By Edwin Cooney
As most of us learn in grade school, you and I live in a democracy. The leaders are elected and even appointed to high office by a majority in either the state or national electorate. Federal executives and judiciary members are confirmed by most voting members of the Senate and sometimes by the House. Over the years, especially in these days of increasingly political polarization, some are advocating that our leadership should be both elected and appointed by merit rather than by favor. Thus the question above: ought we to be a democracy or a meritocracy?
The delicious aspect of this question is: who ultimately controls the "ought" of the issue. George Washington, James Madison, Benjamin Franklin, John Jay, Alexander Hamilton and the rest of the delegates to the Constitutional Convention debated and decided during that hot Philadelphia summer of 1787 that a democracy, largely due to its flexibility, was preferable to any other form of government.
Alexander Hamilton and John Jay tended to favor a meritocracy as did other future Federalists in the eventual Washington Administration. John Adams and Alexander Hamilton (who came to heartily dislike one another) essentially believed in government by "the better born and educated" where as men like Madison and George Mason favored government open to the wisdom of the farmer and small merchant. Ultimately, we became a democracy primarily due, I think, to the lack of practicality in meritocracy.
I'm convinced that the call to government by meritocracy is a call for government by, of, and for people of perfection. The question therefore is: who are these people and where do they live?
My friend “Albany Steve,” a gentleman of considerable principle and integrity, appears to be leaning toward preferring government by men and women of merit as opposed to government by pure politics. However, as I see it, there are several exceedingly serious flaws in government by men and women of merit.
The first and most fundamental issue is: who decides who is sufficiently meritorious to deserve trust in a potential meritocracy? Back in the late 1780’s, only General George Washington was unanimously regarded as possessing sufficient merit or worthiness to select a government worthy of governing this newly independent and free republic. (Note that by the close of his presidency, President Washington wasn't quite as meritorious as he was at the outset of his two administrations.)
Second, what values, beliefs and principles ought men of sufficient merit hold to be trusted with the cares of public office?
Third, as Albany Steve points out in his message to me, James Madison in Federalist Paper #51 writes: "If men were angels no government would be necessary.”
Fourth, while there are men and women possessed of above average judgment, principle, and integrity, as I see it, no one is sufficiently gifted with an adequate amount of judgment and principle to be labeled “perfect.” Any student of the Bible reminds us on a regular basis of the imperfection of humankind. Hence, as I see it, meritocracy demands a higher degree of perfection than the Bible acknowledges humans of possessing. Even more to the point, people admire perfection in arts, crafts, and athletics, but they tend to resist and even resent intellectual and spiritual perfection.
Political polarization isn't so much a question of differences of values and principles as it is a question of who gets to apply various aspects of judgment. Back in 1976, for instance, the GOP platform said that the whole matter of abortion rights ought to be left up to the individual states. Another significant political and social change can be found in the fact that at one time states' rights was a fundamental principle of the Democratic Party. States' rights and less government have become GOP principles today.
Today, rather than celebrating our right to see things differently, we glory in charging each other with extremism. Have you ever heard a liberal talk about the “moderate right”? Have you ever heard a conservative refer to the “near left”?
Many years ago, I put the above distinction to my friend Ken from Alameda, California, a strict conservative. He finally decided that the only near or moderately leftwing personages he'd ever heard of were his wife Nancy, me, and — get this — Jesus Christ. How's that for political judgment!
In 2021, we're more interested in accusation than we are in accommodation. Today, presidential candidate George Washington would be judged more as a slave owner than as either a general or administrator. President Washington demonstrated in his farewell message his lack of both intellectual and moral judgment when he criticized political parties without advocating a better way to select future leaders. After all, he didn't even suggest that we should become a meritocracy as Albany Steve appears to soon be ready to advocate!
Hey, Albany Steve, I just compared you to George Washington while Alameda Ken once compared me to….OH, NEVER MIND!
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY
No comments:
Post a Comment