Chad (Ron, Bryan, and others)....after our conversation yesterday, I was struck by the opinion piece I read today by William Galston (below)--about the revolt against elites (and "meritocracy") in post-war politics. Per our conversation, note the highlighted section in the article I emphasized for you. Kind regards
The Populist Revolt Against FailureWhat erodes faith in the ruling class are bungled wars, uneven growth and insecurity. [image: A cartoon depicting Andrew Jackson, in military uniform, during the 1824 presidential race.]ENLARGE A cartoon depicting Andrew Jackson, in military uniform, during the 1824 presidential race. PHOTO: GETTY IMAGES <http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-populist-revolt-against-failure-1472598368?tesla=y> By WILLIAM A. GALSTON, Wall Street Journal Aug. 30, 2016 7:06 p.m. ET 68 COMMENTS <http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-populist-revolt-against-failure-1472598368?tesla=y#livefyre-comment> The populist revolt against governing elites sweeping advanced democracies is the latest chapter in the oldest political story. Every society, regardless of its form of government, has a ruling class. The crucial question is whether elites rule in their own interest or for the common good. In the decades after World War II, the ruling classes in Western Europe and the U.S. managed their economies and social policies in ways that improved the well-being of the overwhelming majority of their citizens. In return, citizens accorded elites a measure of deference. Trust in government was high. These ruling classes weren’t filled by the traditional aristocracy, and only partly by the wealthy. As time passed, educated professionals assumed the leading role. Many came from relatively humble backgrounds, but they attended the best schools and formed enduring networks with fellow students. Some were economists, others specialists in public policy and administration, still others scientists whose contributions to the war effort translated into peacetime prestige. Many were lawyers able to train their honed analytical powers on governance. They were, in a term coined in the late 1950s, the “meritocracy.” In some human endeavors, meritocratic claims are largely unproblematic. In sports, we celebrate the excellence of those who win. In the sciences, peer review identifies accomplishment; most people in each specialty can name the handful of individuals likely to win the Nobel Prize. MORE POLITICS & IDEAS: - Why Trump Is Failing With College Grads <http://www.wsj.com/articles/why-trump-is-failing-with-college-grads-1471992170> Aug. 23, 2016 - Read Hillary’s Lips: No Pacific Trade Deal <http://www.wsj.com/articles/read-hillarys-lips-no-pacific-trade-deal-1471388241> Aug. 16, 2016 - It’s Clinton’s Election to Lose <http://www.wsj.com/articles/its-clintons-election-to-lose-1470783556> Aug. 9, 2016 - The Real Debate Underneath the Mud <http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-real-debate-underneath-the-mud-1470179710>Aug. 2, 2016 Politics, especially in democracies, is more complicated. Democratic equality stands in tension with hierarchical claims of every type, including merit. In a letter <http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch15s61.html> to John Adams,Thomas Jefferson characterized elections as the best way of elevating the “natural aristoi” into positions of authority. He had in mind people like himself, liberally educated and trained in the subtle art of governance. This view didn’t survive the 1820s, when Andrew Jackson led a popular revolt against it. Alleging that a “corrupt bargain” among elites had cheated him out of the presidency in 1824, he swept to a victory in 1828 that he portrayed as a triumph for the common man—farmers, craftsmen, sturdy pioneers—against the moneyed interests. Ever since, the trope of the virtuous people against the self-dealing elites has endured in American politics. Yet this is more than an American story. In democracies, meritocracy will always be on the defensive. Its legitimacy will always depend on its performance—its ability to provide physical security and broadly shared prosperity, as well as to conduct foreign policy and armed conflict successfully. When it fails to deliver, all bets are off. This is what has happened throughout the West. Failed wars, domestic insecurity and uneven growth have undermined the authority of governing elites. Although the pro-Brexit vote in the U.K. came as a shock, it was the latest in a series of surprises tending in the same direction. Among these surprises was the outcome of last year’s Polish election, which replaced a government led by the center-right Civic Platform Party with the populist-nationalist Law and Justice Party. During