Simply defined, meritocracy is an economic and political system where people achieve their position based upon merit. Merit is ascertained by a record of formal credentials and/or past performance which demonstrates such traits as intelligence, work ethic, ambition, creativity, vision, and accomplishment are demonstrated. It is a system that elevates achievement independent of race, gender, sexual orientation, and religion.
Equal outcome does not strengthen the weak, it weakens the strong.
The twentieth century was characterized by a slow but inexorable process of establishing merit as the key factor in status and social mobility, energized in particular by a powerful postwar civil rights revolution. One can credit meritocracy with being behind America’s economic and innovative preeminence in the world.
Having established equality under the law, America has continued to make progress toward creating equal opportunity for all, though the goal is illusive and likely never fully achievable even if laudable.
Remember, equal opportunity does not create equal outcomes or equal results, nor should we seek those things. Karl Marx advocated for a Socialist Utopia where everyone was of equal stature, position, and where everyone received roughly equal compensation. Marx is long dead and his Socialist Utopias have only ever had the worst kinds of inequality and have always given way to dictatorship and oppression wherever it has been tried.
It is easy to see why. People have different capabilities and some achieve excellence in various life pursuits while others do not. It is impossible to make everyone excellent at every endeavor. So to make everyone “equal,” the most talented people would have to be prevented from achieving excellence. This would require a powerful and tyrannical government imposing its will on a population. Venezuela is the latest glaring example of this system.
However, never in our history has meritocracy been more threatened than in the upcoming election. The issue has once again come to the forefront in the person of VP Harris who has gone on record saying that equal opportunity and equality under the law is not enough, and the government’s goal should be equal outcomes (i.e. “equity”).
On her Twitter/X feed, Harris provides narration for a short cartoon in which she explains that she is for “equity,” not “equality.” “Equitable treatment,” Harris intones, “means that we all end up at the same place.”
Elsewhere she has told audiences that “if the goal is truly about equality, then it has to be about a goal of saying everybody should end up in the same place.”
Since we just watched the Olympics let me use that as a metaphor for Harris’ position.
In the hundred meter sprint the runners all begin at the same starting line. However, they don’t cross the finish line at the same time, as the medal goes to the runner based on merit. It is impossible for the government to cause the slower runner to speed up so equality of outcome would require the faster runner to slow down.
And on it goes. Equality of outcome would require the smarter student to learn less, the corporate CEO to work at menial labor in his warehouse, the NFL quarterback work as a water boy. Just look around your own life and see how equality of outcome would change your world.
Eliminate meritocracy and you will never see another Apple or Microsoft or Space X. Give everyone an A in school and no one will study. At the end of a golf tournament divide the purse equally among all the players and watch the quality of play diminish.
Give every actor an Academy Award and every football team a Lombardi Trophy? I could fill pages with examples of legislating equal outcome diminishing quality and achievement but I’m sure you’ve gotten the point.
Equal outcome does not strengthen the weak, it weakens the strong. Since the 2020 “racial reckoning,” the corporate world has realized that hiring and promotion based on anything other than merit is a loser and many corps appear to be abandoning DEI in droves.
I am not going to go on about Harris’ far left history or write about her cosponsoring legislation with Bernie Sanders to create single-payer government run healthcare, her support of defunding the police, her raising money for George Floyd rioters, her abysmal record on the southern border, or her providing free legal services, healthcare, cell phones, etc. to illegal immigrants.
Some readers may agree with these positions and I don’t want to distract attention from the single most pressing problem with a Kamala Harris presidency.
Hopefully, we can all agree that the consequences of government intervention to assure equal outcomes and the elimination of meritocracy is political, cultural, and economic suicide.
READ MORE from George Liebmann:
Trump Can Win: 2024 Isn’t 2020
READ MORE: