Liz Cheney and the Death of the “Expert”

 

Let me begin by congratulating Harriet Hageman for her victory yesterday. I hope she wins in November and represents Wyoming and America well during her tenure in Congress.

The best thing to come out of our two years with COVID is a general and growing skepticism of “experts.” We’ve been lied to, ineptly led, treated like children, ignored, censored, and told what’s good for us by people who think they know better than we do what’s good for us.

Liz Cheney is one of those people, her “expertise” being her superior morality and her knowledge of what’s good for Republicans and good for conservatives — despite the vast majority of Republicans and conservatives thinking otherwise.

It would be good if more “experts” could be removed from office as easily by the people over whom they hold sway by virtue of their ersatz superiority of intellect, morality, and credentials.

One down.

Published in Elections
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 36 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Steven Seward Member
    Steven Seward
    @StevenSeward

    I saw a National Review headline this morning that said “Liz Cheney considers Presidential run in 2024.”  I burst out laughing!

    • #1
  2. Henry Racette Member
    Henry Racette
    @HenryRacette

    Steven Seward (View Comment):

    I saw a National Review headline this morning that said “Liz Cheney considers Presidential run in 2024.” I burst out laughing!

    Sure. Fauci/Cheney ’24. Their campaign slogan could be: “Sit down. Shut up. We know what’s best.”

    • #2
  3. Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patriot) Member
    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patriot)
    @ArizonaPatriot

    Hank, I don’t think that the problem is with “experts” in principle, though I’m not fond of the idea of someone being an “expert” in the area of morality.  “Elder” is probably a better term.

    I think that the problem is that many of the “experts” that we have are wrong.  They seem to have terrible ideas.

    We need to be listening to the best among us, I think.  The difficulty is in identifying them.  We do not have anything like a moral consensus in our country.  Trump wasn’t, and isn’t, a very admirable character himself, though he has some admirable traits, and at least he seems to be fighting the bad folks on some fronts.

    In the absence of a moral consensus, the default seems to be a gradual libertarian descent into Sodom and Gomorrah, coupled with a failure to have enough children to perpetuate ourselves.  (I know that you and I both did our part, but as a matter of demographics, we’re no longer having enough kids.)

    • #3
  4. Old Bathos Moderator
    Old Bathos
    @OldBathos

    I don’t associate Liz Cheney’s shtick with the expert cult but it is consonant with the smarmy arrogance of the self-appointed elite.  

    The rulers have lost touch not just with the people but with the animating principles of good government–fiscal responsibility, humility and defending and implementing the values of culture of the American people, not contempt for and forceful attempts to replace those values.  

    A soft landing at a big law firm, a media gig, or a seat on a corporate board is reserved for those who successfully espouse and promote the new anti-populist dogmas.

    Experts have a clerical role by providing the official lie that all of this is consonant with science and cleverness which, by definition, are good for you.

    • #4
  5. Gossamer Cat Coolidge
    Gossamer Cat
    @GossamerCat

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… (View Comment):

    think that the problem is that many of the “experts” that we have are wrong.  They seem to have terrible ideas.

    We need to be listening to the best among us, I think.  The difficulty is in identifying them.

    I believe that the experts who are worth listening to may be identified by their humility and their admissions of ignorance in the face of complexity.  

    • #5
  6. Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patriot) Member
    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patriot)
    @ArizonaPatriot

    I should add that I’m glad that Liz Cheney was defeated, as was clear from my post yesterday.

    I do find the Cheney family to have been particularly disappointing on the moral front.  Dick Cheney has a perverted daughter, apparently.  As I recall, both Dick and then Liz Cheney publicly changed their former position of supporting traditional morality, to support for the LGBT agenda.  My impression is that the lesbian family member influenced this change, though I cannot know this for certain.

    • #6
  7. Douglas Pratt Coolidge
    Douglas Pratt
    @DouglasPratt

    This is what happens when you make politics your religion. When your basic definitions of what is right and wrong depend on politics, “truth” becomes “whatever works.” So you can contradict yourself, you can invent “facts,” you can ignore things right in front of you, because all that matters is that it accomplishes what you want.

    I can deal with someone whose belief structure is different from mine, because they have such a structure. There is no dealing with moral relativism. No way to work with them, no way to even communicate. Certainly no way to convince them that they are wrong. They never even consider that alternative.

    • #7
  8. Henry Castaigne Member
    Henry Castaigne
    @HenryCastaigne

    Gossamer Cat (View Comment):

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… (View Comment):

    think that the problem is that many of the “experts” that we have are wrong. They seem to have terrible ideas.

