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.

The Death Of Archie Andrews

We were both born at about the same time, though he, like Adam,ⁱ started out full-grown – or, at least, as a teen-ager. And he never grew old.

I began as a baby and I'm considerably older now. I don't read comic books any longer but I was saddened when I learned from news reports that Archie had been killed. Life isn't fair.ⁱⁱ I know that over the years things have changed, but my memory hasn't moved on. The Archie Andrews I knew, like the one just shot, was young, though in my mind he hadn't matured philosophically in the way the comic book character did. He reflects the zeitgeist of my youth, rather than twenty-first century American culture. I aged but didn't change. He changed but didn't age.ⁱⁱⁱ

So I was saddened by his death. But I was horrified when I learned the circumstances. Apparently Archie took a bullet to protect his friend Kevin Keller,^iv a gay^v senator. (I never knew Kevin. I do remember, however, Jughead, Betty, Veronica, Reggie, and even Moose. And I remember sort of humorous depictions of High School life.) Senator Keller was an advocate of gun control which, whatever its merits, was never an issue when I was reading comic books.^vi Life was simpler then, and childhood was childhood.

When I was young comics told a story. They might have been humorous, or action, or even love. But they were stories. I guess there were messages in them, but when that was the case they were more reflections of common culture or dreams as they were, than prescriptions for what should be.

It seems that the comics no longer cater to the imagination, but are more involved in indoctrination into modern (liberal) thought – like newspapers and the rest of what we're feeding them. The funny papers are no longer funny. The escape from reality for which we turned to the comics has been replaced by “real” life and the lessons of how we should respond to it. It is the catechism of what should be. It's never too early to start teaching those lessons.

I guess that's a good thing. Shielding children from what used to be adult concerns is paternalistic. It's more important that we introduce them to the world that we have created. And the earlier the better. They have to be prepared. So even before it's born, we speak to the developing fetus (if it isn't our choice to abort it), and direct musical sound waves through the amniotic fluid. All the while we eschew good food in favor of that which is nourishing, and wine and coffee in favor of bottled water and organic green tea.

But it's certainly worth the sacrifice, as are the “Baby Mozart” and “Baby Einstein”^vii which we begin soon after the birth of the new being. And we're sure to register our offspring as early as possible in the finest pre-K and prep school.^viii Just as being a child has changed so much since the time I experienced it, so too have the responsibilities of parenting.

I can't help thinking, though, that we're making a mistake in both cases. We're too caught up in the fads, fashions, and, sadly, the fallacies of our times. We're too intent on making sure our children are prepared for the world in which we live to let them enjoy the one in which they live.

Mr. Weatherbee and Miss Grundy may no longer be redeemable, but our children are; comics may not be the highest form of art that we know, but it's the one to which children can relate. The modern “improvement,” “graphic novels” are fine for adults who want to pretend that they're reading, and they're as good a place as any for teaching cultural values and for presenting political propaganda, but we should leave it to them. Kids just want to have fun. Whether the stories are silly or fantastic and unrealistic, the comic stories of old were fun. There was plenty of time afterward to learn about what were viewed, a few years ago, as adult concerns.

The Archie Andrews I remember from the time I was young and reading comic books got into a lot of scrapes with his classmates and had some flirtations with his girl friends. Neither he nor I was “grown up,” and the situations we faced were straightforward issues of “right” and “wrong” unencumbered with the moral issues of the day.

But those days are past. We can't lose time. Childhood is the optimal time for learning and we can't waste it. There's no time for black and white, only gray – because that's what is. There is no right and wrong. Parents^ix are now weighed down with the cultural issues of the twenty-first century, and they're taking their children down with them. Archie Andrews is dead.

Fortunately my memory of what he used to be isn't.

Next episode:   “Just The Facts Ma'am" -- If such exist.


 

I        And Topsy.

ii       But I'll discuss that sad fact in a few weeks.

iii      Actually he did age, but not all that much. And it was more spiritual and emotional than physical.

iv       The only Keller I knew in those days was Charlie. He played for the Yankees. But King Kong died, at the age of 74, almost a quarter of a century before Archie.

v       Homosexual. Not the cheerful, optimistic, devil-may-care personality which characterized the Archie Andrews I knew years ago.

vi       Nor was premarital sex, though I read somewhere that Archie was thinking about marrying the mother of his child.

vii      In reality, which we think we're teaching, these programs have not been shown to be of any benefit. Except to the companies that make money from them, and to the parents who feel virtuous spending that money.

viii     We may even notify the college of the heritage who will be coming their way in the future, and the contribution that will accompany him or her.

ix       And comic book artists.