> And yet it’s not obvious that we have produced either a better leadership class or a healthier relationship between our society and its elites

Part of the problem is as follows and I see it so often in politics.

We have an excellent technocratic leadership class.

But being a technocratic leader does not make you a great leader of people, and frankly -- given the way many technocratic fields in the humanities are taught -- getting too deep in them makes you actively unappealing to people.

The article derides the various social clubs at Harvard, Princeton, Yale, etc as 'non-academic', but nothing is further from the truth. Humans have an innate draw to beauty, and one thing that is beautiful to basically everyone is a rich culture with traditions, institutions, and members [1]. One way to signal that is by learning the social niceties inside and out. This is no less academic since it doesn't come from a book.

The 'grinds', as the article says, didn't get that, and they were shunned not because they focused on books, but because they were unable to have a more expansive view of academics.

It is shocking to me when I see pundits today seemingly confused why the masses find appeal in particular candidates despite the pundits being able to list ten technical reasons why he should be disqualified. They don't understand how people perceive things, and it's so painful to watch.

I feel as someone who occupies a sort of 'third space' here [2], I am really truly able to see both viewpoints. But it's so difficult to explain to a technocrat the full range of human emotion, and it sometimes appears as if they've been handicapped in their ability to feel it.

As an example (and I would recommend Camille Paglia's works), it's fascinating to me how, despite our ever growing technical ability to produce great film, the actual emotional content of the film is ever worse. We have the most scantily clad females of all time but the fully clothed actors and actresses of the past were actually more sexually enticing. We've lost the sense of awe that CS Lewis talks about in the Abolition of Man. We have the greatest visual effects, but the emotional content of the film is so thin that you just don't feel anything.

Where these feelings do exist, it's in independent (read: not produced by the Ivy type) films and media, which is why 'alternate' media has suddenly become so popular.

I'll also just leave that Donald Trump has an innate understanding of people. People are shocked that he's able to get so many seemingly random, seemingly opposed people behind him. They classify it as a trick. But it's not. People vote and support who they like, not who has the best technocratic solutions. That is neither good nor bad. It just is. It's a tale as old as time, and would be apparent if you studied the actual humanities.

Just so no one thinks I think Trump is some singular. Barack Obama is also one of these figures. And even Joe Biden is to some extent [3]

I can write a dissertation on this topic.

[1] It doesn't matter the culture. All traditional cultures are enthralling

[2] I was raised in the 'normal' way, but ended up at a second-tier 'elite' school, and then -- adopting some of the stuff I learned -- moved into strategy consulting at one of the Big 3 where I learned even more about this type. I eventually moved back into tech (and do feel my career is better for having been through these experiences).

[3] Completely off-topic, but I also think that if you go to spaces inhabited by the technocrats, you'll notice that 'detachment' philosophies like Stoicism and Buddhism are very popular, whereas the masses go for attachment. It's not a surprise to me that the Kennedy family, being Catholic, the exact opposite of Buddhism in that sense, was always seen as particularly charismatic and alluring amongst political dynasties