    We need to be listening to the best among us, I think. The difficulty is in identifying them.

    I believe that the experts who are worth listening to may be identified by their humility and their admissions of ignorance in the face of complexity.

    Jay Bhattacharya was good about this. He said, “We think cloth masks don’t work and I’m very uncertain that lockdowns work.” He was clear about how much guesswork there was. He was more respectable for that.

    • #8
  9. Henry Castaigne Member
    Henry Castaigne
    @HenryCastaigne

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… (View Comment):

    I should add that I’m glad that Liz Cheney was defeated, as was clear from my post yesterday.

    I do find the Cheney family to have been particularly disappointing on the moral front. Dick Cheney has a perverted daughter, apparently. As I recall, both Dick and then Liz Cheney publicly changed their former position of supporting traditional morality, to support for the LGBT agenda. My impression is that the lesbian family member influenced this change, though I cannot know this for certain.

    Yeah sure. Of all the problems with our ruling elite the biggest one is their gay kids. Better the lesbian daughter at least only be as bad as Hunter Biden.

    • #9
  10. WillowSpring Member
    WillowSpring
    @WillowSpring

    Henry Racette: The best thing to come out of our two years with COVID is a general and growing skepticism of “experts.”

    One of my favorite quotes is Richard Feynman (Nobel Prize in Physics) who said:

    Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts

    That’s why it was so galling for Fauci to keep saying to follow him ; i.e., the “Science”

    • #10
  11. Raxxalan Member
    Raxxalan
    @Raxxalan

    This is all part of the neo-feudalism.  I think though Ms. Cheney represents the hereditary power structure a.k.a the nobility and Fauci and the rest of the expert class represent the clerisy.  We are just the serfs of course in this little drama.

    • #11
  12. Stad Coolidge
    Stad
    @Stad

    Henry Racette (View Comment):

    Steven Seward (View Comment):

    I saw a National Review headline this morning that said “Liz Cheney considers Presidential run in 2024.” I burst out laughing!

    Sure. Fauci/Cheney ’24. Their campaign slogan could be: “Sit down. Shut up. We know what’s best.”

    How about “French/Cheney 2024: Because being mediocre is what America needs.”

    • #12
  13. DonG (CAGW is a Scam) Coolidge
    DonG (CAGW is a Scam)
    @DonG

    True experts don’t censor opposing opinions.   What we have Lysenkoism–pseudo-scientific tyranny of the government “experts”.   It took the Soviets decades to recover from that scientific oppression. 

    That said, the Cheney’s are experts at monetizing their political influence.  Not a skill we need in our leaders.

    • #13
  14. Raxxalan Member
    Raxxalan
    @Raxxalan

    DonG (CAGW is a Scam) (View Comment):

    True experts don’t censor opposing opinions. What we have Lysenkoism–pseudo-scientific tyranny of the government “experts”. It took the Soviets decades to recover from that scientific oppression.

    That said, the Cheney’s are experts at monetizing their political influence. Not a skill we need in our leaders.

    Televised audits every year for members of congress.  If there is more than a 20% rise in income and automatic investigation for corruption.   I am only half joking.

     

    • #14
  15. Vince Guerra Member
    Vince Guerra
    @VinceGuerra

    Henry Racette: The best thing to come out of our two years with COVID is a general and growing skepticism of “experts.” We’ve been lied to, ineptly led, treated like children, ignored, censored, and told what’s good for us by people who think they know better than we do what’s good for us.

    It is one of the best things for sure.

    All of the best, most reliable experts I know never stop educating themselves because new information changes things. They follow the data and learn from experience, even mechanics and plumbers. The moment you get an expert who turns off his brain and starts listening to others instead of keeping up on the latest innovations and revelations you no longer have an expert; you’ve got a liability. 

    I believe it was in the book The Right Stuff (someone will correct me if I’m wrong) where a tale is told about an airplane mechanic who inadvertently caused a number of deaths because he was installing a critical part the way he always had on previous aircraft. This one had a different design but he thought he knew better and did it his way until they finally figured it out and stopped him.  

    • #15
  16. aardo vozz Member
    aardo vozz
    @aardovozz

    Raxxalan (View Comment):

    DonG (CAGW is a Scam) (View Comment):

    True experts don’t censor opposing opinions. What we have Lysenkoism–pseudo-scientific tyranny of the government “experts”. It took the Soviets decades to recover from that scientific oppression.

    That said, the Cheney’s are experts at monetizing their political influence. Not a skill we need in our leaders.

    Televised audits every year for members of congress. If there is more than a 20% rise in income and automatic investigation for corruption. I am only half joking.

