Thread by @HeerJeet

1. Counter-point: the "elite overproduction" framework is a blaming the victim narrative that obfuscates the larger context of declining social mobility, failure of circulation of elites, rise of the Failsons & failed attempt to diversify historically exclusionary institutions.

https://twitter.com/mattyglesias/status/1364943822405459973

2. To my mind, the best conservative apologia for our shitty society has always been the idea of "a circulation of elites" developed by Vilfredo Pareto & expanded on by James Burnham: "sure, we're not a real democracy but talented outsiders & opposition factions can rise"

3. I'd say from late 18th century till about end of Golden Age of capitalism in early 1970s, the "circulation of elites" held true in Anglo-American society, with successful (although always bumpy) absorption of new money, educated professionals, and eventually white ethnics.

4. The circulation of elites has broken down in the last 50 years in a host of ways: declining social mobility, rising life expectancy among rich whites (creating a gerontocracy), institutional sclerosis, rising dynasties (the Bushes, the Trumps, etc).

5. A lot of elite institutions that owe their status to being exclusionary (Ivy League, national media) have faced political pressure to diversify but that cuts against their historical formation as gate-keepers & reality of declining opportunities in many fields.

6. I think its fair to say, as Matt does here, that "overproduction of elites" is flipside to structural stuff I talk about. But polemically "overproduction" frame is too often used to justify "these are just over-educated whiners" rhetoric.

https://twitter.com/mattyglesias/status/1364962524794339335