I could note that a meritocracy is based on equal access to quality tools for improving one's life, that the world has changed a lot since one could set out West to stake a claim to 30 acres and become "self-made", that regular manufacturing jobs are disappearing with the advent of mechanized production lines (not necessarily a Bad Thing), and that the future of our economic well-being as a nation depends on developing and maintaining a well-educated, healthy workforce with hopes of advancement (the food of ambition) in order to attract and keep the kind of jobs that are currently being exported to other countries.

I could explain that this involves investment in the working classes that they can't afford to make themselves because their "big tax break" averaged $217 in 2003. I could point out that it's a good thing for the stability of our society overall, and for its future prospects, if people can take their kids, and themselves, to the doctor before it becomes an emergency; if they can get a decent education at an affordable price; if they can live in safe and clean environments, so that their children can grow up healthy and hopeful; and if they can know that, should a catastrophe befall them, there are institutions in place to help them that are not determined on how much someone "feels like giving" this year, but on a sense of common good and common, yes, welfare.

But I have discovered that trying to get this across to some people on the right is like trying to convince them that the poor and the working classes have merit and value even though they don't have money.