I recently read a newsletter for a national organization, in which one leader wrote, “Regardless of your political views, you cannot deny that the USA is currently undergoing a revolution in trying to eliminate entitlement.” This was meant to be an apolitical statement, as the organization prides itself on being apolitical. Right or wrong, this implies it’s not up for debate, or that the writer — like so many Americans on so many topics these days — is unaware of a completely different interpretation of the facts. Well, there is. Such an assertion is shocking or even offensive to half the country. In fact, some of us would say that the current administration’s rhetoric is doublespeak for the total elimination of anything that attempts to create a fair application of merit. But instead of agreeing to disagree since some on either side cannot fathom the other side’s point of view, let’s take this as a perfect opportunity to look more closely.
First, some context. The article was about not electing leaders (within the organization) based on “entitlement” such as putting in their time, or arranging appointments in a quid pro quo fashion between leaders. Good advice. But somehow this was equated with “Political Correctness”, which in this context I surmise means being quiet to not seem impolite or contentious — harmony and civility also being hallmarks of the institution in question. I suspect that in most organizations, many would rather not vote against or exclude someone from an appointment if it might look like some sort of prejudice or be uncharitable to someone who may be unprivileged in some way. It could be the sweet old man in dotage who we want to honor somehow, or someone’s son who can’t do the job but everyone loves. The problem, rightfully pointed out, was that not having the best people for a position can be a missed opportunity and even troublesome or disastrous.
Most of my readers know that I abhor Political Correctness, but not for the same reason. I don’t like it because it can be arbitrary, more about feelings than reasons. It’s about what is seen subjectively as acceptable, like the current fashion in virtue signaling if you like that term. The problem is that there are things objectively NOT acceptable, and prejudices of all kinds can be dismissed as being “politically incorrect” — which they may be — but are still wrong to say even if there was no such thing as PC. The problem is we have been made to feel like not speaking our mind — even when we most certainly shouldn’t — is an affront to our free speech. Does it stifle open and honest discourse? It can, when taken too far. Everyday people sometimes feel it. Full-on bigots feel it all the time and are tired of being shamed because it calls attention to what they really believe and what they really feel, maybe not even consciously knowing the implications.
But back to merit. What we are seeing right now is a rehashing of the issue of Affirmative Action. Well, the issues run much deeper, but let’s keep this simple. The premise is that marginalized groups are underrepresented and not being given equal opportunities, EVEN WITH EQUAL QUALIFICATIONS. The criticism is that less qualified people are being given preference over more qualified ones based on race. The idea of extra points on civil service tests or college admission forms comes to mind. I myself once thought that was the norm in how it worked, and figured we should instead focus on better (or at least equal) opportunities in education and training for such people to be more qualified. What I found in researching and writing “Some White Guy’s Book” back in 2020 was that not only is the playing field not even to MAKE marginalized groups equally qualified, but that equal qualifications MEANT NOTHING when someone is marginalized. By statistical example, a Black male (specifically African-American) without a criminal record has an equal change of employment as a White male WITH a criminal record. And marginalized groups, particularly women, are vastly underrepresented in corporate leadership, regardless of sector.
But the very existence of policies that try to fix this have a problem. No matter how few such people are in positions of prestige or expertise, we end up statements like Tucker Carlson, who said “If I have a black female surgeon my first assumption will be this person had to meet lower standards because the school or the certifying board”. EVERY woman, EVERY Person of Color is open to be suspect. Affirmative Action, now under the label “DEI” (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) has even been called “reverse-discrimination”. And then we have darker undertones of resentment directed the most at African-Americans, just as with those who receive social services, being unaware that in both cases White women are the primary beneficiaries. Inwardly, this seems to be about social prejudices, not fairness, and addressing or even admitting them feels like an accusation to us White people. This backlash is what we are seeing right now in the halls of power.
