Feeds: 
symbol identifies content for paid subscribers only.
Jenna Bush Hager And The "Meritocracy."
I have a lot of friends who spent a great deal of money, and went into a lot of debt, to learn how to be professional broadcast journalists. They are now struggling to find work in a profession that is -- to put it bluntly -- contracting. So when I first heard that Jenna Bush Hager, the former president's daughter, was getting a job with The Today Show, I wondered what her qualifications were.
Hager, a 27-year-old teacher in Baltimore, said she has always wanted to be a teacher and a writer, and has already authored two books. But she was intrigued by the idea of getting into television when Bell contacted her.
Oh. She "always wanted to be a teacher," and was "intrigued" by television, so I guess that qualifies her to be an education reporter over all those journalists with actual experience and education who are struggling to find jobs.
As Glenn Greenwald writes, there's unlikely to be any outrage on the right over Hager getting a job she's manifestly unqualified for simply because she's the former president's daughter, despite right-wing affectations toward "meritocracy." There's something revealing here about the right's attitude toward those who succeed despite not being privileged -- the only way they can make sense of someone like Sonia Sotomayor rising to excellence from modest beginnings is through "preferential treatment," because what does it say about their own privilege, intelligence, or ability if that's not the case?
Last week, Greg Mankiw wrote a post casually asserting that people with "good genes" make lots of money and pass their intelligence off to their kids who then get high SAT scores. John Sides and Brad DeLong demolished Mankiw's argument, but I think Mankiw's assumption is informative here: The right doesn't mind privilege being retained, by whatever means, within those groups that already have it, because it proves their theories about meritocracy. But when someone like Sonia Sotomayor goes from the South Bronx to Princeton valedictorian to the Supreme Court, it forces the question of how much people of privilege depend on their circumstances -- their financial and social advantages -- to succeed rather than their ability or intelligence. That's uncomfortable for some people to think about, and it's part of why Sonia Sotomayor provokes outrage over "merit," while glaring examples of preferential treatment for the privileged do not.
-- A. Serwer
COMMENTS (10)
And one supposes that the Kennedys got to their positions of power through merit and hard work.
C'mon. Privilege is rife on both sides.
Posted by: Steve | August 31, 2009 12:01 PM
I don't think Serwer is asserting that nepotism is only practiced on the right. He certainly didn't say that here; I'd go so far as to say it's a pretty basic human failing rather than a leff/right issue. What he is saying is that it's invariably those on the right who are making these post-facto attempts to justify it (à la Mankiw).
Posted by: James | August 31, 2009 12:45 PM
In fairly typical wingnut fashion, Steve sees this discussion only as an occasion to score points against liberals rather than as offering an insight into the way that social class privilege is maintained in this society. Good job.
Posted by: Lee Gibson | August 31, 2009 1:50 PM
I believe Margaret Truman served as co-anchor on Today back in the 1950s. I know she did so on a similar radio show.
Posted by: Henderstock | August 31, 2009 1:53 PM
Who cares what Margaret Truman did, besudes write bad mysteries. We've gone through about 4 decades of rightwing talking points about merit. Morover, Jenna had a daddy who was the complete "legacy" and still a complete idiot despite education at fine institutions. Hopefully, she'll take on the question of "teen drinking" and the full ludicrousness of this will be evident.
Posted by: Rich | August 31, 2009 2:40 PM
The network was also simply thinking of the fame factor. I.E. More people will tune in to see the cute little Bush daughter read the phonebook than will watch a random, intelligent anchor on PBS.
Posted by: DJ | August 31, 2009 6:41 PM
@a lot above: Oh, so "The Kennedy's, Axlerods, Bidens, etc are all ok because Democrats already know the elites are unfair!" Seems like a silly attempt at reason...
I can't speak for big-'R' Republicans, but as a conservative we've always believed in supply & demand. The Bush daughter has something that is in short supply and that is in high demand: ratings pull. That gives her qualifications to be on a TV show once a month in my book.
"If Ms. Hager had been hired to perform neurosurgery, this hand-wringing about "meritocracy" might have some force. But doing a once-a-month feature on a soft-news TV show? Good Lord, get a grip!" -- http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2009/08/024409.php
Posted by: Scott | September 1, 2009 12:52 AM
A little unfair in the sense that too much is being read into this. Jenn Bush Hager: pretty, famous father, young= viewer appeal. It's a business decision for the Today Show, don't kid yourself that she was hired to do Pulitzer worthy work for a serious news outlet...
Posted by: v | September 1, 2009 4:02 PM
i think it's obvious that nepotism survives through businesses interested in profits, but that doesn't justify us letting them off the hook for it. when we become complacent with the idea of fairly well-respected national institutions sacrificing quality and a sort of unspoken but touted honor and respect of the citizen/viewer, then we lose a bit of our own humanity, and end up speaking out in support of corporate interests ($$$).
Posted by: lauren | September 9, 2009 7:53 AM
It's a business decision for the Today Show, don't kid yourself that she was hired to do Pulitzer worthy work for a serious news outlet...
Posted by: seamless steel pipe | November 18, 2009 12:46 AM