"I grew up in the Bronx," says the affable, 33-year-old anchor of "Up With Chris Hayes." "My mother was the daughter of an Italian deli owner. But I'm also hugely a product of the meritocracy, and for that reason I have my own affection for it."
Both experiences provided fodder for his much-discussed first book, "Twilight of the Elites: America after Meritocracy."
The third chapter deals with the author's background as a student at New York's prestigious Hunter College High School, which has a 6.6 percent admission rate.
Hayes argues that institutions such as his alma mater, which strive to reward the best and brightest, end up enshrining the very class privilege they're designed to defeat. And he further maintains that society's misguided devotion to the meritocratic ideal has resulted in the failure of the nation's flagship institutions, from banks to baseball.
"In reality, our meritocracy has failed not because it's too meritocratic," Hayes writes, "but because in practice, it isn't very meritocratic at all."
The author, who is scheduled to appear Jan. 16 for a reading at the Enoch Pratt Free Library, recently chatted about his theories.
First things first: In light of your observations, what do you think about the deal that averted the
Not surprisingly, I think it fits perfectly with my thesis about the distance between the elites and ordinary folk. It's amazing that the greatest areas of concern for the broad mass of people weren't reflected by the political discourse.
A small set of elites in Washington is much more obsessed with the deficit than is the rest of the country. All that
Don't get me wrong — I think there are reasons to let the tax cut expire. But what struck me was how uncontroversial that decision was when the result will be smaller paychecks for 77 percent of the population.
One of your central arguments is that meritocracies inevitably become rigged to protect the interests of the ruling class. For instance, you argue that admission to elite academies such as Hunter is granted disproportionately to students who can afford expensive test preparation courses.
In our society, we have an almost religious belief in this idea of a level playing field, and it's become toxic.
There are two kinds of equality: the equality of opportunity and the equality of outcomes. In this country, we concentrate on equalizing opportunities and don't do much to redistribute wealth and make sure that outcomes also are equal. They do that much more in other countries.
But, during this long period of time in which we've had a meritocratic society, we've seen huge declines in social mobility. For instance, the best way to predict kids' SAT scores is to look at their parents' incomes. The hydraulics of power guarantee that those on top of society will find ways to pull up the ladder behind them.
You raise the specter that if the gap between the haves and have-nots gets much wider, the U.S. could turn away from democracy and toward totalitarianism. Do you think that's a realistic possibility?
Is it likely in the near term? No.
But in the past, societies in decline have had a tendency to produce authoritarian systems, and it's something to be absolutely, vigilantly guarded against. You don't want to have a society where the military, by a wide margin, is our most trusted institution, and Congress is the least trusted — as recent surveys have shown.
That would leave the founders, as a man, absolutely chilled.
Another of your premises is that the elites who are running things are incompetent. But isn't the larger issue that the problems they are tasked with addressing — such as fixing the economy or the educational system — are incredibly complex and difficult to repair?
I think that's true, and it's one of the tensions of modern progress. They are two impulses that happen simultaneously, and they're opposed to one another. There were the democratizing trends that resulted in us getting rid of slavery and adopting the 19th Amendment [guaranteeing women the right to vote]. But as systems get more democratic, they also get more complex, and we put in place a small group of elites and experts to manage them.
That's one of the lessons of the book: We go through periods of increased power and consolidation, and then a democratic backlash of accountability. Maybe we're about due for the latter.
You implicitly endorse "leaderless" movements and hold the
Yeah, my ambiguity on this question is something that most reviews have zeroed in on. There is a natural consolidation of power. Attempts to produce non-hierarchical organizations very often produce entrenched hierarchies.
But I have been radicalized by this decade, and I don't think we should automatically throw all radical solutions out of the conversation. There's also something to be said for having the goal of genuine egalitarian progress even if it can never be achieved.
Human government is never fixed. It's a constant Sisyphean process. You roll the rock up the hill, and the hydraulics of power drag it back down. One of the flaws in Marx's philosophy is that he thought you really did get to this final static equilibrium in which the problem is solved.
But, there is no final state. There is no equilibrium. There's just a process of critique and mobilization and activism that dynamically inches you toward something better.
If you go
Author Chris Hayes will read from his new book at 7 p.m. Jan. 16 at the Enoch Pratt Free Library, 400 Cathedral St. Free. Call 410-396-5430 or go to prattlibrary.org.
About the book
"Twilight of the Elites: America after Meritocracy," Crown Publishing Group, June 12, 2012. $26, 304 pages.