runner,

ha ha ha ha ............ Your joke is a lot funnier than SL West's joke.

Dear Paul,

A victory for the meritocracy if Trump wins?

I suspect that many of his supporters would
agree with that seeing him as a man who's succeeded
despite all sorts of grand conspiracies. They see
him as the best there is. And his message to them
is that they are doing poorly at present because they
have the cards stacked against them by cheats and
crooks (of course he excludes himself from that).
His message is if the deck is re-arranged by him ( and
he is after all a casino operator from way back) then
luck and merit will once again be allowed to play its
proper role.

If that sounds like a con. Many of the ideas attached to
the concept of meritocracy are a con. Lets not forget the
wealth and connections he inherited and had a good education.

If we don't address inequality in a democratic way we will
always find political leaders like Donald Trump who use
inequality in order to basically tell you stories.
"This is the fault of foreign workers", "This is because
of foreign countries like China," and the list goes on.
You can always blame someone. Sadly in the US by and large
the bottom and middle social groups have been neglected for
so long and today they're paying for that neglect.

cont'd ...

Dear Paul,

We should consider ourselves lucky to be living in
Australia. Some of the richest business figures in
Australia were postwar migrants from Europe.

Lowy and Grollo are still with us; the baton having
been handed on to the next generation. We've had people
here who were Holocaust survivors, others fled from
communism.

Alan Bond a British child migrant could not get into the
Royal Perth Yacht Club but he unbolted the America's
Cup from the Yanks. Members of my own family have risen
through the ranks of their chosen fields through their
hard work and talent and have contributed in various ways
to their communities. We all consider ourselves very
fortunate.

Hi Mr O,

For some of the forums old farts, understanding of how the concept of a Meritocracy is, and how it's applied in America is beyond their capacity of thought. Obviously they didn't read Stan Grant's article.

True if it was a level playing field, and things being equal the most intelligent would rise to the top and become the natural leaders, all well and good. Unfortunately in America today, those who are a privileged part of the small but elitist Meritocracy, generally through birth, a bit like the old Aristocracy, and through that accident of birth they automatically qualify for merit and therefore leadership rolls, and everything else society has to offer. Such people have inherited wealth, attend the best schools, and have access to power, through this elitist system.

The same people taunt the excluded with calls of "you to can do it, if only you would try". In the article you will see how Obama exploited that very notion, that its somehow the fault of the disadvantaged for not trying hard enough. A bit like an abled bodied man standing at the top of a very deep pit with a legless man at the bottom, yelling down; "you can jump out of the pit if only you would grow a pair of legs. When the legless chap fails to grow those legs he is scolded for not trying hard enough.

.. those who are a privileged part of the small but elitist Meritocracy, generally through birth, a bit like the old Aristocracy, and through that accident of birth they automatically qualify for merit and therefore leadership rolls, and everything else society has to offer.

Paul1405,
Exactly how Academia has been working over the past 40 years ! Academia is the new Tories !

Dear Paul,

I've just come across an interesting article that I
want to share. It raises some valid points regarding
meritocracy.

We're told that - "having a smart president (or CEO)
and the best brains in the room at the White House
(or company board room) is not guarantee of a
trumphal presidency (or the company) being a success or
good for the country (or the organisation) especially
if the president (or the CEO) does not listen to his
advisors".

Also, "while it is obviously better to have smart people
than less astute men and women trying to figure out answers
to current challenges. It offers no certainty that serious
problems will be solved - ov even that the right decisions
would be made".

The article gives clear examples when having smart people
did not lead to either promised or anticipated solution.
It's worth a read:

http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2015/12/18/why-the-best-and-brightest-are-often-the-dimmest-and-worst-at-governing/