1/ The role of experts in a democracy is to provide: 1️⃣ Advice to democratically elected leaders on the options available to achieve the objectives those leaders select; 2️⃣ Advice to democratically elected leaders on the likely outcomes and consequences of leaders' proposed plans.
If only someone had told Michael Gove…
Literally, the most insane, most racist, most bigoted, most misogynistic, most hateful, most violent, most idiotic white males in charge of the US government. Very few of them are even employable in a normal context.
Do you think RFK Jr just doesn’t know what the word ‘expert’ means? I thought Trump was an ‘expert’ at twisting reality but this one is another level.
2/ As I wang on about in the book, all government policy decisions are a choice between competing interests and priorities. Experts are there to help governments understand what those choices can be, their likelihood of success against objectives and their costs, risks and implications.
3/ In trade policy at least, a key reason politicians sometimes object to expert insight is that they don't like the answers. More specifically, they would prefer to paint their ideas as being more likely too succeed, less likely to hurt anyone, and with fewer costs than experts warn.
4/ If you're promising that leaving the European Union will not only restore Parliamentary Sovereignty but also costlessly usher in a new golden age of prosperity through a 25 trillion dollar FTA with the US, it's really annoying to have me on BBC News explaining why that's very unlikely.
5/ In areas of policy like health, I think there can be a tendency to also do some of this in reverse - pretending that unpopular decisions were ultimately made by experts and not merely on expert advice. That's equally nonsensical and a cowardly abdication of responsibility for hard choices.
6/ The reason you see hacks like RFK Jr. pushing back on the experts is not because they've been in charge and screwed up. They've never been in charge and that's not their role. He'd just prefer to say and do whatever without criticism or analysis from people who know what they're talking about.
I've been in similar positions from a technical perspective where advice has been given and a different course of action is followed. When it comes to politicians I do think that they should have to record why they disagree, and "I just see it differently" shouldn't be good enough.
'Do your own research' 🤣🤣🤣 Like that's even faintly possible for the vast majority, beyond reading what others (experts) have already done.
They got a real gem at the helm of US Healthcare System, don’t they?