that "moral standards" and "decency" are arguments that are only used to enforce some existing (usually racist) plutocracy.
> I honestly cannot believe this is being published in the WSJ
This isn't really a surprise coming from the WSJ...
Here, this will make you lose more faith in humanity.
http://techcrunch.com/2013/11/22/geeks-for-monarchy/
This isn't really a surprise coming from the WSJ...
Here, this will make you lose more faith in humanity.
http://techcrunch.com/2013/11/22/geeks-for-monarchy/
Is it just me or is there kind of too much going on in this essay? It moves pretty quickly from a history of famous WASP writers and presidents, why WASPs dominated, to how WASP dominance declined, how America is now a meritocracy, that meritocracy is built on overeducation, it isn't as good as WASP-ocracy, and something to do a with "greedy pigs" that are overeducated.
He's just observing the putative pros/cons of having a society ran by a hereditary elite, versus by the spazzes that got all the best grades in school. He doesn't clearly prefer one over the other, but laments the erosion of the good parts of the old regime.
That's a great summary.
No, it was not just you. It was poorly written and poorly thought out.
WASPs idealized virtue, which to some extent promoted it within their culture, but there was certainly corruption. Allan Dulles is named in the article, for example. He literally used his power to foment wars in other countries to advance his personal interests. And corruption allegations against the Bush family are voluminous.
I think a big difference in the perspective of today's elite is due to globalization and technological advances. The population of the US was valuable in the past because outsourcing wasn't feasible and war was less mechanized. Now the population, judging by the federal government's development of counter-insurgence measures over the past decade, seems to be regarded more as a threat than an asset.
I think a big difference in the perspective of today's elite is due to globalization and technological advances. The population of the US was valuable in the past because outsourcing wasn't feasible and war was less mechanized. Now the population, judging by the federal government's development of counter-insurgence measures over the past decade, seems to be regarded more as a threat than an asset.
I say this as a WAS (no, P, thank you very much). Cry me a freaking river. Not included here was the WASPs he worshipped were all men. And this strawman bullshit about nobility of WASP character and how "meritocrats" are hypocrites shows that the author is one of the "old breed" that needs to die off as soon as possible.
"An ad hominem attack is not quite as weak as mere name-calling. It might actually carry some weight. For example, if a senator wrote an article saying senators' salaries should be increased, one could respond:
Of course he would say that. He's a senator.
This wouldn't refute the author's argument, but it may at least be relevant to the case. It's still a very weak form of disagreement, though. If there's something wrong with the senator's argument, you should say what it is; and if there isn't, what difference does it make that he's a senator?"
http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html
Of course he would say that. He's a senator.
This wouldn't refute the author's argument, but it may at least be relevant to the case. It's still a very weak form of disagreement, though. If there's something wrong with the senator's argument, you should say what it is; and if there isn't, what difference does it make that he's a senator?"
http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html
Huh? What ad hominem did I apply? That he's got an old-school mentality that worships the good old days without acknowledging the negative parts?
It was kind of funny having such worship of WASPs come from a jew. Whatever. No point in wasting any more time or effort over this.
It was kind of funny having such worship of WASPs come from a jew. Whatever. No point in wasting any more time or effort over this.
Meritocracy?
What a load of garbage!
What a load of garbage!
http://www.ncsociology.org/sociationtoday/v21/merit.htm
"According to the ideology of the American Dream, America is the land of limitless opportunity in which individuals can go as far as their own merit takes them. According to this ideology, you get out of the system what you put into it. Getting ahead is ostensibly based on individual merit, which is generally viewed as a combination of factors including innate abilities, working hard, having the right attitude, and having high moral character and integrity. Americans not only tend to think that is how the system should work, but most Americans also think that is how the system does work (Huber and Form 1973, Kluegel and Smith 1986, Ladd 1994).
In our book The Meritocracy Myth (Rowman & Littlefield, 2004), we challenge the validity of these commonly held assertions, by arguing that there is a gap between how people think the system works and how the system actually does work. We refer to this gap as “the meritocracy myth,” or the myth that the system distributes resources—especially wealth and income—according to the merit of individuals. We challenge this assertion in two ways. First, we suggest that while merit does indeed affect who ends up with what, the impact of merit on economic outcomes is vastly overestimated by the ideology of the American Dream. Second, we identify a variety of nonmerit factors that suppress, neutralize, or even negate the effects of merit and create barriers to individual mobility. We summarize these arguments below. First, however, we take a brief look at what is at stake. That is, what is up for grabs in the race to get ahead?"
