In preparation for another 4 years of runaway capitalist excess under the Trump/Musk regime, I find myself wondering how just under half of the working class who bothered to vote in 2024 got bamboozled again. And by “working class” I mean “anyone other than the ~700 billionaires who hold more than 50% of the total wealth in the US.” I mean me and everyone I know, from a handful of mid-cap CEOs to scores of trades, hospitality, and tech workers.
So I took a break from reading dystopian fiction (now available in the non-fiction section of your local library) and picked up The Rise of the Meritocracy by Michael Young. Click here to read the entire book for free on academia.com (PDF format), or click here for the summary on Wikipedia.
tl;dr - Equal opportunity combined with natural inequality of economically useful intelligence creates a society where smart people run the country and have all the money. Same shit, different overlords. The poors don't like it, but are too dumb to change the system. In Young’s prediction, some (smart) bleeding heart liberals harness the populist outrage to save the day.
The Meritocracy described by Young echoes the American dream I was raised to believe in. We were taught that social mobility is a God-given right, because there are no elites by birth in the US - we don't do royalty and aristocracy around here (right?). If you study hard and work hard, you’ll go further than the generations that came before. While it may be true in theory that “anyone can grow up to be President,” the reality in fact is that not everyone can be President. There’s just not enough top-of-the-pyramid to go around. Moreover, the concentration of wealth is inherent in any state-sanctioned stratified society. Regardless of who the elite are, it's statistically improbable that you'll grow up to be one of them.
I recognized both sides of the US disenfranchised in Young’s populists: libtard and MAGA alike. Regardless of where one stands on their right to dictate the personal lives of others (i.e., the dreaded identity politics), most everyone in the US today is tired of being whipped to do more work with less resources for the enrichment of an ever smaller group of masters. We’re ripe for some smart people who aren’t assholes to channel this dissatisfaction into action. Why is it that instead, the leader to capture the populist vote is the poster child of economic elitism, DJ Trump?
I mean, c’mon, nobody really thinks Elon Musk is a man of the people. Instead of making incremental advances toward economic justice, the power of US populist outrage has been weaponized by one faction of global elite against the others.
So I took this up with one of my fellow tools of corporate hegemony, ChatGPT. The full conversation is below, but the upshot is that we (the poors) have let ourselves be distracted - again - by our differences. If you're voting on identity politics, pro this or con that, you're falling for the oldest trick in the ruling elite playbook (now available in the history section of your local library).
Everyday folks like us are the ones who keep this country running, but let’s face it—big corporations and the elites in Washington keep stacking the deck against us. They keep wages low, prices high, and then tell us to blame our neighbors for it.
It’s time we look out for each other and demand leaders who fight for us—better jobs, lower prices, and fair wages—without the excuses or distractions. Don’t let them divide us while they laugh all the way to the bank.
Here's my exchange with Mr. Robot…
Me: Reading The Rise of the Meritocracy, I am struck by how the modern MAGA voting base straddles the divisions foreseen in Young’s book. MAGA seems bought into both the idea of economic growth as the primary measure of social good and the concept of inherent, unavoidable social hierarchy that underpin the pro-meritocratic argument. At the same time, MAGA is stridently anti-intellectual and resistant to any claim of expertise.
ChatGPT: You’ve touched on a fascinating tension that reflects both the predictive power of Michael Young’s The Rise of the Meritocracy (1958) and the contradictions inherent in the modern political landscape, particularly within the MAGA (Make America Great Again) movement.
Young’s satirical work critiqued the emergence of a society where merit—measured through education, intelligence, and effort—became the primary determinant of social status. He foresaw a divided society where those at the top believe they deserve their positions, while those at the bottom are blamed for their lack of success. This critique resonates with aspects of the MAGA movement but in a complex and paradoxical way.
---
MAGA and Economic Growth
Alignment with Meritocratic Values:
Many in the MAGA base embrace the idea of economic growth as the primary metric of societal success. This reflects a meritocratic worldview that prioritizes individual effort, entrepreneurship, and market-based success as virtues.
Donald Trump’s rhetoric often celebrates business acumen, wealth accumulation, and “winning” as markers of personal and national greatness, appealing to the meritocratic ideal that rewards economic success.
Economic Hierarchy:
The MAGA movement also implicitly supports the idea of an inevitable social hierarchy, often aligning with a belief in individual responsibility and hard work as the determinants of success. For many, economic inequality is seen as natural, even desirable, provided opportunities are perceived as fair (though this fairness is contested).
---
Anti-Intellectualism and Resistance to Expertise
Contradiction with Meritocracy:
Here lies a fundamental tension: meritocracy, as described by Young, values intellectual achievement and expertise as core components of “merit.” The MAGA movement, however, is notably anti-intellectual, rejecting the authority of experts, academics, and technocrats.
This resistance stems partly from a populist distrust of elites, who are perceived as distant, self-serving, and dismissive of the values of “ordinary” Americans. Many MAGA supporters see experts as part of an unaccountable ruling class, more akin to a credentialed aristocracy than a true meritocracy.
Cultural, Not Just Economic, Frustration:
The anti-intellectualism reflects a broader cultural reaction. For much of the MAGA base, the technocratic meritocracy has created a world that feels alien and disempowering. Policies and institutions guided by experts often seem disconnected from the lived experiences of working-class and rural Americans, who feel excluded from decision-making and scorned for their values.
---
Reconciling the Tension
A Hybrid Ideology:
The MAGA base's embrace of economic meritocracy alongside its rejection of intellectual meritocracy reveals a hybrid ideology. It values certain forms of merit (e.g., entrepreneurial success, practical skills) while rejecting others (e.g., academic credentials, institutional authority).
This reflects a selective meritocracy, where merit is defined not universally but through cultural and political filters.
Populism and Hierarchy:
The MAGA movement’s populism complicates its relationship with hierarchy. On one hand, it resents the current elite, but on the other, it often celebrates a strong, charismatic leader (e.g., Trump) who embodies a different kind of hierarchy based on perceived personal strength and authenticity.
This allows MAGA to critique the existing elite while reaffirming the necessity of hierarchy itself, provided the “right people” are on top.
---
In Light of Young’s Critique
Young warned that meritocracy could create a self-justifying elite, detached from the broader society and dismissive of those who fall short of its standards. MAGA’s contradictions illustrate how these divisions manifest today:
1. Alienation of the “Left Behind”: MAGA supporters often feel excluded by a system that celebrates cognitive merit and institutional expertise while ignoring traditional, working-class forms of value.
2. Resentment of Elitism: The movement's hostility toward technocratic elites echoes Young’s prediction of a backlash against a meritocratic ruling class.
3. Cultural Rejection: MAGA’s anti-intellectualism is not just a rejection of expertise but a cultural revolt against the values of an elite that it perceives as distant and condescending.
---
Conclusion
The MAGA movement embodies many of the divisions Michael Young predicted, but it also highlights the limits of his analysis. While Young focused on the alienation caused by meritocracy, the MAGA movement shows how meritocratic ideals can coexist with populist, anti-elite sentiment. This blend reflects a broader struggle over whose “merit” is valued and who gets to define the rules of the game. It underscores the complexity of political identities in a fragmented, hierarchical society.
Creative Process Transparency: This article was collaboratively written using generative AI. The framing and argumentation were developed by me, while ChatGPT assisted in expanding on key themes and refining sections for clarity. Final edits and rhetorical structure were fine-tuned by me. Based on our established attribution model, this article reflects an approximately 80/20 division of contributions.