the past decade, Poland’s economy had grown twice as fast as any other member of the European Union. But as Henry Foy points out <http://www.the-american-interest.com/2016/06/07/polands-new-majoritarians/> in the American Interest, the gains were concentrated in Poland’s largest cities, while other areas lagged. The postcommunist market economy, he observes, “eroded traditional ways of life without adequate recompense.” Unequal growth triggers cultural resentment. “We only want to cure our country of a few illnesses,” the new Polish foreign minister, Witold Waszczykowski, told a German newspaper in January. Most Poles, he said, are moved by “tradition, historical awareness, love of country, faith in God, and a normal family life between a woman and a man.” But the previous government acted “as if the world, in a Marxist fashion, were destined to evolve only in one direction—towards a new mix of cultures and races, a world of bicyclists and vegetarians, who only use renewable energy and who battle all signs of religion.” The new meritocrats, then, are exposed to cultural as well as economic resentment. Education prepares them to surge ahead in the knowledge economy, leaving industrial and rural areas behind. But it also inclines them to question traditional values and welcome cultural diversity. Educated classes are less moved by particularist appeals to ethnic and national identity and more by internationalism and universal norms. Many identify more with elites abroad than with their own less-educated, less-prosperous countrymen. Similar divisions are evident throughout the West. Depending on the balance of forces, political outcomes vary from one country to the next. But the terms of the struggle are much the same. And so are the dangers, not least to democracy. On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 9:31 PM, Chad Whitacre <[email protected]> wrote: > Thanks, Ron! I agree that trust is crucial to true openness. Looking > forward to your article. > > One of the topics we touched on in the call, and I'm also seeing it in the > articles you linked, Brook, is leadership. I wanted to share this article > from Alanna Kraus of the Enspiral Network on "No Boss Does Not Mean No > Leadership > <https://medium.com/enspiral-tales/no-boss-does-not-mean-no-leadership-c4c97c660252>." > I find it a helpful perspective on what leadership can look like in an open > organization. > > > chad > > > ---- > Chad Whitacre > Founder, Gratipay <https://gratipay.com/> > +1-412-925-4220 (cell) > > On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 6:16 PM, Ronald McFarland <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Hi Chad & Brook, >> >> I just listened to your conversation which was very helpful for me. >> Particularly talking about the center core, the second layer part-timers >> and the outer circle that only have the basics of code of conduct was >> helpful for me. >> >> Also, Chad your concept of a hierarchy of openness was interesting, and I >> think is part of the secrets to moving toward greater openness individually. >> >> I've submitted an article to Bryne on trust that is a factor in >> determining how much openness is appropriate. >> >> Thank you for those concepts. >> >> Ron >> >> On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 5:20 AM, Chad Whitacre <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Hey all, >>> >>> Just wanted to circle back and let you know that Brook and I did have >>> our call. We spoke for about an hour, and touched on a lot of questions >>> about meritocracy and balancing community and performance in an open >>> organization. You can find the video on YouTube >>> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4dPCLTxLgVg>. I don't expect you to >>> watch it, but I'm sure that ideas from this will emerge in future posts >>> from Brook and myself ... so watch for that! >>> >>> Okay! Have a great day! :-) >>> >>> >>> chad >>> >>> >>> ---- >>> Chad Whitacre >>> Founder, Gratipay <https://gratipay.com/> >>> +1-412-925-4220 (cell) >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Openorg-list mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/openorg-list >>> >>> >> > > _______________________________________________ > Openorg-list mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/openorg-list > > -- *Brook Manville* *Principal, Brook Manville LLC* *http://www.brookmanville.com/ <http://www.brookmanville.com/>* *Twitter* <https://twitter.com/> *@brookmanville* *blogging at: http://www.forbes.com/sites/brookmanville/ <http://www.forbes.com/sites/brookmanville/>*
_______________________________________________ Openorg-list mailing list [email protected] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/openorg-list
