> The whole point of the constitution is for people to be able to do that. Trump moreso than any recent President got on stage with the people who was going to help run the country if you voted for him. That’s the constitutional design! That’s democracy!
No one has argued differently. My argument stemmed only from your, to me previously unfamiliar, definition of merit.
> But if voters have lost faith in Harvard Medical School, then education is actually contrary to “merit.”
> In this context, RFK is the most qualified HHS Secretary in recent history
I take this to mean we agree that the current cabinet is the polar opposite of the previously historically stable definition of meritorious, but are wholly merited appointments under your clarified definition.
Though to be nit-picky, RFK Jr would not be the most qualified HHS Secretary in recent history, but rather ranked based on either voting results or approval rating as merit is then simply a function of the elected representative appointing them.
What distinction would you make between the terms democracy and meritocracy? Are they functionally the same under your definition of merit?
> My argument stemmed only from your, to me previously unfamiliar, definition of merit...
> What distinction would you make between the terms democracy and meritocracy? Are they functionally the same under your definition of merit?
I don't think I'm using "merit" in an unusual way. I think you'd agree that the specific criteria that constitutes "merit" depends on the nature of the job. You use different criteria for NFL players versus college professors.
I think the problem is that we're talking about political appointees, which because of the nature of democracy are very different from other kinds of jobs. In the political context, "merit" is a meta concept that depends on what the voters prioritize. In some contexts, voters want a traditionally credentialed person. This is true even in the Trump administration: Scott Bessent is a Yale graduate hedge fund manager. But in other areas, Trump voters have grown to distrust the institutions, like the medical establishment and the intelligence services, and "merit" in that context means someone that will upend those agencies.
Actually answering the question you quoted would inform whether or not you're using "merit" in an unusual way. How does "meritocracy" exist as a term when "democracy" already encapsulates the political representation of merit you describe?
No one has argued differently. My argument stemmed only from your, to me previously unfamiliar, definition of merit.
> But if voters have lost faith in Harvard Medical School, then education is actually contrary to “merit.”
> In this context, RFK is the most qualified HHS Secretary in recent history
I take this to mean we agree that the current cabinet is the polar opposite of the previously historically stable definition of meritorious, but are wholly merited appointments under your clarified definition.
Though to be nit-picky, RFK Jr would not be the most qualified HHS Secretary in recent history, but rather ranked based on either voting results or approval rating as merit is then simply a function of the elected representative appointing them.
What distinction would you make between the terms democracy and meritocracy? Are they functionally the same under your definition of merit?