I see Erick Erickson is carrying the ball for the anti-experts in the far-right extremist crew today:
The experts said if Trump withdrew from the Iran deal, there’d be war and Iran would have nukes. The experts were wrong.
The experts said if Trump moved the US Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, there’d be war. The experts were wrong.
The experts said if Trump killed Qasem Soleimani, there’d be war. The experts were wrong.
The experts said if Biden withdrew from Afghanistan, the Taliban would not sweep back into power. The experts were wrong.
Is it any wonder we are all less likely to listen to the experts? This has spillover effects because Americans don’t distinguish “foreign policy experts” from “public health experts” so they are no more likely to trust the expert saying to get vaccinated than the expert saying Biden could pack up and leave Afghanistan.
So – just to be contrary – I note the following:
- No links. Frankly, Soleimani was dead before we had even heard of him. I doubt anyone predicted war with any certainty. In fact, since Soleimani was killed outside of Iran, in Iraq, I suspect the experts simply shrugged, predicted some loud mouths but no real actions, and ate their breakfasts. At least some of this feels like propaganda, designed to enrage rather than inform.
- He’s not talking about simple stuff here, is he? Foreign relations is among the most difficult of subjects. His desperate need for 100% certainty is not the mark of a mature judgment.
- Experts do not express themselves in certainty in most cases; they typically express themselves with percentages, or proxies for percentages – Good chance, almost certain, almost certainly not. Erickson’s failure to acknowledge that experts traffic in probability is another mark of his failure of judgment.
But, for me, what really signals his lack of good judgment is that he doesn’t take into account what the experts leave unsaid because everyone knows it: If this goes on, If no one does something about it …
Experts are pointing out where they think this will go if no one does anything about it, and that’s the role they play – the big red flag being waved at those who have the power to affect things.
Take that first example. Trump irresponsibly junks the JCPOA and the experts sounded the alarm – and leaders of the European powers started talking to Iran about what it was going to do. And perhaps delivered some warnings and promises of their own. It was quite noteworthy how Iran decided to hang around until Trump was thrust out of power, and now we’re back to the sad little negotiating dance that was entirely unnecessary, but forced upon us by a yokel.
The experts aren’t wrong. They’re part of the process. If we don’t do anything about this is the unwritten rule of how this works.
And if, truly, conservatives are using this to distrust public health, well, that’s on them. If they don’t understand that expert evaluation is part of the process, then they need to learn more.
Now, Erickson’s post was all about Afghanistan and Biden not addressing the nation – which he later did. This is the point where we know the experts’ next step – but I’ll point it out anyways. Assessment. How wrong were we, what didn’t we consider, and how can we do better next time?
And that takes time. As I’ve mentioned before, I think it’s worth patiently awaiting results and assessments, rather than jerking off at the very thought of Biden being wrong. Yes, it does look like the general assessment of how fast the Kabul government would collapse is wrong. This is what happens when you telegraph your next move.
Like Trump did – the guy who caused this in the second place (first goes to Bush). Like Obama did.
Hysterical instant assessments such as Erickson demonstrate a tension I’ve recently recognized to be inherent in democracy: The expert vs the clod who thinks his opinion is as good as the next guy’s. After all, it is a democracy, we’re all supposed to be equal … even if we forget that part about before the law.
Perhaps something more on that subject anon.
