A Tale of Two Tonys

The "expert class" comes under fire.

By
34

In spite of enough technical difficulties to make a grown man weep, today’s Remnant—featuring AEI senior fellow Tony Mills—delivers a thorough, punchy exploration of the COVID crisis and the cult of expertise in American politics. He and Jonah discuss increased specialization in liberal societies, the dreaded Dr. Fauci criticism, and how the idea of certainty colors our political discourse. How intertwined is the crisis of liberalism with our understanding of scientific authority?

Show Notes

– Tony’s page at AEI

– Tony’s last Remnant appearance

– Mike Duncan’s Revolutions podcast

– Tony: “Saving Liberalism from Itself”

– Tony: “Unmasking Scientific Expertise”

By
Comments (34)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Avatar photo
    Aylene Wright

    So, I almost skipped this because I was afraid it would contain over the top Fauci-bashing, but ironically the comments complaining Jonah and Tony weren't hard ENOUGH on him, made me think "ok, this probably won't be that bad", so I listened to it today. Thanks for providing what I associated with the best of TD; reasonable, charitable critique of the COVID response, and a questioning of the concept of elite expertise, that didn't go too far into totally rejecting it. The comparisons to past pandemics and the swine flu scare, was really helpful.

    Agree that much of the Fauci-bashing was/is a vicarious substitution for Trump-bashing, although recently Desantis backers have started attacking Trump for being too deferential to Fauci, so there's that.

    I think that the concept of paternalism by the public health system, is really the word that explains much of what went wrong, and I wish you'd gone further into that concept. That was my reaction to many of Fauci's appearances, that he came across as too paternalistic. Although paternalism has fallen out of favor compared to when, say, Fauci was in medical school, there are still people in the medical/health field who support it.

    Per a Google search I just did, the "official" definition per an AMA journal article is "Broadly defined, paternalism is an action performed with the intent of promoting another’s good but occurring against the other’s will or without the other’s consent [13]. In medicine, it refers to acts of authority by the physician in directing care and distribution of resources to patients."

    https://journalofethics.ama-assn.org/article/selective-paternalism/2012-07

    This article actually makes a case FOR paternalism, as follows:

    "Medicine is a practice, not a mere formulary of facts; the expertise of the physician developed through years of education, apprenticeship, and experience cannot be fully imparted to the patient, hence, knowledge-based value judgments are essential to good medical care, and the physician must not be a passive participant [12, 14, 15]. This means that paternalism is inherent in the physician role and, thus, in the decision-making process."

    I think that although this may be the official definition, when most people say "paternalism" they aren't referring to the extreme instance of a doctor forcing a treatment on a patient without consent (indeed, they might describe that not as just "paternalism", but as an assault!)

    No, when people say "paternalism", they mean more of an attitude that "I, the almighty physician, Know Better Than You what's good for you, and if you don't just blindly follow what I recommend, then you're a Bad Patient".

    In the case of Fauci, by claiming to represent science, he was (not so subtly) insinuating "if you don't agree with me, you're rejecting not just me but Science Itself, and therefore proving yourself to be an ignorant rube". I can understand why this attitude would eventually backfire. But I am also aware of many people who appreciated this approach, and were reassured by it, at least initially.

    And although mask and vaccine mandates were mostly imposed not by actual physicians but by politicians (mandates within hospitals themselves being an exception), they certainly used medical / scientific justifications for these impositions on individual autonomy. Although I do recall that early on, the idea of vaccine mandates were floated as a last resort, only to be considered if the usual techniques of persuasion, positive incentives, and such to boost rates of *voluntary* vaccinations, weren't enough. The pivot to mandates as Standard Operating Procedure, I think wasn't done well and raised suspicions, and although they may have overall still improved vaccine rates, they also certainly inspired a backlash as well.

    Another aspect of this topic that I don't think they covered, was how Nature actually issued an official endorsement of Biden (I think Scientific American did too), and how that kind of thing actually lowered the credibility of the journal, even among people who themselves voted for Biden! The EIC of Nature basically doubled down on it, even though the study showing this was published in Nature itself. But hopefully other scientific institutions saw that as a cautionary tale and became more reluctant to follow that example.

    Collapse
  2. Aaron H Frank

    Hi,

    Always a good pod!

    July of 2020 Trump said the schools should open in the Fall.

    Fauci was not as good as he was portrayed here and Trump not as bad. The President initially tried to calm the country. He even followed Fauci maxims - it was Fauci who told Trump "two weeks to stop the spread." But there was nothing that Trump could say that did was not turned into hair-on-fire headlines by the NYT, WaPo, ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, and MSNBC.

    If Trump were a better man he would have recognized he was the president and not given into his baser instincts and pandered to the wild conspiracy theorists and say the many, crazy, irresponsible things he said. Trump would have continued to stay the course. But that is not who we elected. And it is why I did not vote for him. Jonah convinced me not to.

