adrian woolridge's the aristocracy of talent, how meritocracy made the modern world, defends classiciberalism from another series of attacks. he points out for most of human history, people were selected for jobs and honors and riches because of their membership in a family or a court or a religion or ethnic group. the american revolution is actually extraordinary because it argued against monarchs, nobodies and clerics and set up a monarch based observe what jefferson called a natural meritocracy based on talents. they move add long that path abolishing landed privileges and making higher basis on tests and skills rather than family and connections. today meritocracy faces attacks from the left and right, which argue it's a rigged system that doesn't achieve good outcomes. some of these criticisms are fair but woolridge asks the essential question, what would you replace it with? do we want to go back to using soft, fuzzy criteria like character, which is often a code for social class? do we want a racial spoil system where jobs are distributed too achieve quotas? the answer for woo