The truth about how it really works should have come out after a plane crash in January, where the President, for no logical reason at all, used it as a platform for attacking DEI. His Press Secretary, to double down on what should never have been said, blatantly misled the public about the qualifications of Air Traffic Controllers and pilots (who don’t even work for the FAA). Does the FAA take steps to include or not disqualify people with physical and psychological challenges? Like nearly all agencies (up until now) and many corporations, the answer is yes. They are found useful jobs according to what they can do, or are accommodated to so as well as anyone else. One must consider that this is what ADA standards are for. A blind person won’t read a radar screen or control the throttle of a jet, but with proper equipment can manage records or answer the phones. But pilots and Air Traffic Controllers must all meet very high minimum requirements. It all became another non-problem to push a questionable solution.
So where is the meritocracy? Mountains of evidence, historically and at present, show a consistent, measurable disparity in everything from policing and housing to hiring to medical care. DEI, even if it allegedly goes too far in this or that case, is clearly intended to address this. But labeling it “radical leftist”, “woke”, and even racist, is the rhetoric defending sweeping changes in policies and appointments. So many people (almost exclusively White men) with little or no experience are being given posts across administrative agencies and the military, replacing people with far more experience. These otherwise non-partisan positions, often held across multiple administrations regardless of party control, are now party-loyalty-based.
Sure, there has always been nepotism — look at the record number of family appointments in the first Trump administration, for example — but never before have so many BILLIONAIRES (13) been given cabinet posts. Appointing your own people is fine, but never has there been such a large general conflict of interest. Might those with the most money really be the most competent? That argument is being made, and if we lived in a just meritocracy, we might even assume so. But this ignores that wealth has much more to do with generational access to capital than the almost-exclusively-fiction rags to riches circumstances. Being good at playing the game while starting our farther ahead than most people to begin with is hardly a qualification for leadership of society itself. This is just the usual workings of oligarchy not even hiding itself any more.
The masses idolize the rich and powerful, no matter how they got there. But what’s far worse is that we denigrate and despise those who are NOT successful, regardless of their LACK of opportunity. At heart, we want the rich to be richer, the powerful to win, and those lesser than ourselves vanquished or at least kept in their place. It deeply offends us that they might be rewarded just for being oppressed (or perceived to be so), especially at the expense of our tax dollars or higher place in the pecking order. Any time this happens, each person’s level of privilege or supremacy are challenged, and we feel that, even if we have been lied to about what such words actually mean.
So are my thoughts here too radical or extreme? Does this sound like I am making this out to be White Supremacy? Darren Beattie, appointed by President Trump to run public diplomacy at State Department, recently wrote, “Competent white men must be in charge if you want things to work”. Isn’t this the conclusion we must all reach if we believe that meritocracy is real and just when there is little diversity or inclusion? This attitude seems to be the operating manual for the current administration’s agenda. They are trying to declare anything that can be shoved under the DEI label illegal discrimination, in the public sector and even in the private sector, though Constitutional challenges will fill court docket soon enough. Executive order after order, the White House is pushing back the clock all the way back to Jim Crow in too many ways to mention here.
Pete Hegseth and others have associations with White Supremacists (although denying they themselves are). The honoring of War heroes and veterans, from Tuskegee Airmen and 442nd Regimental Combat Team to other Navajo Code Talkers and other women and People of Color, is being scrubbed from websites, training textbooks, and displays of honor. (Some have been put back after public outcry.) It is as if these people were only awarded their honors because “woke” people demanded they be remembered when they were not given their due. Or are we to believe they wouldn’t have deserved it by their own actions alone?
The war on DEI is part of a much larger issue. It has little to do with what is really going on, and certainly nothing to do with merit. The “new meritocracy” is really just the old playbook being brought back. It’s a wildfire of undoing and erasing anything and everything that admits, addresses, or honors overcoming real challenges of sex or race. To even speak of it in school is becoming one more “thoughtcrime” by the current regime (see multiple Executive Orders from Trump’s first 40 days to see what I mean). So America is going from one extreme to the other. We went from not being able to openly make statements that might be racist or sexist to criminalizing the very IDEA our society is unjust. In Orwell-speak, The Party is rewriting history in real time now, in the Ministry of Truth Social. And “meritocracy” has become the new buzzword to enforce selective justice.
Where is the merit in that?