    Fauci has been lying to us since his work on Aids. Everyone forgets how Dr. Fauci terrified the country back then and all the ways we were told we might contract this awful, wasting disease.

    Collapse
  3. Georges

    I did not listen to this podcast even though I think I would have liked to.
    The problem is I seldom have an hour or several 15-20 minute intervals free to sit down and listen to it.
    I would like to request the podcasts be transcribed.
    Does anyone else out there prefer a transcript? Is there one already available that I managed to miss?

    Thanks in advance,

    G

    Collapse
  4. Avatar photo
    Ben Connelly

    Ah, so that explains why we never got the Leon Aron sequel!

    Collapse
  5. Avatar photo
    George.Skinner

    I thought a lot of the communication from experts during the pandemic was a lot more nuanced than critics allege. What seems to have happened is something like a game of "Telephone", where nuance was lost and details distorted as information was repeated and passed through various officials, reporters, and talking heads. Politicians, media, and a public conditioned towards sound bites or Tweets don't handle context, detail, or nuance particularly well.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Aylene Wright

      I agree with this take as I did listened to my share of interviews of Fauci, Walensky, etc. As well as a certain member of AEI, Dr. Gottlieb. Their actual comments were often much more nuanced than the soundbites and headlines made out. Especially on the question of protesting for racial justice during COVID.

      AFAIK, Fauci did not ever *support* that. I think he did acknowledge it was happening and advised risk reduction measures. But he never said "yes, that's a problem that's worse than COVID and totally justifies leaving lockdown".

      Unfortunately, I think at this point, most people see Fauci more as a symbol for the entire Public Health Establishment than an individual who should be accountable for his own individual decisions and recommendations, but not those of others.

      This problem of the actual experts avoiding epistemic hubris, but the hubris being added by non expert journalists, is hardly news though. All sorts of clickbait headlines and TV news segments about whether coffee causes or prevents cancer, whether a high-carb or low-carb diet is best, etc. And people throwing up their hands and saying "These supposed experts keep changing their minds every week on what the healthiest diet is. I give up. I'm heading to MickeyDs right now. Might as well enjoy myself and eat what I want."

      Collapse
  6. Avatar photo
    Jake

    Hi there, Jonah! I am the one person who was crestfallen that the gnosticism discussion didn't happen. I know you mostly reference gnosticism in regards to bureaucrats and progressives, but I wonder if you are aware of Harold Bloom's book The American Religion (and other books and authors) that American religion and culture are by their nature gnostic. I've only heard the Bloom book referenced so I couldn't defend the thesis, but I'd be interested in your take. But I would also love a full episode deep dive on the topic.

    Collapse
  7. Avatar photo
    Christophe

    Contrary to your take, I was never an anti-masker or covid-downplayer in 2020 but I am still pissed at Fauci, more in 2023 than ever.

    Collapse
  8. Aaron

    A really great and informative episode. I am a bit disappointed that Hayek never came up during the discussion of the cult of expertise and the dueling conceptions of science. I'd love to listen to a discussion of Hayek and Popper's back-and-forth on the topic in a future episode.

    Also, I am absolutely here for long stemwinders on how scientism is the new gnosticism.

    Collapse
  9. Echack

    The explanation about Fauci was good, but missed some key points.

    First, the developing evidence that he and his cohorts in the virology community conspired to demonize anyone that held to the lab leak theory. They were protecting their own funding and reputation.

    Second, their organized campaign to destroy the reputation of the physicians and scientists that put out the Great Barrington Declaration - a set of policy preferences that were dismissed instead of debated. Fauci and others used their positions as cloaks of expertise to characterize people with complimentary expertise not just in virology and epidemics, but health care policy and the consequences of policy. That lack of debate is another blow to their credibility.

    Third, you mentioned his flip-flop on masks, but there was the continual raising of the bar on what the herd immunity threshold was for COVID vaccinations. Fauci has admitted he knew it was higher than he said at first, but he didn't want to set the bar so high. Related to that, the CDC vastly overstated the effectiveness of COVID vaccines to stop the spread, despite having ample evidence from flu vaccines that a vaccine for a fast-growing infection can help with severity, but not infection and spread.

    He, and the CDC in general, have burned a century's worth of good will toward the public health community in a few years. And don't get me started on the glacial pace of the FDA.

    One thing that should be done is to do a good, unbiased postmortem on what we did right and what we did wrong in preparation and execution. Either Norway or Sweden has done one that is supposed to be quite good. Alas, there is no way that one could be done in the current political climate.

    Collapse
    1. Jason Kliewer

      Couldn't agree more. I started off being a fan of Fauci and was cool with a 2 week "slow the spread" so we don't overwhelm our hospitals. But after week 10, it became apparent that Covid was being used to implement authoritarian measures that had little scientific support for their efficacy. In the future, if the gov't is going to restrict freedoms, it better have damn good scientific support to back that up.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Scarlette Tarte

        Did you really think that states and the feds were going to "implement authoritarian measures" permanently?

