Meritocracy Opponents Can't Stop Accidentally Arguing in Favor of Meritocracy
Meritocracy Opponents Can't Stop Accidentally Arguing in Favor of Meritocracy
Their argument would be bad if anyone could tell what it is
Meritocracy is a simple concept: It’s the idea that people should acquire a role based on their ability to perform that role. This stands in contrast with concepts like aristocracy (acquiring a role based on social status), racial hierarchy (acquiring a role based on race), or George Santosocracy (acquiring a role because you lied your balls off and nobody checked any of it). The rise of meritocracy represents a major step forward for humanity: For most of human history, people got bossed around by some inbred noble because that noble’s ancestor won the Battle of Pig Shit Castle 300 years ago. Giving jobs to less-inbred and less-incompetent people has increased fairness and had major societal benefits.
Most Americans broadly accept the concept of meritocracy (there’s polling on this). Sure, we’d all prefer a system that advantages us, specifically, and disadvantages everyone else — I’d certainly opt for a Maurertocracy if that was on the table. But since that’s not going to happen, most people accept meritocracy as the best available option. Which is probably why opponents of meritocracy dissemble about their opposition and frequently make arguments that, when analyzed, actually argue for the concept.
A great example of this type of confused, dishonest argument could be found on last week’s Chris Wallace Show. Unfortunately, I can’t embed the video because of a format-based pissing match between Twitter and Substack, but you can watch the clip here. I’ll transcribe the important parts, and you can click the link if you really enjoy watching people talk over each other and can’t wait for tonight’s Republican debate.