Who Elected Elon Musk President of the World?

If there were ever a great example of why the world needs to rein in individual and corporate wealth, Elon Musk’s takeover of Twitter is it.  

Musk is certainly a very bright man with an excellent record of success in multiple industries.  His championing of electric vehicles has accelerated that technology dramatically and he deserves to be congratulated for that.  His forays in space exploration are also remarkable, though not as clearly beneficial for humanity.  In general, one can say that he has achieved much in his career and should be encouraged to continue to explore new technologies and ideas within his sphere of knowledge and expertise.

 

But he is also a very erratic and eccentric personality with a tendency toward megalomania and a huge ego. No one in their right mind would choose him as a leader or arbiter of civic values and ideas.  Moreover, he is not an elected official and has no mandate from the people.

 

Computers, cell phones and the Internet have centralized power, wealth and influence in a very troubling way.  The human social and herd instinct, as well as some very pernicious proprietary technology has compelled us to purchase or subscribe to astonishingly few products or social media.

 

We subscribe to Microsoft or Apple not because they are uniquely brilliant or creative, but simply because they long ago became the standard and it is too onerous or perhaps even foolhardy to experiment with or move to other platforms.

 

We use Twitter or Facebook or Instagram or Amazon or PayPal because everyone else does, not because of their ingenious design or technology.  The software technology behind these platforms is quite simple and it is only the random combination of luck, timing and momentum that propelled these specific businesses to such dizzying heights and allowed them to dominate.  

 

But the centralized nature of these products and services has rewarded their owners with unimaginable wealth and the all-too-common delusion that they are superhuman, imbued with superior knowledge and wisdom.

 

Elon Musk’s takeover of Twitter is an expression of this type of hubris and megalomania, disguised as a mission to save free speech.  We need only reflect on the almost comical eccentricities of Henry Ford and Howard Hughes, among a long list of tycoons who believed they were uniquely qualified to dictate how the world should run, to realize that this too will not end well.

 

The world is not well-served by dictators or even well-intentioned plutocrats.  The progress of humankind is frustratingly slow, but it is best accomplished through communal deliberation and consensus leadership, not an ‘I know best’ mentality.  

 

We are in ever-increasing danger of having super-wealthy individuals and companies direct our future.  The only way to curb this phenomenon is to heavily tax massive incomes and wealth, and to break up monopolies or somehow encourage alternatives to centralized platforms.  The future will be dark indeed if the Elon Musks of the world are in total control.

The Meritocracy Trap

There is strong support in some political circles for the goal of making America a meritocracy.  Indeed, it is already proclaimed as one by many.   But what is a meritocracy and is it a wise objective for our country?  

Simply defined, a meritocracy is a political and economic system where power and wealth are commensurate with ability and effort – i.e. merited.  In contrast to an aristocracy, where power and wealth are hereditary and resistant to change, a meritocracy is in theory a fluid state where each person can rise to whatever heights can be attained based on skill and hard work.

 

Meritocracy is the idealized product of true capitalism.  The rewards of clever entrepreneurship, investment and diligent endeavor will produce a hierarchy of rewards and status based on merit.  The ‘invisible hand’ of the market, that so cleverly orchestrates the successes and failures in business, will also sort out the deserving and undeserving and allocate to them wealth and power commensurate to their contributions.  Or so the theory says!

 

The logic behind the meritocracy is that there are vast differences in ability, work ethic and initiative among human beings and that the best mechanism for progress and a better all-around world is to have a political and economic system that promotes and rewards people based on these attributes.  

 

But there are interesting and disturbing questions surrounding this adoration of merit.  What defines merit?  How is merit measured?  Does merit naturally rise to the top in a capitalist society?  What does a meritocracy do to human relationships and the social compact?  Is it truly ‘better’ for society to have a meritocracy?

 

Defining merit is tricky.  It could conceivably include any of the following:  intelligence, ability, acquired knowledge, acquired experience, diligence, initiative, risk-taking, industriousness and effort, to name just a few.  But each of these single attributes is actually a catchall for a spectrum of complex qualities that are neither easily defined nor described.  There is more ambiguity than precision in these terms.

 

If we are hard-pressed to adequately define the components of merit, then how much more helpless are we in attempting to measure them?  For example, if we wish to measure effort, diligence and industriousness, shall we use the number of hours a person works?  Or how fast they work?  Or how cleverly they work?  Already we find ourselves stymied in finding adequate yardsticks for these simple, yet elusive, qualities.

 

And when we move on to intelligence and talent, we find ourselves in a morass of stereotypes and fables.  We have learned in recent years that IQ and SAT tests are unreliable in terms of assessing intelligence or aptitude.  There are so many diverse aspects of intelligence and capability that any attempt to make a simple assessment is foolhardy and bound to be skewed in some way or another.

 

In practice, we do not generally ‘measure’ merit except in academic settings.  There, it is true that for the most accomplished students there is the opportunity to ascend to the most celebrated undergraduate and graduate institutions and thereby somewhat guarantee one’s future success.  But there are so many gifted students that this becomes a veritable lottery that serves only a small portion of the talented applicants.  It is highly unlikely that the lucky few are any more capable than the legions left out of these elite launchpads.  And even more unsettling is the fact that the great majority of the lucky few have been expertly groomed for these positions in upper class homes, academies and tutoring scenarios.

 

Once out of school, in the crucible of the business world, the assessment of merit is haphazard and subject to the whims of chance and human foibles.  Success may come because of being in the right company at the right time or in the right position.  It may come as a result of having a personality or style that appeals to a senior executive.  It may come by launching a product or company at the right time with the right backers, with the right angel investors.  It may come by sheer luck.  It may come by devious, selfish or unethical means.  And yes, it may come because one is capable and does a good job.  Anyone who has worked in several different companies has witnessed the fact that merit, however one may define it, is not always or even generally the path to success.

How many of us who have been rewarded highly for our work can truly say that we have merited such a disproportionate amount compared to others who have worked more hours or have overcome more hardships or obstacles?  The market may dictate our higher reward but is it just, is it fair?

One may argue that if we do not allow the market to work its magic then it will lose its efficiency and human progress will be jeopardized.  Even if that is the case, which I believe is certainly not an accepted fact, then let us call our political/economic system a marketocracy rather than a meritocracy and concede that 'merit' is not the secret ingredient to wealth and power.

 

For when merit is associated with power, wealth and fame, and we prize those things above all other achievements, we create a hierarchy of human value that is not only false but harmful.  We use the meritocracy to justify vast inequalities of income and wealth as though they are somehow inevitable or expedient.  

 

If we promote the illusion that our society is a meritocracy and we view all accomplishment through that lens, associating all material and worldly success with one’s ‘merit’, then we condemn a large portion of our fellow human beings to a category of ‘less merit’ or ‘no merit’.  The dedicated teacher, the social worker, the public service lawyer, the small-town doctor, all of whom have chosen a path that has little material reward, must wrestle lifelong with the demons of self-doubt and the lack of societal acclaim.

 

The meritocracy is a trap.  It is a trap because the concept of merit is subjective, undefinable and unmeasurable.  It is a trap because success is also subjective and relative.  It is a trap because merit and success are only casually related.  But most importantly, it is a trap because human value is not based on either merit or worldly success.  And it is a trap because it allows us to pretend that there is not a desperate need to continue to do the difficult work necessary to create a more equitable and humane society.