Might want to invest in some linebreaks. (fold --spaces --width 60)
According to the ideology of the American Dream, America is
the land of limitless opportunity in which individuals can
go as far as their own merit takes them. According to this
ideology, you get out of the system what you put into it.
Getting ahead is ostensibly based on individual merit,
which is generally viewed as a combination of factors
including innate abilities, working hard, having the right
attitude, and having high moral character and integrity.
Americans not only tend to think that is how the system
should work, but most Americans also think that is how the
system does work (Huber and Form 1973, Kluegel and Smith
1986, Ladd 1994).
In our book The Meritocracy Myth (Rowman & Littlefield,
2004), we challenge the validity of these commonly held
assertions, by arguing that there is a gap between how
people think the system works and how the system actually
does work. We refer to this gap as “the meritocracy
myth,” or the myth that the system distributes
resources—especially wealth and income—according to the
merit of individuals. We challenge this assertion in two
ways. First, we suggest that while merit does indeed affect
who ends up with what, the impact of merit on economic
outcomes is vastly overestimated by the ideology of the
American Dream. Second, we identify a variety of nonmerit
factors that suppress, neutralize, or even negate the
effects of merit and create barriers to individual
mobility. We summarize these arguments below. First,
however, we take a brief look at what is at stake. That is,
what is up for grabs in the race to get ahead?http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2001/jun/29/comment - the coiner of the word weighs in
> The old U.S. ruling class had plenty of problems. But are we really better off with a country run by the self-involved, over-schooled products of modern meritocracy?
Being vague is sorta almost as fun as doing this other thing.
I think social criticism today relies too much on arguments made between lines to be effective.
Being vague is sorta almost as fun as doing this other thing.
I think social criticism today relies too much on arguments made between lines to be effective.
> The WASPs' day is done. Such leadership as it provided isn't likely to be revived. Recalling it at its best is a reminder that the meritocracy that has followed it marks something less than clear progress. Rather the reverse.
Wow. Obama has been disappointing but he hasn't come close to the damage Dubya did. Dubya really was a drunk dimbulb, and his name got him into Harvard Business School. Heck of a dividend we got from that anti-meritocratic inbred WASP-favoring move there. Let's try a really meritorious president next time.
And just above the words "Trust, honor, and character" I see John and Allen Dulles. Seriously? I wish I could call the author of this piece uninformed but I think it's worse than that.
Wow. Obama has been disappointing but he hasn't come close to the damage Dubya did. Dubya really was a drunk dimbulb, and his name got him into Harvard Business School. Heck of a dividend we got from that anti-meritocratic inbred WASP-favoring move there. Let's try a really meritorious president next time.
And just above the words "Trust, honor, and character" I see John and Allen Dulles. Seriously? I wish I could call the author of this piece uninformed but I think it's worse than that.
If anyone is baffled by why this article exists, go to your favorite search engine and type "the new wasps", including the quotes. The target audience doesn't need to do that, but you might.
I find it odd that it was posted here though.
I find it odd that it was posted here though.
maybe it's a good reality check to realize that society has not moved on as far as we might hope. Or maybe the WSJ's editorial board hasn't. There's a disconnect somewhere.
In the last few months, I've been noticing that every major political issue throughout the entire history of America ties strongly into the Civil War, either as a prelude or as an effect. I'm not a historian, though, and I'm worried I have a golden hammer, but...
When I was in high school, I looked around at my school and saw how diverse it was and said to a friend online I'd never met that racism was dead. She told me that, when she was a child, a burning cross had been thrown into her yard. That would have been ~1980.
I don't think society has really moved on at all. I think a lot of us were simply distracted for a while, and deluded by the brevity and light treatment given in schools.
When I was in high school, I looked around at my school and saw how diverse it was and said to a friend online I'd never met that racism was dead. She told me that, when she was a child, a burning cross had been thrown into her yard. That would have been ~1980.
I don't think society has really moved on at all. I think a lot of us were simply distracted for a while, and deluded by the brevity and light treatment given in schools.
With articles like this, is it any surprise that the Republican Party is having trouble relating to a diversifying, increasingly immigrant America? When one of its institutional mouthpieces is publishing articles that celebrate eras in which the majority of modern America would have been excluded from the levers of power, is it any surprise that the American public is choosing to reject the Republican party instead of rolling over and handing back rights that were hard won during the twentieth century?
