Clout and the King's Horseman

David Brooks...now in gist form.

Once upon a time in 1957 things were pretty sweet and "groupy" even though creative people felt stifled and discrimination was kinda bad.

Then some stuff happened.  Some 1960s stuff. 

Now things are great for people with "fast flexible and diverse networks" who can use that "social capital to create their own worlds".

On the other hand, things really suck for people who don't have access to those "fast flexible and diverse networks", especially poor people who don't have all of that social capital to draw on.

Somebody should really do something about that.

The End

Congratulations; you have now consumed the entire gist of Mr. Brooks' 02/21/12 column

No surprise that Mr. Brooks conspicuously omits from his 800-word contribution to the English language any mention of the fact that it was the triumph of the pillars of the Right -- radically anti-government Conservatism and Capitalism -- which caused most of ruin which he now bemoans, but there is nothing new here.  Nothing that Richard Sennett wasn't reporting on long ago (via my post on the World Economic Forum ["Privilege has its Memberships"] here is what sociologist Richard Sennett had this to say about how the New Ruling Class views us little, shire-folk:)

The dizzy life of Davos man 

Yet I had an epiphany of sorts in Davos, listening to the rulers of the flexible realm. "We" is also a dangerous pronoun to them. They dwell comfortably in entrepreneurial disorder, but fear organised confrontation. They of course fear the resurgence of unions, but become acutely and personally uncomfortable, fidgeting or breaking eye contact or retreating into taking notes, if forced to discuss the people who, in their jargon, are "left behind." They know that the great majority of those who toil in the flexible regime are left behind, and of course they regret it. But the flexibility they celebrate does not give, it cannot give, any guidance for the conduct of an ordinary life. The new masters have rejected careers in the old English sense of the word, as pathways along which people can travel; durable and sustained paths of action are foreign territories.

or that Adam Curtis wasn't building documentaries around

 

 a decade ago.

Of course, in Chicago we have a less delicate word for a system which guarantees the success of the few through fast flexible and diverse networks and unlimited "social capital".

We call it "Clout".



"Clout" in Chicagospeak means influence, pull, insiderhood.  It mean when the rain falls you do not get wet.  When mud splashes, it does not get on you.  It means the answer to the question "Who's your clout?" defines where you stand in the power structure.

The world of "Clout" exists in a completely different and non-intersecting orbit with both the idea of a social safety net -- that society should be sufficiently ordered so as to protect the those without access to vast reserves of "social capital" from the brutal whims of entrepreneurial disorder -- and the idea of merit and ability.  Not that there aren't meritorious and able people in the Clout Universe --  the lords and ladies of clout have need of an artisan class of talented individuals and are willing to reward that talent.  Nor that socially minded insiders don't take on good causes on behalf of the less fortunate.  No, the real test for whether or not you are within clout's event horizon --

"In layman's terms [event horizon] is defined as "the point of no return" i.e. the point at which the gravitational pull becomes so great as to make escape impossible."

 --  the moment when clout reveals itself most nakedly -- is what happens when the chips are down.  When there is not enough to go around and the lords and ladies of clout actually have to decide who gets in the lifeboat and who does not.

That is the moment when it becomes painfully clear whether or not the exertions of every other force in the professional world pale in comparison with the power of clout. 

Of course, when the power of clout quietly asserts itself behind the opaque walls of government and business its effects can only be inferentially quantified: like figuring out the size and orbit of hypothetical planets in distant solar systems by the effects of those planets on their suns. 

But in other occupations where the work product is very public and therefor very measurable, the perturbations caused by clout bright and clear.  

Especially in a profession where so many competent, capable professionals are being kicked to the curb while the fortunes of a few blithering idiots with an assload of "social capital" keep inexplicably rising.

Say, for example, in the 

area

of

political

"journalism".

.

In other words:

1. There is a Club.
2. You are not in it.