The New York Times online opinion today—
"Merit has been traditionally equated with intelligence, industriousness, educational attainment, creativity and competency. In a meritocracy, formal qualifications provide opportunity, position is no longer ascribed by birth, and rewards flow to those who excel.
The rise of meritocratic competition as the preeminent means of social stratification in America has been hailed as a welcome advance because it replaced a society dominated by an upper class dependent on inherited wealth and status. The transition to meritocracy has, however, had unintended consequences. In the business sector, particularly, other less benign qualities emerge as essential to meritocratic success: aggressiveness, ruthlessness, dominance-seeking, victimizing behavior, acquisitiveness and the disciplined pursuit of self-interest."
— Journalism professor Thomas B. Edsall discussing remarks last December by Mitt Romney
Note the subtle shift here from "merit" to "meritocracy." Romney used the former word, not the latter.
Note also this sentence, aimed particularly at meritocratic New York Times readers—
"In a meritocracy, formal qualifications provide opportunity… and rewards flow to those who excel."
Edsall lies. In a meritocracy, rewards flow to those who rubber-stamp "formal qualifications." See particularly Walter Kirn on meritocracy.
Edsall is pandering to Times readers. Romney was pandering to a different group—
