The Threat of Weak Elites
On the elevation of bad leadership
“Science advances one funeral at a time.” - Max Planck
Populism is a virus. The infection point is our susceptibility to its siren call that validates our poorly-formed intuitions. Then with the help of confirmation bias, the contagion vector is exploited as we amplify our shared desire to rise to the top from our perceived lowly perch as a victim of former/current elite indifference.
Elites are vital to a well-functioning society. Scratch that: Good elites are vital to a well-functioning society. Elites in general are necessary for a functioning society but not sufficient for a good one.
“Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard.” - H.L. Mencken
Populism is the notion that the masses have the answers and don’t need the elites. The elites in this model of the world are simply like undeserving kings who stand athwart progress and societal happiness.
Ironically but inevitably populists will gravitate toward the elevation of an elite—just one of their choosing. They have to, again, because elites are vital for a society to function. This is also because the laws of physics and economics force specialization and outsourcing. Populists start with the idea they can figure it all out (or that they have already figured it all out), proceed to oust the current regime of elites, then finally succumb to the need for a new group of elites to take the helm.
I think there is a particular weak point that emerged from America’s embrace of freedom and a democratic republic. This is not in any way, shape, or form to imply the American form of government is anything but the best thing mankind has ever developed in regard to social governance. But it is not perfect. Part of that imperfection is an inherent risk that our freedom allows us to make bad choices.
“The State is the great fiction by which everyone endeavors to live at the expense of everyone else.” - Frédéric Bastiat
In a world of small, limited, constrained government this is not only a tolerable risk, it is itself somewhat a feature. If nothing else, it allows experimentation to help us progress. Since we do not know the best path forward (in anything much less the details of governance), we need a method to test, reject, and refine.
We do not live in that world. We live in a world where the natural tendency of man (good men indeed) is to see wrongs, to see errors, and wish to correct them. Government is easily seen as a tool, a tool which can cut through the perceived obstacles1 to solutions that seem obvious.2
Not all of this is wrong. It is just overapplied. And the biggest risk comes when the tool is so powerful that its potential for error begins to outweigh its potential for success. We are dangerously past this threshold. Which brings us to today’s politics.
“Say what you will of closed-off, smoke-filled rooms, at least they serve a desired purpose.” - me, just now.
I take comfort in our current political degeneracy that each “side” of the nearly closed horseshoe can at least see the problems of the other. It is obvious to those on the left that Republicans have lost the script with Trump, MAGA, and all the various (and worse) bad actors that surround it. At the same time it is obvious to those on the right that Democrats have yielded to their own circus of stupidity with a candidate like Biden having been the cleanest dirty shirt.
When important and generally still needed institutions like the New York Times elevates and takes seriously in a non-critical way the thoughts of Hasan Piker, et al., the Overton Window has slipped and slips further to a lower level of elite degeneracy.3 This is just the example du jour of the left embracing nonsense. The bigger example is how the left is wholly owned by the socialist crusade against free markets.
When formerly important institutions like the The Heritage Foundation or generally still needed institutions like Fox News champion and obediently follow the whims of the Dear Leader, again the Overton Window shows a dim future for elites (of the right in this case). The bigger example here is the rejection of good experts for sake of not wanting to accept what they had to say. And the left shares this own goal. So the joint failure is not just the destruction of good elites. It is also the knock-on effect of bad experts replacing good.
“A republic, if you can keep it.” - Benjamin Franklin
The political orphanage grows larger with every turn to . . . I don’t want to call it extremism, per se. It is more just degeneracy. An embrace of our primal, tribal urges and weakest notions. It is a desire for outcomes without any attempt at discerning how to obtain them or considering if those outcomes are in fact desirable. Before weighing the tradeoffs, a cost/benefit analysis itself that no one seems willing to undertake, we should first have guideposts and guardrails—both of which we have spent amble resources dismantling.
This dismantling of good elites has been unintentional but nonetheless effective. The right and the left wanted the old guard gone, but in throwing the bums out they have ushered in new, worse bums. It took a generation for this remake just as every evolution in American political thought moves over decades. Never was it perfect, but with all the good and bad trends that have transpired over the course of 250 years, the latest iteration seems asymmetrically negative.
It was a better world when political elites like Woodrow Wilson no longer could rise to the top. Sadly it took too long for bigots like him to become unacceptable. Today that bigotry seems to have new life, yet I hold out hope that is just visibility rather than electability.
It was a better world when political elites like Richard Nixon were ousted from power. Sadly we don’t seem to have the stomach for doing the right thing like this today. Some of that is because power is too desirable (a fault for the right in Trump’s case) and because there is more benefit with a weak opponent (a fault of the left in Trump’s case). Both of these sides of the same coin come from long-term, social gain traded away for short-term, selfish gain. The roles would flip but the result remain if we switch out the positions each hold. A less powerful government would not enable this principal-agent problem.
I think we’ve reached a new dilemma with which we must contend. In ways it is a tipping point, but not necessarily in the most dire of circumstances. We’ve been here before just in other ways. Fortunately we are wealthier, better enabled technologically, and past so many constraints that once distracted if not crippled us. Yet indeed all of these factors can push back against the cause. Being wealthier can mean more is at stake for rent seeking and the opposition is better funded. Greater technology amplifies both risks and benefits. And if nothing else, the memory of past hardships can itself constrain—fear is a powerful foe.
I believe we have meaningfully dismantled an elite structure within our politics that silently helped hold the center. It may take a long time to rebuild it. I strongly believe in American resiliency, and this gives me hope. Still, I think we have a long, rough road ahead.
Relevant Substacks:
“The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design” - Friedrich Hayek
Perhaps the most important aspect of this single example is elites like Ezra Klein in the NYT showing support and advocating engagement with Piker by the political leaders within the left.