<p>Below please find an OpEd from NYT's David Brooks on elites, ending with a comparison of the French and American Revolutions. Brooks says that in Christopher Hayes' book, Twilight of the Elites, the author "argues that meritocratic elites may rise on the basis of grades, effort and merit, but, to preserve their status, they become corrupt. They create wildly unequal societies, and then they rig things so that few can climb the ladders behind them. Meritocracy leads to oligarchy."</p>
<p>Here's some more: </p>
<p>"Through most of the 19th and 20th centuries, the Protestant Establishment sat atop the American power structure. A relatively small network of white Protestant men dominated the universities, the world of finance, the local country clubs and even high government service.</p>
<p>"Over the past halfcentury, 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.</p>
<p>"Yet, as this meritocratic elite has taken over institutions, trust in them has plummeted. Its not even clear that the brainy elite is doing a better job of running them than the old boys network. Would we say that Wall Street is working better now than it did 60 years ago? Or government? The system is more just, but the outcomes are mixed. The meritocracy has not fulfilled its promise."</p>
<p>And here is the closing paragraph:</p>
<p>"The difference between the Hayes view and mine is a bit like the difference between the French Revolution and the American Revolution. He wants to upend the social order. I want to keep the current social order, but I want to give it a different ethos and institutions that are more consistent with its existing ideals."</p>