When did expertise and knowledge become dirty words in the USA? I was disheartened listening to the hearings for Trump’s cabinet picks. Clearly, Republicans put little value in candidates’ abilities, experiences, or expertise for the very complex cabinet posts at hand.
Instead, I heard questions and statements such as:
“How many pushups can you do?”
“How many genders are there?”
“Tell me why you love your wife.”
Seriously? Many questions about the detailed aspects of these cabinet positions received perfunctory non-answers. Secretary of Defense cabinet nominee Pete Hegseth’s most common response to any question was, “anonymous smears” –even when names were attached to statements. Tulsi Gabbard had difficulty explaining the responsibilities of the Director of National Intelligence. None of the cabinet nominees last week ruled out sanctioning illegal actions if Trump asked them to perform them.
Recent Pew Research studies indicate that the respect Americans have for subject-matter experts has dropped from 87 percent to 73 percent. Other research around anti-intellectualism indicates that one in three Americans harbors some resentful attitudes towards experts.
Both Trump campaigns doubled down on doubting the validity of experts on issues such as climate change, health policy, and the economy.
In general, Republicans tend to favor limiting government which, in some cases, means limiting the influence that experts in various fields have on our day-to-day lives. In essence, we are dealing with the backlash or resentment over so-called experts telling you how to live your lives. Today there’s a kind of arrogance that basically says my ignorance has just as much value as your knowledge.
In dangerous times such as these, authoritarian leaders instill fear in the populus and insist that only they are the messiahs who will save the country, and they must be obeyed. This approach also emphasizes racism and bigotry, often stressing the point that if you don’t fight back, you will lose your current place in the hierarchy. History has repeatedly shown that succumbing to such authoritarian leaders only leads to great unhappiness and upheaval in the end.
So, how do we combat this dangerous anti-intellectual movement? Here’s what the experts say.
Be OK with realizing you cannot know everything and become motivated and excited about ongoing growth and learning.
Understand that it’s OK to change your mind or point-of-view when new sound information becomes available.
Read about subjects that may not necessarily pertain to you or your work.
Carefully evaluate arguments in your reading and analyze whether such arguments are based on truth and fact.
Discover practical applications to theoretical ideas.
Welcome difficult conversations with friends and family to understand various positions.
In the meantime, here’s hoping the ridiculous conversations about windmills, sharks, and space lasers can be kept to a minimum.
The scientist Neil deGrasse Tyson once said, “There is no shame in not knowing. The problem arises when irrational thought and attendant behavior fill the vacuum left by ignorance.”
Something to think about.
Maria Grant was principal-in-charge of the federal human capital practice of an international consulting firm. While on the Eastern Shore, she focuses on writing, reading, music, and nature.
.
Robert J Rietz says
On a related note, Republicans suggest privatizing Social Security will keep it solvent despite every actuary acknowledging that will only ACCELERATE the Trust Fund’s depletion before 2035. Also, Bush2 created a Social Security Commission in 2000 that came to the conclusion that private accounts won’t work. Yet Republicans continue to propose privatization as a solution, perhaps because of the massive commissions that Wall Street would earn.
For decades, the Trustees’ Report has said the US cannot “grow” its way of the projected depletion, and Republicans still rely on growth as a solution because any realistic solution is painful to everyone.
Ignore the experts! Their answers don’t agree with preferred policies.
Chip Heartfield says
Hi Mr. Rietz, the Bush Commission did not come to any such conclusion; in fact, quite the opposite. Nor was there a related proposal or instruction to study the idea of “privatizing” Social Security; rather, the question was whether to allow individuals to create personal accounts IN ADDITION TO paying into the existing structure and would that increase benefits and reduce some pressures on the Trust Fund over time? The answer of the commission, co-chaired by Democrat Daniel Patrick Moynihan, was yes. Here is the actual report so folks can see for themselves: https://www.ssa.gov/history/reports/pcsss/Final_report.pdf By the way, many people do not realize that their so-called Social Security account does not belong to them. Congress has the legal right to arbitrarily change the benefits formula at any time and change the amount any of us receive. This was noted in the Bush report and was further confirmed in Flemming v. Nestor in 1960, which stated that individuals have no contractual right to the funds in your current account; it is all the government’s money. On the other hand, if personal accounts were added to the mix, funds in those accounts would belong to the individuals who put money into them. As for Ms. Grant’s comments on the Cabinet hearings, there were plenty of inane questions and comments from both sides (as usual) and in any event, the first to be voted on, Senator Rubio, was confirmed 99-0. It is expected that most of the others will also receive some Democrat support (also not uncommon); only a few picks each cycle are hotly debated.
Robert Rietz says
Mr. Heartfield,
My conclusion was incomplete. It should have read, ” … came to the conclusion that private accounts won’t work by themselves. Each of the three proposed models would require government funding of the resultant shortfalls, thereby increasing the National Debt.”
Each model required different amounts of government funding for different periods, and the report labeled the government funding as an “investment” or “transitional funding,” but all would increase the National Debt.
In 2001, the Social Security Trust Fund (SSTF) had $602B income and $439B outgo, for a surplus that year of $163B. Surpluses continued until 2021 when outgo exceeded income.
For the FY ending 9/30/24, Social Security outgo exceeded income by $130B, and these deficits are projected to continue.
