It’s difficult to determine if this is parody or serious analysis by Brooks. In any event, the effete New York Times snob pens an utterly pointless article devoted to the topic of elitism. Why, he laments, have meritocratic elites not fulfilled their promise? This, apparently, is an important question and worthy of much analysis and self-evaluation. Brooks takes issue with fellow elitist buffoon, Christopher Hayes of MSNBC, who believes elitists inevitably become corrupt as they seek to preserve their status by any means necessary (yes, this is the same Christopher Hayes who felt uncomfortable calling military personnel who’ve made the ultimate sacrifice “heroes”):

Christopher Hayes of MSNBC and The Nation believes that the problem is inherent in the nature of meritocracies. In his book, “Twilight of the Elites,” he argues that meritocratic elites may rise on the basis of grades, effort and merit, but, to preserve their status, they become corrupt. They create wildly unequal societies, and then they rig things so that few can climb the ladders behind them. Meritocracy leads to oligarchy.

Heady stuff, I know, but Brooks isn’t buying it.  Brooks believes the problem is not elites or elitism in general, but rather can be traced to the fact that, as he puts it, ”our elites stink”.  The reason our elites “stink”? Take it away, David Brooks:

The corruption that has now crept into the world of finance and the other professions is not endemic to meritocracy but to the specific culture of our meritocracy. The problem is that today’s meritocratic elites cannot admit to themselves that they are elites.

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. This is the same guy who regularly dismisses Governor Palin and the entire Tea Party movement as a bunch of anti-education hayseeds. Not because it’s true, but because Governor Palin had the temerity to note the obvious: That Brooks’ beloved elites are the very people who’ve driven the nation to the brink of bankruptcy, an unpardonable sin in the eyes of our impeccably educated betters. It was also Brooks, you’ll recall, who, amazingly, was able to determine in 2005 that Obama would ”be a very good president” on the basis of his fluency with Burkean philosophy and perfectly creased pant leg. And now he’s suggesting that the problem with our nation’s elites is that they can’t admit they’re elites.  Does the New York Times really pay this guy to write this mindless crap? Apparently so.