        That we would be wearing masks, forever? That you would have to keep 6 feet between you, forever?

        I think that public health officials SHOULD implement those measures and right away, the second we determine we have a pandemic on our hands. And THEN look at evidence to determine if we let up on any of that.

        What is most important is stopping spread, and reducing severity. The only way to stop spread (of any illness) is to keep people away from each other.

        Then we look at how and what can return to normal, after we get the disease under control. I never thought "muh freedoms!" And I never worried that the government (even under Trump) was going to make any of that stuff permanent.

        See Republicans? This is the kind of nonsense you get when you make your constituents hate and fear their own government.

        The only scientific evidence I need at the beginning of an outbreak is to see a bunch of people are getting sick and dying to understand what has to be done.

        Maybe if you were not so scared of your own government, you would trust, like I did, that all will return to normal at some point.

        Collapse
        1. Georges

          Very slightly concealed inside your comment is an affinity for an absolutist authoritarian govt — so long as the policies are agreeable to you.
          Unfortunately you do not get to pick and choose policies under such a system so be careful what you ask for.

          Our system - flawed as it may be - at least in principle provides for open discussion of alternatives. This is vital even if some are convinced they’ve got the “right” solution and are willing to accept the horrific costs imposed.
          Well formed alternative ideas from credible sources were advanced for dealing with covid that would not have imposed those horrific costs and may well have produced an equivalent or better health result.
          They need to be heard and considered, even now.

          Collapse
        2. Avatar photo
          Jake

          I'm curious: what are the benefits of hate-listening to a podcast? What is the ratio of dopamine to soul corrosion in paying money just to show utter contempt to everyone else who listens? Doesn't MSNBC or Vox have a selection of podcasts?

          Collapse
          1. Avatar photo
            Silvertide

            If you are not willing to at the minimum listen to other ideas then you are living in a media bubble of your choosing. I listen to several podcasts where I don't enjoy the takes by the podasters but I listen to them so I can try and understand the other side of the arguments people are having. For example I listen to national review and Charles Cook drives me crazy but I can still listen to him so I can try understand where he is coming from.

            Collapse
          2. Avatar photo
            Scarlette Tarte

            I have no idea what you are talking about.

            I am asking Jason a question regarding his own beliefs.

            I don't "hate" anyone.

            Collapse
  10. Jason Kliewer

    Good podcast but there's was a key piece missing....the distinction between foxes and hedgehogs as explained by the Ancient Greek warrior poet Archilochus. How you think matters more than what you think.

    “The fox knows many things; the hedgehog one great thing."

    Hedgehogs have one grand theory (Marxist, Libertarian, whatever) which they are happy to extend into many domains, relishing its parsimony, and expressing their views with great confidence.

    Foxes, on the other hand are skeptical about grand theories, diffident in their forecasts, and ready to adjust their ideas based on actual events. Because of this, fox predictions and analysis will generally prove to be more accurate than those of the hedgehog.

    Hedgehog experts never admit “I evidently had the wrong theory,." Instead they declare, “It almost went my way,” or “It was the right mistake to make under the circumstances,” or “I’ll be proved right later,” or “The evilness of the enemy is still the main event here.”

    Hedgehogs annoy only their opposition, while Foxes annoy across the whole spectrum, in part because the smartest foxes cherry-pick idea fragments from the whole array of hedgehogs.

    Bottom line… The political expert who bores you with a cloud of “howevers” is probably right about what’s going to happen. The charismatic expert (Fauci) who exudes confidence and has a great story to tell is probably wrong.

    If you're an expert and want to improve the quality of your own predictions, keep brutally honest score. Enjoy being wrong, admitting to it and learning from it, as much as you enjoy being right.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Scarlette Tarte

      Yes, like the Republican hedgehog of "free markets will lead to free people". Oops, China!

      Or this one "Gay marriage will ruin straight marriage.". Oops, it didn't.

      Or how about this one "if we pass Medicare, we will be telling our children what freedom was ". Oops, Reagan, ya missed that one, eh buddy?

      And today, let me tell you who the hedgehog's are. The people who are just SURE that transexuals are suffering a mental illness. Oops, that's what they used to say about homosexuals too!

      Anyone who is making any laws right now about things they barely understand. Who cling to ideas that have been proven wrong (laffer curve, trickle down economics).

      There are a million examples like this.

      You are right. When a party is wrong, admit they were wrong. If the states are supposed to be laboratories of democracy, then the experiment on deep tax cuts has already been run in Kansas, under Brownback. How did that go? Terribly.

      And yet, no one says "ooops, I guess that didn't work out, let's try something else". No, they just keep doubling down on WRONG.

      Collapse
      1. Philebus

        Ha. You left out: "Tax cuts pay for themselves". I live in Kansas, and you're right it did go terribly.

        Collapse
Load More