A new study suggests elites do have a disproportionate impact on society. In a recent study published in Nature Humanities & Social Sciences Communications, a sample of over 26,000 Americans who came from 30 different groups of influential people, ranging from four-star admirals and generals, presidents and vice presidents, Pulitzer Prize-winners, billion-dollar startup company founders, National Academy of Sciences members and Harvard faculty were examined. Across the same set of 34 elite schools, researchers found that, “overall, 54.2% of these individuals had attended one of these schools, and this ranged from 11.2% to 25.9% for the generals, admirals and House members and up to 78.9% to 80.9% for the Forbes most powerful men, Harvard faculty and members of the American Philosophical Society. Overall, 36.3% attended one of the Ivy League schools and 16% attended Harvard.”32
The findings go to representation. Again, researcher found:
These data indicate that the percentages of individuals in each of the groups of American leaders and influencers are quite high relative to population base rates. For example, with 54% of the 26,198 individuals in our sample having attended one of the ‘Elite’ 34 schools and the base rate at about 1.9%, this suggests a factor of overrepresentation of roughly 28 times base rate expectations (calculated as 54/1.9). Across all groups, roughly 36% attended an Ivy League school, suggesting a factor of overrepresentation of roughly 60 times (36/0.6). Across all groups, roughly 16% attended Harvard University, suggesting a factor of overrepresentation of roughly 80 times (16/0.2). This overrepresentation factor is 75 times even when Harvard faculty members are omitted (15/0.2).33
It is a similar argument to that made by the Michael Sandel, a liberal professor of political philosophy at Harvard, in his book, The Tyranny of Merit: What’s Become of the Common Good. In that book, Sandel argued “the technocratic approach to governance treated many public questions as matters of technical expertise beyond the reach of ordinary citizens. This narrowed the scope of democratic argument, hollowed out the terms of the public discourse, and produced a growing sense of disempowerment.”34 And disempowerment means resentment, if not anger, because parents no longer believe their children have an equal shot at potential success.
In other words, Sandel points out that “the rhetoric of rising tides rings hollow” because those Americans “born to poor parents tend to stay poor as adults.” Consider, for example, “of those born in the bottom fifth of the income scale, only about one in twenty will make it to the top fifth, most will not even rise to the middle class.” This means, “it is easier to rise from poverty in Canada or Germany, Denmark and the other European countries than it is in the United States.”35
It is this recognition, and the anger which accompanies it, that Trump initially tapped into to push his populist agenda and win the presidency. And could it not be the reason why Trump picked so many so-called “disrupters,” people who have no expertise in the fields over which they would administer, for key positions in his administration: Pete Hegseth as Secretary of Defense, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. as Secretary of Health and Human Services, Tulsi Gabbard as Director of National Intelligence, Kash Patel as Director of the FBI, Kristi Noem as Secretary of Homeland Security, or even Elon Musk or Vivek Ramaswamy. Not one of these individuals is qualified to run such large and sophisticated agencies and departments. Thus, we come to the real reason for their appointment: each has been selected not just because they supported Trump and his agenda wholeheartedly, but because their inexperience plays into anti-intellectualism and the loathing of expertise.
It also ignores constitutional frameworks designed to protect the country. It plays into the dismantling of agencies and departments which were built specifically to secure safe and healthy environments for citizens. And sadly,
47