This country’s stark divisions are exacerbated when we don’t share the meanings of words. Conversation is useless when you and I use the same terms, but they mean different things to each of us. For example, what does “merit” and “meritocracy” mean? I have looked up definitions, and they seem understandable, but those meanings have become vague and carry unshared connotations when applied. Conservatives want institutions peopled by those with merit. So do I. However, their current measure of merit for appointments in the current administration is suspect. So, e.g., you can be appointed to office only if you believe, or at least don’t question, that Trump won the 2020 election. For me a sign of merit for a government employee is the ability to recognize and expose falsehoods. For others, merit requires mouthing and spreading them. Trump often seems unique in his insistence on loyalty, but, unfortunately, this is not the case. We have had something like this before: If “inexperienced” or “lack of expertise” replaces or perhaps is added onto “stupidity,” what Michael Dobbs wrote about Nixon’s presidency in King Richard: Nixon and Watergate: An American Tragedy (2021) applies: “Stupidity was not necessarily a disqualification for high office if combined with unthinking fealty to the commander in chief.” And how did that turn out?

We can’t agree on “merit” in our jobs and institutions unless we agree on what it means to perform well. At a track meet, it is those who run the fastest. For a corporate executive, it means higher profits. But what, for example, makes a good police officer? The one who best knows the law? The one who can shoot most accurately? The one who can best talk to a mentally ill person who is potentially violent? One characteristic I believe a good officer should have is a lack of racism. How do you measure that in a hiring or promotion process?

There is yet another factor in espousing diversity, equity, and inclusion, the DEI that is such anathema to the Right. It is not just that police performance matters. There should also be public confidence in the police. However, when the police force does not look like the community it serves, the community can become suspicious of police goodwill, and respect for the rule of law can suffer. Thus, racial, ethnic, and gender diversity and inclusion in law enforcement furthers the public good. There can be merit in diversity.

Something similar can be said of the military. Just assume for a moment that all the officers were white, and all the enlisted personnel were Black. Morale among the troops would probably be lower than if the officer corps were more racially mixed. In other words, diversity among the ranks leads to greater camaraderie in the military and is a desirable national security goal.

Let’s stick with the military for a moment. Our new Secretary of Defense finds merit in and plans to stress lethality and a “warrior culture” in our armed services. (Hegseth seems to subscribe to what Bertolt Brecht wrote in The Caucasian Chalk Circle: “A good soldier has his heart and soul in it. When he receives an order, he gets a hard-on, and when he sends his lance into the enemy’s guts, he comes.” Is this also an explanation for why Hegseth does not want women in combat?) I am unaware that an improper regard for lethality and warrioring characterizes our current soldiers. Nevertheless, those slogans are misleading, and such merit has its limits. Even when there is a war, only a minority of soldiers are in combat. Moreover, today’s armed services do many things that require qualities different from those identified by the Defense Secretary. For example, Trump has sent soldiers to the border to assist in immigration control. It is my hope that lethality and a warrior culture are not the salient qualities for this assignment.

It is easy to agree that we want a meritocracy. It is another thing to define what that is or to recognize whether it exists. While it is clear that a band of conservatives feel that DEI is its enemy, they have not told us how they define meritocracy. It seems too often to require fealty to a person and to imply exclusion of those groups who have often been excluded in the past.

But perhaps more on Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion another day.