What David Brooks Means by “Rigged Meritocracy”
In his provocative talk “How the Elites Rigged Society (and Why It’s Falling Apart)”, New York Times columnist David Brooks makes a startling confession:
“We designed a meritocracy, and then we rigged it so we’d always win.”
It’s a rare admission from someone who openly counts himself among the “educated elite.” But behind that statement lies a powerful critique of how modern societies particularly in the West reward success, distribute opportunity, and define worth.
This post breaks down what Brooks means by a rigged meritocracy, why it matters, and what he believes must change if society is to heal.
The Myth of Meritocracy
The modern meritocracy was born from a noble idea: anyone, regardless of birth, can rise through talent and hard work.
It replaced older systems of aristocracy and inherited privilege with the promise of fairness and mobility.
But as Brooks argues, that promise has become hollow. The very people who benefited most from meritocracy highly educated professionals, policymakers, academics, and business leaders — have restructured the system in their own image.
They’ve rewritten the rules of success so that advantages compound across generations:
-
Elite schools feed into elite universities.
-
Elite universities feed into elite workplaces.
-
Those workplaces reward the same cultural signals vocabulary, social codes, credentials — that only the privileged can easily learn.
The result is a self-perpetuating hierarchy that looks merit-based but is, in practice, closed off to those without inherited advantages.
How the Game Was Rigged
Brooks lays out some uncomfortable numbers to prove his point:
-
By age 12, children from affluent families are already four grade levels ahead of their peers from lower-income homes.
-
By university age, wealthy students are dozens of times more likely to attend elite institutions.
-
Those institutions, in turn, become pipelines to the most prestigious and well-paying jobs.
It’s not that poorer or middle-class students lack talent; they lack access to tutors, networks, mentors, and “soft skills” that the elite take for granted.
Brooks calls this a caste system disguised as a meritocracy. Society still tells itself that effort and talent determine outcomes, but in reality, the odds are quietly fixed long before the race even begins.
The Moral Cost of Success
What’s striking about Brooks’ argument is that it isn’t only about economics it’s moral and spiritual.
In his view, elites didn’t just corner the market on wealth and education; they also privatised morality. Instead of a shared sense of civic virtue or moral responsibility, they embraced individualism: “You do you.”
That mindset hollowed out the social fabric. Communities weakened. Institutions lost trust. Loneliness and despair especially among those left behind filled the void.
Brooks believes that this moral erosion is what ultimately fuels today’s anger and populism: people feel invisible, not just poor.
The Consequences: A Fractured Society
In a truly fair meritocracy, success would motivate and inspire others.
In a rigged one, it alienates.
The “losers” of the system are not simply less skilled they are systematically excluded from the tools of advancement. Meanwhile, the “winners” grow increasingly detached from the struggles of the majority, often assuming their success is proof of superior virtue rather than inherited advantage.
Brooks sees this as a dangerous illusion. When elites lose empathy, democracy itself suffers. The trust gap widens, resentment builds, and populist movements on both the left and the right find fertile ground.
Can the System Be Fixed?
Brooks doesn’t offer a quick fix, but he does point toward a moral renewal rather than a purely economic one.
He argues that rebuilding society requires:
-
Restoring moral formation teaching empathy, humility, and duty as civic virtues.
-
Re-embedding individuals in community through shared institutions, service, and connection.
-
Redefining success away from status and credentials toward contribution and character.
The challenge, he admits, is that elites must be willing to sacrifice some privilege to open the gates rather than merely polish them.
Closing Thought: Merit Without Morality is Empty
David Brooks’ critique cuts both ways. It’s not just an indictment of the privileged it’s a call for everyone to re-examine what we mean by “success.”
A healthy meritocracy isn’t one where the same families win generation after generation. It’s one where talent, effort, and integrity actually determine outcomes and where the successful feel a duty to lift others, not just protect their own.
As Brooks puts it, the real crisis isn’t just inequality.
It’s the loss of a shared moral vision and the courage to rebuild one.

Comments
Post a Comment