LIFE
tingent on a conception of human
nature that is belied by science, par-
ticularly evolutionary psychology:
that man is a peace-loving, altruistic
creature who can be depended upon
not to engage in predation, cruel-
ty, warfare, sexual enslavement and
homicidal violence once the workers’
paradise has been created.
I believe, with Kant, that out of
the crooked timbre of humanity no
straight thing was ever made, so all
utopian political projects, whether
originating on the left or the right, will
inevitably involve a massive escala-
tion in state power as their architects
battle to contain our unruly natures.
Better to trust our existing laws, insti-
tutions, customs, traditions and reli-
gions to keep us in line. If we can add
meritocracy to this array of checks, so
much the better.
But there’s a problem, which is
that it seems to be undermining con-
fidence in our system rather than
underpinning it. Two books published
last week — National Populism: The
Revolt Against Liberal Democracy by
Matthew Goodwin and Roger Eatwell
and Whiteshift: Populism, Immigration
and the Future of White Majorities by
Eric Kaufmann — emphasise the
extent to which the electoral upsets of
the past few years have been fuelled
by resentment against the merito-
cratic elite.
As has been well documented,
education level was a better predic-
tor than income of whether a per-
son voted Leave or Remain, just as
it was of whether someone plumped
for Hillary or Trump. Both books
make the point that it isn’t just lack of
opportunities that have alienated the
poorly educated in Britain and the US.L
ast week I spoke at an event at
Nottingham University to com-
memorate the 60th anniversa-
ry of The Rise of the Meritocracy, the
book by my father that added a new
word to the English language. A dys-
topian satire in the same mould as
Nineteen Eighty-Four, it describes a
nightmarish society of the future in
which status is based on a combina-
tion of effort and intelligence rather
than inherited privilege.
That sounds like an improve-
ment and, to my father’s annoyance,
the word ‘meritocracy’ has come to
stand for something politically desir-
able when he intended the book to
be a warning. As a lifelong socialist,
he didn’t like meritocracy because
he thought it gave the appearance of
fairness to the economic inequalities
thrown up by free-market capitalism,
thereby delaying the emergence of
a more egalitarian society.
In my speech I explained that
I liked meritocracy for much the
same reason. I regard inequality as
an inevitable by-product of limited
government, which history teaches
us is preferable to excessive state
power. In common with many uto-
pian socialists, my father believed the
state would just ‘wither away’ once it
had overseen a massive redistribution
of wealth and power, but I’ve always
been sceptical. Such optimism is con-
It’s also the elite’s callous disregard
for their anxieties about the erosion
of their communities. When the white
working-class — and non-whites, too
— express their concerns about mass
immigration, they’re dismissed as
‘ racist’ and ‘xenophobic’.
One of the other speakers at the
Nottingham University event was
Dr Faiza Shaheen, director of the
Corbynite think-tank CLASS. That
stands for the Centre for Labour and
Social Studies, but its name is mis-
leading in that Shaheen seemed more
concerned about transgender rights
and other identitarian causes than
she did about the plight of Labour’s
traditional supporters. To my ears, she
sounded like a subscriber to the new
woke version of Marxism in which
the bourgeoisie has been replaced by
straight white males and the proletar-
iat with women and minorities.
Since this inevitably involves
attacking ‘white privilege’ and ‘the
patriarchy’, it’s a political narrative that
seems unlikely to win back estranged
working-class voters. On the contrary,
Shaheen’s solution to our broken sys-
tem seemed to be more meritocracy,
urging members of the male, pale
and stale establishment to make way
for people like her. To underline the
point, she is Labour’s prospective
parliamentary candidate in Ching-
ford and Wood Green, Iain Duncan
Smith’s constituency.
At the end of The Rise of the
Meritocracy, the disenfranchised
masses rise up and overthrow their
new masters in 2033. That means we
have 15 years to fix things, assuming
my father’s prophesy is accurate. Call
me a cynic, but I don’t think a Corbyn
victory would help.No sacred cows
I like the idea of meritocracy as
much as my father hated it
Toby Young
MICHAEL HEATH
I believe, with
Kant, that out
of the crooked
timbre of
humanity no
straight thing
was ever made