In My Expert Opinion

(I think) I've talked about experts and expertise in the past. (To paraphrase the Latin translation [from Greek] of Hippocrates – Ars longa, memoria brevis.) I'm fairly sure that I shall discuss this issue in the future as well. But for the moment I want to focus on a single aspect of the subject – only I'm not sure what it is, so I'll just see what develops.

It all started when I was reading about art. Actually art was just one of the subjects discussed in a book I'm reading: A War For The Soul Of America – A History Of The Culture Wars by Andrew Hartman. The book covers a lot of territory, most of which I'll address some other time, but the discussion of art pointed toward a somewhat more inclusive and, in the minds of many, oppressive practice.

The discussion of art as one of the battlegrounds of the culture war (which is basically a war between liberals and conservatives played out in many arenas) centered on the photographic works of Andres Serrano and Robert Mapplethorpe (recipients of grants from the NEA – National Endowment for the Arts). Serrano's subject in “Piss Christ” was a bottle of his own urine into which a crucifix had been placed, while Mapplethorpe depicted, among other things, naked men performing acts of sadomasochistic homosexuality. Their exhibitions were viewed by liberals as manifestations of free speech, while conservatives saw them as sacrilegious and, in the minds of many, Anti-American. Liberals felt that any action taken against these exhibitions would amount to censorship. As Senator Edward Kennedy put it:

The American people strongly support public funding of the arts and reject the know-nothing censorship the right wing is trying to impose.

Conservatives thought differently. Most didn't consider their opposition to be censorship, but opposition to taxpayer support of an anti-religious agenda. In the words of Dana Rohrbacher, a Republican House Member:

Artists can do whatever they want on their own time and with their own dime.

But the comment that interested me most was that of the book's author. Hartman writes:

… liberals … maintained that the NEA, representing the national community of art experts, should be free to decide which art merited funding.

There are two important premises of this view: that the taxpayer is obligated to support artistic endeavors, and that the same taxpayer is not competent to decide what he is paying for. Neither are his representatives, Congress. It is the prerogative of “experts,” and the NEA should have unquestioned discretion when it comes to the distribution of funds.

The first assumption, that support of art is a proper government function, is straightforward, though worthy of discussion (I think it is, but there are opposing views), but the second is far more complex. To what degree should unelected “experts” have veto power over the will of the people?

As I said, it's a complex issue. And it really has nothing to do with art, which is simply a single manifestation of the problem. We have, in a little over a century, developed a “progressive” form of government in which experts have the responsibility for making decisions in a wide variety of areas. And those experts control many spheres of our lives and of national policy. We neither choose them nor know who they are. Some are political appointees, sympathetic to the ideas of those who select them and who will last as long as their sponsors. Many are bureaucrats – tenured civil servants who make the rules that are the points of reference by which we live. Congress lays out basic policies, and the experts fill in the blanks. In essence they make the laws, even though from a constitutional standpoint it is the responsibility of the legislators. They also prosecute and judge those they consider violators of their prescriptions.

They're the “experts.” Most of them are people just like us, but they make the rules we have to follow. That's so because either they're smart enough to pass the civil service exam (giving them all but lifetime tenure), or they have been chosen for their loyalty by the politicians in office (to the winner belong the spoils) and are subject to dismissal without notice, by whoever made the appointment, or by a subsequent administration. Political allegiance is more important than expertise. However there's a third group – the real experts. Even they, though, are sometimes chosen only in part because of their knowledge, but also because of their political philosophy. Their scientific judgments are sometimes swayed by dogma.

Perhaps the most prominent group of experts are the Justices of the Supreme Court. They've been acting as experts for nearly the entire duration of our existence as a country. They have arrogated to themselves the role of determiners of the law, and we have not objected. There may even be Constitutional support for that position. In any event it is what has developed and we've become accustomed to live by their decisions, whether or not we agree with them.

But there are numerous such areas, and education is just one. (Others include the IRS, OSHA, the EEOC, the FDA and many more.) People we don't know, and who don't know us, can decide that we need to abide by a common core curriculum, and they can devise its contents. A school board can determine what schools to fund, and who our children's teachers will be (and the teachers can inject their own political philosophies). Perhaps we can choose our own school board and perhaps we can decide whether or not we accept the common core, but those in authority can choose to withhold funds from our community if they don't like our decision, or, like the courts, they can simply declare that decision null. We, however, cannot withhold tax money if we disagree with theirs. Indeed, we're required to pay income and property taxes even if we don't agree with, or require all the services offered. And we have to pay school taxes even if we don't have children, or have removed ours from the public schools – often because we don't agree with the decisions of the experts. But we can't alter their decisions. Our best option is to try to defeat them in the next election. Or to defeat the politicians who appointed them. Meanwhile they're in charge.

Of course we all select experts to advise us of preferred actions. We choose our doctors, lawyers, tax advisors, clothing designers, and a host of others who are better equipped to make technical decisions than we. But we choose them, and we can fire them on the spot if we're not satisfied with their recommendations or outcomes – or even if we are. And their judgments take our wishes into consideration. In addition, whether they're personal trainers, “experts” in parenting, or marriage counselors, we're free to ignore their advice and find other opinions more to our liking. Sadly, the same option is not available when government experts direct us.

I don't know enough about the intricacies of our government to formulate a solution to the problem. We ceased to follow the Constitution a long time ago and have accepted a system that is often not responsive to our wishes. Perhaps there's no going back – perhaps the experts cannot be dislodged from their positions of power – but that's not for me to say. I'd prefer to believe there are those familiar with the system and how to change it who can return choice and input to the taxpayers. They, too, are experts, however, and somehow or other we'll have to keep a tight rein on them.