In spring 2021, The New York Times ran an editorial by Samuel Goldman in which he defended the disproportionate influence exerted by the “elite” – effectively an American aristocracy – on the nation’s governance. The gist of it seemed to be that the betters of society should not hide their privilege and excellence under a bushel and we poor hoi polloi clods should submit to their deserved rule. Yuck. This could not be allowed to pass without comment. The New York Times took a pass.
Samuel Goldman, “America Has a Ruling Class,” The New York Times, 4 April 2021, SR5 (www.nytimes.com/2021/03/30/opinion/america-politics-elites.html).
Samuel Goldman’s call for the acknowledgement of a quasi-aristocratic ruling class is larded with disquieting a priori assumptions. He believes there is a properly functioning “meritocracy” despite all contrary evidence. Is he unaware of the concept’s origin, Michael Young’s satire lampooning a dystopia forged meritocratically? Thumbing through Chris Hayes’ Twilight of the Elites would profit him.
For him, this ruling class is a reality to tolerate, not something inherently problematic in a pluralistic democracy. Do the “best” – the original Greek meaning of aristoi – inevitably rise to the top in a society riven by bigotry, sexism, and income inequality? He assumes a smoke-filled room crammed with the “best” is where governance is transacted, a rejection of transparency. Is he oblivious to the scorched-earth politics practiced since Mr. Obama’s election in 2008?
His quasi-Nietzschean emphasis on the “great man” spurs his cajoling of the “ruling class” to proclaim its pedigree yet be judged solely by its actions. Radical honesty from the “best” instead might often look like this: “I’m the scion of an aristocratic family whose influence removed every sharp edge, stunted me in empathy, and elevated me to a sinecure for which I’m unfit by temperament, experience, and ability.”