I mean, let's look back at the era in which WASPs ruled American political life. They heyday of the WASP was basically from the end of reconstruction through the beginning of the Great Depression. These were great years... if you were a WASP. If you weren't, they were years of rising income inequality, rising racism, rising anti-immigrant sentiment and rising corporate power. Sure, TR, and later, FDR, went some way in ameliorating the worst excesses of WASP power, but they were viewed as class traitors by their fellow WASPs. These were years where, like today, the rich got richer, and everybody else got screwed. As a proud member of Everybody Else, I'm glad that WASP power has been irrevocably broken. I do not want to go back to an era in which I am excluded from the most desirable positions in society simply because I am of the wrong race, religion or gender.
I mean, let's look back at the era in which WASPs ruled American political life. They heyday of the WASP was basically from the end of reconstruction through the beginning of the Great Depression. These were great years... if you were a WASP. If you weren't, they were years of rising income inequality, rising racism, rising anti-immigrant sentiment and rising corporate power. Sure, TR, and later, FDR, went some way in ameliorating the worst excesses of WASP power, but they were viewed as class traitors by their fellow WASPs. These were years where, like today, the rich got richer, and everybody else got screwed. As a proud member of Everybody Else, I'm glad that WASP power has been irrevocably broken. I do not want to go back to an era in which I am excluded from the most desirable positions in society simply because I am of the wrong race, religion or gender.
Stewart Alsop called, he wants his book draft back.
http://www.amazon.com/Stay-Execution-Memoir-Stewart-Alsop/dp...
NB for relevance: In the late 60s, Alsop (the brother of Joseph in the article) would use his Newsweek column to rant about the lack of WASPs in the CIA and State Dept. making us lose the Vietnam War.
http://www.amazon.com/Stay-Execution-Memoir-Stewart-Alsop/dp...
NB for relevance: In the late 60s, Alsop (the brother of Joseph in the article) would use his Newsweek column to rant about the lack of WASPs in the CIA and State Dept. making us lose the Vietnam War.
In fact, a play about Joseph Alsop's life and this milieu the OP speaks of was on Broadway not so long ago starring John Lithgow as Alsop.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/22/theater/the-columnist-diss... http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/2012/07/the_colum...
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/22/theater/the-columnist-diss... http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/2012/07/the_colum...
Another classic from Joseph Epstein. The same guy who wrote,
"There is much that my four sons can do in their lives that might cause me anguish, that might outrage me, that might make [me] ashamed of them and of myself as their father. But nothing they could ever do would make me sadder than if any of them were to become homosexual."
"What our new meritocrats have failed to evince—and what the older WASP generation prided itself on—is character and the ability to put the well-being of the nation before their own."
With regards to the older WASP generation, I would like some independent verification of their character and ability.
With regards to the older WASP generation, I would like some independent verification of their character and ability.
You keep using that word 'meritocracy', I do not think it means what you think it means.
It seems the author, Joseph Epstein, picked up on the idea that using privileged education as a proxy for merit is probably a bad idea, yet why he feels that this vindicates WASPishness is beyond me. It wasn't even particularly clear why WASPishness was included in the article at all, since it seemed only to serve as a mildly interesting biographical backdrop on an argument that centered around evaluating the worth of university.
Frankly, the article seemed like it had no clear direction. It banged on about meritocracy throughout, and used ivy-league universities as some sort of prima facie proxy for merit, yet it seemed to tiptoe around the crux of the argument: ivy-league universities are the new WASP. Yet rather than make this point outright, and show that attending an ivy-league school is no more an indicator for merit than was WASP birthright, the writer spent the majority of the article romantically eulogizing the old-school WASP. Frankly it all seemed a little tenuously connected.
That said, its strongest point -- on which it spent the least time -- was the argument that privileged education does not prove anything of one's abilities. This is certainly true in my experience, yet this undermines the article's claim that a meritocracy would choose someone with a privileged education. If a meritocracy is marking irrelevant traits as indicators of merit, then all that shows is that the meritocracy is incorrectly assigning merit, rather than showing that the concept of meritocracies themselves are flawed.