Shifting a portion of Social Security income to private accounts deprives the SSTF of part of its revenue stream, accelerating the date the SSTF will be depleted.
As I said at the beginning of this response, private accounts won’t work without government funding for some period of time,, which would increase the National Debt.
I’d like to end with a quote from page 5 of the August 2001 Interim Report. “Faster Economic Growth Will not Save the Existing System.”
Maria Grant says
Thanks to both of you for these substantive comments. Much appreciated.
Maria Grant says
Bob,
You make an excellent point. There is no doubt the actuaries are right about the dangers of such privatization. Thanks for writing.
john fischer says
The good part of this revealing piece is, if Ms. Grant and her Democratic friends continue to display the arrogance necessary to characterize voters with whom they disagree politically as intellectually challenged, it is unlikely Americans will ever again be governed by the oppressive progressive wing of the Democratic party.
Deirdre LaMotte says
I agree with you John. As long as racism, hatred of women rights, people loath to voting rights, clean air, clean water, the sincere belief in democracy, freedom to worship as one pleases, and a understanding that alliances have kept peace for 80 years is looked upon as “socialism” by the
misguiding-on-purpose electric, because of money interest in the Republican Party, we have a problem.
And the problem is you.
Maria Grant says
John, thanks for writing. With all due respect, if the Democrats nominated cabinet people with sexual abuse allegations, financial issues, and nominal management experience, I’m sure we would be hearing about it.
Eric Ploeg says
Agreed. It seems that some self-sanctified intellects still don’t get it. What the ‘experts” completely overlook is the importance of wisdom, not just intellect. “Intelligence without wisdom brings destruction.” —Erol Ozan
Wilson Dean says
We are now experiencing the arrival of the Trump Administration where the badge of anti-intellectualism is worn proudly. Untold damage is going to result over the next four years from its denial of climate change, aversion to vaccinations, belief that tariffs will balance the budget and won’t raise inflation, pro-Russian views that dominate our Presidency and intelligence leaders, the perverse concept that pardoning police-assaulting punks will restore law-and-order—the list is virtually endless. We are on a rapid trip down a very dangerous road that looks eerily like Germany in the 1930s, unless Americans step up now and resist this ignorant and evil world view demonstrated by Trump and his mignions.
Maria Grant says
Thanks for writing. I have talked to so many people who are worried about the state of our Union. The first two days of this new administration do not bode well.
Liz Freedlander says
Make contributions to such non-profits as the Climate Scientists Defense Fund.
Kent Robertson says
As a physician of 45 years, now retired, what we were told by our government medical bureaucrats and was parroted by the press didn’t make sense. It went counter to my training and decades of experience. Many other physicians and public health experts said the same thing. The Truth in News Initiative media proudly announced they (ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, NYT, Washington Post, BBC, Reuters, AP, UP…) wouldn’t publish anything that didn’t promote universal vaccination. All scientists who didn’t agree with the government/media narrative were demonized and threatened with loss of job or funding. As a physician, the medical bureaucracy was my go-to source for guidance in infectious disease problems…until 20+ years ago when big pharmaceutical company money infiltrated the bureaucracy,and the revolving doors between the medical industry and the medical bureaucracy opened. Now I don’t trust anything the bureaucracy or the media tells me without verification.
I challenge you, Ms Grant, to read Dr Steven Koonin’s book UNSETTLED. In it he makes a compelling case that refutes the government/media narrative about anthrogenic global warming. He shows how their data is cherry-picked to support their theory. I am not a climatologist, but his conclusions make a lot more sense to me than the climate alarmists’ do.
The best way to stop the anti-intellectual sentiment is to publish all sides of any issue, to promote open, healthy, civil debate, and let the people decide.
Jess Haberman says
Dr. Robertson, I agree that big business can pay for studies that support their business. The tobacco industry was notorious for that and we should be on guard against it. With regard to Climate change, maybe you are right about climate alarmists and we are spending money to change over to renewables sooner than we need to. But what if climate scientists are right? It seems to me that erring on the side of caution to protect our children and grandchildren is the better course of action. Anyway, Scientific American (tell me what big business warps their viewpoint), says about UNSETTLED: “When it comes to the science, Koonin cherry-picks and misrepresents outdated material to downplay the seriousness of the climate crisis. In April (2021), climate scientists fact-checked Koonin’s claims as encapsulated in a Wall Street Journal review, and found them to be highly misleading. They explain the many ways in which he presents outdated science as definitive and otherwise misrepresents studies to make it seem like that the science is still out on whether or not climate change will be bad. But if the science weren’t settled, as he claims, then that would cut both ways: It might be worse than we think, instead of being no big deal, as Koonin suggests.” Indeed, since the book was published, from what I’ve read, the rate of climate change has accelerated more than anticipated.
Maria Grant says
Jess, thank you for writing. I totally agree that efforts to protect our environment should be seriously considered. I very much appreciate your passion on the issue.
Donald Martin says
While some may think it foolish, nevertheless, discounting the opinions of experts is hardly a definition of anti-intellectualism. Indeed it might arise from a healthy bit of skepticism. The batting average of experts in the area of public policy is hardly an enviable statistic.
Maria Grant says
A healthy skepticism is a good idea. Ignoring experts who spend years researching various issues is not a good idea. I agree with you that understanding all sides of an issue before reaching a conclusion makes good sense.