hiring decisions were “based on a candidate having a critical skill or two and on soft factors such as eagerness, appearance, family background, and physical characteristics.”

Which paves the way for nepotism, entrenched corruption and institutionalized bigotry.

We can't have it both ways. Either we allow people to get ahead on merit or we don't. And if we do then that means the best and brightest will get ahead of the rest always and necessarily.

As long as the opportunities to get ahead are afforded to all and as long as there is a place for all regardless of the outcome, I don't see why everyone must hold an equally important role for a society to function fairly. Some decisions are more important than others and should be under consideration of people with higher level ability. Technically that's an aristocracy, at least the way Aristotle envisioned it.

The government could, for example, provide incentives to companies that resist automation, thereby preserving jobs for the less brainy. It could also discourage hiring practices that arbitrarily and counterproductively weed out the less-well-IQ’ed.

Many of these type programs already exist for mentally challenged. I can't say that it seems terribly well thought out to simply raise the bar for societal intervention to the level of 'average.' Shades of 'Harrison Bergeron' spring to mind. (if you've never read it, plz do it's a short read)

My opinion is exactly the opposite. I think the country is having a love affair with stupid.