Maybe it's only in the tech community that quality of output is seen as a better proxy for merit than educational background, but here at least I don't believe I've seen much weight attributed to education. When given the choice between two candidates, one of whom having attended MIT and the other of whom having written some fantastic systems, it's been my experience that it is the latter candidate who would be more desired by tech companies. In a meritocracy where one's output alone is judged, that seems to me to be a fair system, because -- unless the output is intrinsically tied to some unfair advantage -- it seems that it cannot be gamed through class, gender or race. I felt that the author failed to consider such a meritocracy, and instead -- to his discredit -- just assumed 'merit' and 'ivy-league' are synonymous without arguing to prove such a point.
Why any of you should care what I thought of this essay is another point entirely...
It seems the author, Joseph Epstein, picked up on the idea that using privileged education as a proxy for merit is probably a bad idea, yet why he feels that this vindicates WASPishness is beyond me. It wasn't even particularly clear why WASPishness was included in the article at all, since it seemed only to serve as a mildly interesting biographical backdrop on an argument that centered around evaluating the worth of university.
Frankly, the article seemed like it had no clear direction. It banged on about meritocracy throughout, and used ivy-league universities as some sort of prima facie proxy for merit, yet it seemed to tiptoe around the crux of the argument: ivy-league universities are the new WASP. Yet rather than make this point outright, and show that attending an ivy-league school is no more an indicator for merit than was WASP birthright, the writer spent the majority of the article romantically eulogizing the old-school WASP. Frankly it all seemed a little tenuously connected.
That said, its strongest point -- on which it spent the least time -- was the argument that privileged education does not prove anything of one's abilities. This is certainly true in my experience, yet this undermines the article's claim that a meritocracy would choose someone with a privileged education. If a meritocracy is marking irrelevant traits as indicators of merit, then all that shows is that the meritocracy is incorrectly assigning merit, rather than showing that the concept of meritocracies themselves are flawed.
Maybe it's only in the tech community that quality of output is seen as a better proxy for merit than educational background, but here at least I don't believe I've seen much weight attributed to education. When given the choice between two candidates, one of whom having attended MIT and the other of whom having written some fantastic systems, it's been my experience that it is the latter candidate who would be more desired by tech companies. In a meritocracy where one's output alone is judged, that seems to me to be a fair system, because -- unless the output is intrinsically tied to some unfair advantage -- it seems that it cannot be gamed through class, gender or race. I felt that the author failed to consider such a meritocracy, and instead -- to his discredit -- just assumed 'merit' and 'ivy-league' are synonymous without arguing to prove such a point.
Why any of you should care what I thought of this essay is another point entirely...
Once upon a time, racist white upper-class men ruled the United States honorably and without corruption, and Ronald Reagan was the greatest president...
I wish the author provided some examples or evidence to support his rather outrageous claims.
I wish the author provided some examples or evidence to support his rather outrageous claims.
He said strongest president not best. Simply look at the 1980 electoral map. . .
Remarkably stupid. Did Joe or even John Kennedy philander more than J.P. Morgan? Has anyone in a hedge fund today the imagination to dream up the schemes of Collis Huntington or the first Harriman? Did John D. Rockefeller win a name for honest dealing?
And (as that proto-wasp Henry Adams pointed out) some things can be more harmful than simple corruption. It would be hard to find anyone now who thinks that John Foster Dulles's influence was anything but harmful. And how about Robert McNamara (whose name looks might Irish, by the way)?
And (as that proto-wasp Henry Adams pointed out) some things can be more harmful than simple corruption. It would be hard to find anyone now who thinks that John Foster Dulles's influence was anything but harmful. And how about Robert McNamara (whose name looks might Irish, by the way)?
A financier I know who grew up under the WASP standard not long ago told me that he thought that the subprime real estate collapse and the continuing hedge-fund scandals have been brought on directly by men and women who are little more than "greedy pigs" (his words) without a shred of character or concern for their clients or country. Naturally, he added, they all have master's degrees from the putatively best business schools in the nation.
As Bill Black says: the best way to rob a bank is to own one. (He even wrote a book titled like that.)
Sames is true of any business, or any "non-profit". The more unethical you are, the easier it is...
asking if america is better off without the ruling wasp class is like asking if the world is better off without the british empire.
the arguments for, and against, are practically identical.
the arguments for, and against, are practically identical.
[deleted]
I think the best example of this shift can be found in the Supreme Court: not a single justice is a WASP, but they all have degrees from Harvard or Yale.
[deleted]
Thank god. I'd rather live in a world that represents everyone than to have a ruling class consisting of a single type.
