A kakistocracy? An epistocracy?

New Yorker writer (and CNN contributor) Ryan Lizza began the last paragraph of his takedown of Donald Trump with this impressive admission: “Seven days may not be enough time to fully assess any new leader.”

We can excuse Lizza for splitting an infinitive, but it’s hard not to laugh at his ludicrous “to fully assess.” Seven days? How about a little humility: 70 percent assess? How about a little accuracy: far too early to tell?

Lizza went on to offer his judgment that the Trump administration is already showing itself to be a “kakistocracy. The American Heritage Dictionary defines it as a ‘government by the least qualified or most unprincipled citizens.’ Webster’s is simpler: ‘government by the worst people.’”

Learn the word that many disappointed by last week’s election really want us to live under: an “epistocracy,” defined as “rule of the knowers.”

Kakistocracy: a big word you may hear often. Maybe it will end up being true, and in four years we can have a “full assessment.” In the meantime, learn the word that many disappointed by last week’s election really want us to live under: an “epistocracy,” defined as “rule of the knowers.”

Georgetown University professor Jason Brennan’s new book, Against Democracy (Princeton University Press), says all adults should not have a right to vote, and suggests epistocracy as a replacement for democracy. Under an epistocratic system, those with university degrees, or those who could pass a test of political knowledge (probably designed by those with university degrees), would vote. Others, serfs of a new order, would be expected to nod and smile.

It just so happens that democracy sank the Democratic presidential candidate and epistocracy would have elected her.