America’s failed promise of equal opportunity
To achieve a truly fair society, we need to look to Lincoln, not Jefferson
http://www.salon.com/2012/02/12/americas_failed_promise_of_equal_opportunity/singleton/
I read this article thinking that I have always been an ‘and’ sort of guy. The article’s author implies (or at least that is how I read it) that a meritocracy wasn’t compatible with egalitarianism. I suppose if one takes the base definition of egalitarianism it is incompatible with the base idea of meritocracy, but it seems to me that in an open egalitarian society people who are good at certain tasks will rise to be in charge of those tasks largely because they merited that station because they had certain innate qualities, had studied the subject, or had been mentored somehow. It seems to me that the base form of egalitarianism is that everyone be held _down_ to the same level rather than letting people rise up to their most natural level. Because of genetic diversity coupled with the unique upbringing of each individual it seems impossible to me that there be any one-size-fits-all solution. So a ‘natural’ meritocracy (something that is probably just as impossible as any other societal form), in my mind, would be one where individual excellence was recognized whenever it occurred and each person would be allowed to be excellent at anything they happened to achieve.
Of course, this is all nonsensical since there is probably never going to be a world where either a meritocracy or egalitarianism dominate; power always attracts corruptible people and I can’t conceive of a society that lacks any sort of power structure. In my decades of studying forms of government the absolute best form I have ever encountered is the benevolent dictator, but there remains the nightmare problem of replacement since it is exceptionally difficult to get even a single benevolent dictator, getting a stable string of them to have long-term success seems like impossibility squared.
Given the nature of human beings it is impossible for there to be a rectangular distribution of skills and abilities.
“Equal opportunity” should not be construed as equal access to all things in life. “Equal opportunity” should represent the situation where everyone has the same chance to develop maximally, if such is their desire. The result of this development then dictates their access to this, that, or the other. Meritocracy, if you will.
It’s virtually impossible to guarantee the second form. Even if everyone were guaranteed free education to whatever level they desired, the outcomes would be subject to significant variation. Aside from natural variations (innate ability of students, skill of educators), the system would also be “gamed.” Systems invariably are.
The first form, equal access to everything for all (the system which we attempt to impose with affirmative action) is, inescapably, a recipe for disaster. Positive feedback of negative characteristics.
I don’t know the answer. I know this: no one with skin in the game, and skill, is going to bet their future on a game where the winner is chosen at random Even worse is choosing the winner from the pool of former losers just to “even things up.”