Traditionally promotions to leadership positions could only be selected from a small pool of men: wealthy, with good pedigree and with some kind of connections to the current top leader(s). Any top leadership positions had to be filled with people from this small pool: the aristocracy. They could be incompetent or corrupt, but that was usually not that important, as long as they had the right parents and kissed the right ass(es), they were the right person for the job.
Meritocracy is when people are selected for promotions based on something other than social standing or wealth. Merit for the job can be: getting a top score on an anonymous uniform exam, having a good track record in similar roles, having a solid plan to solve the problem at hand, … Any positive qualification that is not based on social standing or wealth. And all candidates for the job have to be weighted based on the same qualifiers.
As I understand it, the usa federal administration used to have a meritocratic system until right under the top departemental positions, who were politically appointed (appointed based on loyalty, not merit). But while those top positions were political appointees, they were usually selected from the top meritorious people, so those people were usually qualified for the job.
Trump has politized the promotions much deeper into the administrations, basically doing away with meritocracy and replacing it with a system based on personal loyalty and a willingness to break laws when asked to.
Trump and his administration might say that his appointments are based on merit, but that’s just Trump speaking, his words have no meaning.
It’s when you replace an Army four star general with a major from the national guard.
The reason they keep saying the word merit is to convince their base they have any. Many of them do not. No offense to any retired majors out there, but do any of you think you are more qualified than a 4 star general to fill the position of Secretary of Defense?
Well I would ask what they’ve done in addition to being a Major. Just in case it’s something that qualifies them to run an organization with over a million people and a budget that’s nearly a trillion dollars. You know like being a news reporter for a biased organization. (Ugh)
A way to justify letting an aristocracy form while calling it something else.
“Merit” it a vague and nebulous term, so you can set the rubric however you want to justify the merit of any mouth breather with their head so far up their own ass they can see their own tonsils.
What even is a Meritocracy
Traditionally promotions to leadership positions could only be selected from a small pool of men: wealthy, with good pedigree and with some kind of connections to the current top leader(s). Any top leadership positions had to be filled with people from this small pool: the aristocracy. They could be incompetent or corrupt, but that was usually not that important, as long as they had the right parents and kissed the right ass(es), they were the right person for the job.
Meritocracy is when people are selected for promotions based on something other than social standing or wealth. Merit for the job can be: getting a top score on an anonymous uniform exam, having a good track record in similar roles, having a solid plan to solve the problem at hand, … Any positive qualification that is not based on social standing or wealth. And all candidates for the job have to be weighted based on the same qualifiers.
As I understand it, the usa federal administration used to have a meritocratic system until right under the top departemental positions, who were politically appointed (appointed based on loyalty, not merit). But while those top positions were political appointees, they were usually selected from the top meritorious people, so those people were usually qualified for the job.
Trump has politized the promotions much deeper into the administrations, basically doing away with meritocracy and replacing it with a system based on personal loyalty and a willingness to break laws when asked to.
Trump and his administration might say that his appointments are based on merit, but that’s just Trump speaking, his words have no meaning.
It’s when you replace an Army four star general with a major from the national guard.
The reason they keep saying the word merit is to convince their base they have any. Many of them do not. No offense to any retired majors out there, but do any of you think you are more qualified than a 4 star general to fill the position of Secretary of Defense?
Well I would ask what they’ve done in addition to being a Major. Just in case it’s something that qualifies them to run an organization with over a million people and a budget that’s nearly a trillion dollars. You know like being a news reporter for a biased organization. (Ugh)
A way to justify letting an aristocracy form while calling it something else.
“Merit” it a vague and nebulous term, so you can set the rubric however you want to justify the merit of any mouth breather with their head so far up their own ass they can see their own tonsils.