4 Credentialism: The Last Acceptable Prejudice

The last acceptable prejudice.   Speaks to politicians pointing to academic credentials.  Like Trump threatened to sue the colleges he had attended if they released his grades and SAT score, claiming to be a “very stable genius” with a high IQ.  Like Biden claiming he was in the top range of his law school class which was an exaggeration.  Credentialism plays in politics.

WEAPONIZING COLLEGE CREDENTIALS

High IQ claims of politicians suggest the need for said credentials, as a view of Americans in picking leaders. Trump claimed that conservatives were accused of being under credentialed.  Resonated with aggrieved working class voters, who feel the more highly educated look down on said working class. Sandel claims the frame of the meritocratic elite resides on both Left and Right on the political spectrum.

The fact politicians feel the need to invoke academic credentials is a sign of something larger in play.  It is meritocracy fed by the notion that higher education is essential for everyone. Credentialism has become the basis for judgment, even of character, like the credentialed are somehow also more moral and ethical.  Merit has become a kind of tyranny.

Higher education came to be claimed the way to rise, as in mobility depended upon it. It was a promise of mobility.  More demanding visions of justice and common good were set aside.

EDUCATION AS THE ANSWER TO INEQUALITY

So, to deal with the extreme inequality that was coming online, most claimed the way to solve it was to push higher education.  The immoral and unethical dimension of extreme inequality was not in view. Solution to the stagnant wages in the labor market was education.  Solution to the loss of high paying manufacturing jobs was education.  Education, education, education.  In a global economy, companies will go to the places where the educated people live.

The basic argument of liberal and progressive politics was to get educated. It was essential to engage in the global economy.   Equality of opportunity on the way to higher education was the frame. Progressives were big supporters of meritocracy  like in providing more opportunities for all races, genders to become educated.

Critiques pointed out is was not just about education. That is a moral judgment, and necessarily fact based. So, telling people they need more schooling are saying the failure is not in the system but in you, who are not educated.  Liberals and progressives missed the point that it was a loss in labor power, not in failing to become more educated.  Getting more education was not the solution to extreme inequality.  Instead, claiming education was the solution it did nothing but be corrosive of the dignity of work and the working class. Most Americans do not have a college degree. It absolved liberals and progressives of the fact of supporting policies that gave credentialism a premium in the labor market.  It was meritocratic hubris among the more highly educated.  Eventually undermines social recognition and esteem for those without a higher education.

THE BEST AND THE BRIGHTEST

Obama also missed the point.  Like Obama had appointed people into the cabinet, into the Obama government, filling positions with the credentialed.  Most were Ivy League graduates.  Practical wisdom and civic virtue essential to a viable, inclusive government does not necessarily come from Ivy League educated people.

Like Obama did a Wall Street friendly response to bailing out the banks.  Discredited the party in the eyes of working people.  Wall Street is not deserving of the claims of some kind ability it really does not have.  Democrats  at the top, like Obama, were blind to the incompetence and excessive greed of Wall Streed, and abandoning Main Street.  The Wall Street fiction that they deserved every penny of their compensation packages is not based in fact.  Incompetence reined, as the trading firms and banks crashed.  It was unjust to bail our same. The notion of a just

system was violated.

THE SMART THING TO DO

Smart came to be held over dumb.  Smart came to describe things, like smart phones, smart cars, and smart bombs, and, smart politics. The notion of smart came into our rhetoric, as did stupid.

It was more about the smart thing to do, in meritocratic framing, than the moral and ethical thing to do. Sandel quotes Obama, who often said “not just the right thing to do; it’s the smart think to do.”  So, meritocracy points to being smart, the ethic set aside.  In DIT terms, it is about staying on the smart, meritocratic path 0G and paying little attention to the path 0M.  So, raising the minimum wage was the smart thing to do. rather than the moral thing to do, when, as DIT clarifies, it has to be about both, as in smart&moral on path 0Z.

Under intense partisanship framing, smart and dumb appeals. It seems to remove the need to have that  moral and ethical debate in the Other Forums of an inclusive democracy.  Speaking to smart vs dumb seems to obviate the need for the talk, talk, talk about what is the content of the shared with the other interest. Like a partisan politician calling for smart spending cuts and smart welfare reforms --- so, one would not have to discuss the ethical dimension of same.

ELITES LOOKING DOWN

Well-educated are generally more biased toward the less educated, poor, and obese. Better educated also not more tolerant, morally superior in any sense. Unapologetic of bias toward the uneducated.  Dislike people with lessor educations, because the individuals are in fault for not working hard enough, less responsible.  Intriguingly, the less educated hold similar views.  Meritocratic framing has found way into the entire society.

Importance of going to college, as in it being a universal social problem solver, leads to being more willing to accept inequality. 

GOVERNMENT BY DEGREE

Few elected to office without a college degree, like 95 -percent of the U.S. House and 100 percent of the U.S Senate have said degrees.  Has become less adverse in educational backgrounding.  Very few of the working class, like service, construction, trades are in said positions. People with diplomas --- not from trade or vocational schools, but from universities --- govern those without degrees.

Sandel claims it is the result of the meritocratic age. It harkens back to an earlier era when only the propertied could be in government. Aristocrats and landed gentry provided the leadership. Sandel argues that better political discourse comes with  practical wisdom and civic virtue, and, said things do not necessarily come with a higher education.  The claim that one necessarily does well in political judgement comes from higher education is a myth.

Rising credentialism in government has failed the people.  Said people tend to be out of touch with the common good. Government needs to be broadly representative of all the people, not just he credentialed.  Yet, practical wisdom, civic virtue, and political judgement can be hard to find.

Sandel claims the dominance of people with college degrees has alienated people from their government.  Most people do not have college degrees.

THE DIPLOMA DIVIDE

In 2016, education more than income determined who voted for Trump vs Clinton.  Trump voters tended to be people without college degrees.   Pattern has reversed.  More educated vote left of center.  Less educated vote right of center.  It is going on in Europe, too. It is complicated by the fact that wealthy voters tend to vote on the right.  Non-whites tend to vote on the left.

Democratic party started to represent the professional classes, non-college educated white voters turned away from it. Sandel provides a range of statistics showing the patterns, reversing in the 2010s … more educated on the left and less educated on the right. The less educated on the right turn to anti-immigration, anti-globalization, and represent nativist, nationalist tendencies. Sandel claims the relentless credentialism has driven said changes, including extreme partisan views of higher education. Many on the right are now seeing colleges and universities having a negative effect on the population, a symbol of credentialism and meritocratic hubris. Universities causing less representative government.

TECHNOCRATIC TALK

Smart vs dumb leads to relying on technocrats to run government, taking away from the debate about what is moral and ethical.   Diverts politics from focusing on justice and the common good. DIT makes clear said conversation about the content of the shared other-interest  --- the common good --- is essential, with meritocracy taking that away, replacing it with technocracy.

Sandel speaks to the matter of facts.  Obama had spoken to the need for better information, more attention to the facts. The bully pulpit of the presidency is to provide the facts.  Sandel points out the history of the bully pulpit used to be about the moral and ethical dimension, not just the facts. DIT would suggest it has to be joint, as in facts&ethics. It is more than reason, facts and science ---a statement of technocratic, meritocratic support.   Yet, as DIT makes clear, the moral dimension must also be engaged. The moral and ethical argument for universal health coverage, e.g., is not just about the facts of costs and incentives. DIT clarifies it about incentives&ethics.  It is not just about incentivize --- a word used by Obama.  The ethic must also play.

Incentivizing is a technocratic frame of mind.  It is a monetized incentive to bring about good things, but, it cannot be done without consideration of the ethical.  Sandel sees smart, technocracy, and meritocracy as all in the same domain --- and all flawed, because the ethics based common good is not in view.  Such framing also disempowers the less educated. It abandons the project of persuading people, which is more about the moral and ethical.

TECHNOCRACY VERSUS DEMOCRACY

Technocratic discourse like shouting matches leaves out the need for discourse among people in the body politic. It is not only about the experts, coming from the technocracy, the meritocracy. The people must also be engaged. 

DEBATING CLIMATE CHANGE

Facts matter.   Rejection of science by the right is real.  Obama quoted Moyihan… entitled to your opinion, but not to you own facts.  Interplay of facts&opinion must be acknowledged.  It is a technocratic frame.  Framing the fact tends to win the debate.

Sandel claims facts do not matter, in that the partisan divide is about politics. Sandel points out the facts from the technocrats often do not play. Sandel claims it would be missing the power, moral and political considerations.   Technocracy is not morally and politically neutral. Sandel claims technocratic experts must also be sensitive to the questions of morality, authority, and the trust of said experts.  Said questions are that of citizens in an inclusive democracy, and, technocrats cannot be expected to make all such decisions based on a set of facts.

Meritocratic elites in government need to bring democratic norms back into play. Meritocrats ned to recognize a politics of the common good, one that brings facts into discourse, but does not pretend to know exactly what the next step needs to be.