I thought everyone was upper class, is it just me?
God I love these fucking piles of cash
-- James Chalmers Lang III
p.s. name made up, I have 4 20s on my desk.
God I love these fucking piles of cash
-- James Chalmers Lang III
p.s. name made up, I have 4 20s on my desk.
The WASP elite was, relative to most elites that human history has graced our species with, a very decent one. (Was there racism and corruption? Of course. But they aspired to decency, a trait not seen in the current elite, and not seen in most elites. I'm not calling them good in absolute terms, but in relative terms.)
So, in the middle of the 20th century, they did an unusually decent (and unusual) thing. They accepted their own decline. For one example, they invented the SAT, whose initial result was to increase the number of Jewish students admitted to Ivy League universities by about an order of magnitude. (Then there was a racist backlash, which is where we get all that extracurricular bullshit in US college admissions. Elites are not monolithic.) Why'd they accept their own decline? I think they were self-aware enough (again, as a group) to recognize that there was no choice. Without letting FDR save capitalism via the New Deal, the U.S. would have fallen into economic collapse and political chaos, and not been able to fight the two-front (cultural, and then actual) wars against fascism and communism. The stakes were existential. When facing a choice between the risk of obliteration (but also the assurance that, if there was a country left, they'd rule it) and gentle decline (to merely quite rich, but not a ruling class) they took the right path. Very few elites do. Most let their countries burn.
What happened next is not a meritocratic invasion. The global elite (which is much more anti-democratic) stepped in. That's been bad for all of us. The WASPs care enough about the country not to destroy it. The global elite is not tied to any one nation, and doesn't care.
Upper-middle-class "meritocrats" are not the ruling class, and the people in charge have more in common with Russian oligarchs and Arab oil sheikhs than with either (a) the somewhat callous but stately and pro-democratic (or at least republican, with no reference to the political party/megachurch) WASPs or (b) the well-educated technology adepts who top out in the upper-middle-class. In the US, the current elite tend to look like WASPs because, in fact, many are ethnically WASPs, but their ideology comes from a dirtier source: a global elite whose values come mostly from places where political corruption is just another perk of being rich, where democracy is ridiculed, and where the poor are held in open contempt (and exploited, and often shut down violently) by the rich.
So, in the middle of the 20th century, they did an unusually decent (and unusual) thing. They accepted their own decline. For one example, they invented the SAT, whose initial result was to increase the number of Jewish students admitted to Ivy League universities by about an order of magnitude. (Then there was a racist backlash, which is where we get all that extracurricular bullshit in US college admissions. Elites are not monolithic.) Why'd they accept their own decline? I think they were self-aware enough (again, as a group) to recognize that there was no choice. Without letting FDR save capitalism via the New Deal, the U.S. would have fallen into economic collapse and political chaos, and not been able to fight the two-front (cultural, and then actual) wars against fascism and communism. The stakes were existential. When facing a choice between the risk of obliteration (but also the assurance that, if there was a country left, they'd rule it) and gentle decline (to merely quite rich, but not a ruling class) they took the right path. Very few elites do. Most let their countries burn.
What happened next is not a meritocratic invasion. The global elite (which is much more anti-democratic) stepped in. That's been bad for all of us. The WASPs care enough about the country not to destroy it. The global elite is not tied to any one nation, and doesn't care.
Upper-middle-class "meritocrats" are not the ruling class, and the people in charge have more in common with Russian oligarchs and Arab oil sheikhs than with either (a) the somewhat callous but stately and pro-democratic (or at least republican, with no reference to the political party/megachurch) WASPs or (b) the well-educated technology adepts who top out in the upper-middle-class. In the US, the current elite tend to look like WASPs because, in fact, many are ethnically WASPs, but their ideology comes from a dirtier source: a global elite whose values come mostly from places where political corruption is just another perk of being rich, where democracy is ridiculed, and where the poor are held in open contempt (and exploited, and often shut down violently) by the rich.
"The last unashamed WASP to live in the White House was Franklin Delano Roosevelt"
Yeah, a shameless person who refused to meet black athletes, including Jesse Owens after the '36 Olympics (even Mr. Godwin's Law is rumoured to have shaken hands with Owens), and was responsible for the Sith-sounding Executive Order for internment of Japanese Americans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_9066).
We're much better off without this sort of rubbish in power. Good riddance.