     

    So only a 10% rise in income, then?🤔

    • #16
  17. TBA Coolidge
    TBA
    @RobtGilsdorf

    Steven Seward (View Comment):

    I saw a National Review headline this morning that said “Liz Cheney considers Presidential run in 2024.” I burst out laughing!

    It’s a trial lead balloon. 

    • #17
  18. Unsk Member
    Unsk
    @Unsk

    The Progressives have long wanted a government run by “Experts”, and they have largely succeeded  in establishing that order where  under the Chevron decision, the “experts” in our Federal Bureaucracy have been   given great power to overrule our elected officials and determine policy by themselves.

    DonG: “True experts don’t censor opposing opinions.  “

    Correctomundo.  True experts don’t censor opposing opinions because they are looking for the truth and know full well that few, even themselves,  have an monopoly on the truth so they will always seek other opinions.  Not like our sainted Government ” experts”.

    • #18
  19. GlennAmurgis Coolidge
    GlennAmurgis
    @GlennAmurgis

    our experts can’t define a woman, a recession or a raid

    • #19
  20. Douglas Pratt Coolidge
    Douglas Pratt
    @DouglasPratt

    GlennAmurgis (View Comment):

    our experts can’t define a woman, a recession or a raid

    Or rather, they want to force their definitions on the rest of us. If they control the language they control the debate.

    • #20
  21. Old Bathos Moderator
    Old Bathos
    @OldBathos

    Douglas Pratt (View Comment):

    GlennAmurgis (View Comment):

    our experts can’t define a woman, a recession or a raid

    Or rather, they want to force their definitions on the rest of us. If they control the language they control the debate.

    “Debate” is bourgeois false consciousness, comrade. How can the truth be “open” to anything other than acceptance or attack?

    • #21
  22. I Walton Member
    I Walton
    @IWalton

     There is a tendency to think their experts are wrong about a lot but our experts are not.  The issue isn’t expertise its power and narrowness.  The US is unfathomably complicated and intricate.  It cannot be known from the top, the middle or the bottom.   The reason the bottom worked so well is that folks there dealt with what was in front of them, what they were responsible for.  The top worried about defense, borders and the very few things that pertained to the US as a country that had to deal with other countries.      Our political system has given the top authority over domestic matters  it can not  know.  The folks in charge all over the place,  do what people do who pay attention can do, further their own interests.   We have forgotten why the founders did what they did which created the modern economy. Do folks think the world’s economy would have become so wealthy and diverse had the system not been bottom up and rooted in freedom?   Do they think it will remain that way when these idiots consolidate power in “experts” hands?

    • #22
  23. J Climacus Member
    J Climacus
    @JClimacus

    Socrates identified the problem thousands of years ago. The problem with experts isn’t that they don’t know anything, it is that they think they know many things they don’t, and are unable to distinguish what they truly know from what is merely their opinion.

    In recent circumstances, medical experts who knew something about how infectious diseases spread, thought that this made them experts in balancing the social, economic, political and moral factors involved in a comprehensive response to the pandemic. 

     

    • #23
  24. Raxxalan Member
    Raxxalan
    @Raxxalan

    aardo vozz (View Comment):

    Raxxalan (View Comment):

    DonG (CAGW is a Scam) (View Comment):

    True experts don’t censor opposing opinions. What we have Lysenkoism–pseudo-scientific tyranny of the government “experts”. It took the Soviets decades to recover from that scientific oppression.

    That said, the Cheney’s are experts at monetizing their political influence. Not a skill we need in our leaders.

    Televised audits every year for members of congress. If there is more than a 20% rise in income and automatic investigation for corruption. I am only half joking.

     

    So only a 10% rise in income, then?🤔

    The plan is a bit half baked at the moment I agree.  Probably needs more time in the oven.

    • #24
  25. Henry Racette Member
    Henry Racette
    @HenryRacette

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… (View Comment):
    Hank, I don’t think that the problem is with “experts” in principle

    I agree. What I applaud is the growing skepticism toward experts. I think skepticism in general is useful, and skepticism of intellectual authority particularly so.

    Old Bathos (View Comment):
    I don’t associate Liz Cheney’s shtick with the expert cult but it is consonant with the smarmy arrogance of the self-appointed elite.  

    Fair enough, but I think both spring from the same underlying idea: that there are those who both know better and speak from an elevated and privileged position which admits no challenge or debate.

    So the public health experts speak with such authority that to even ask questions is to fail to be a responsible citizen. The rabidly anti-Trump erstwhile conservatives occupy a moral high ground that frees them from having to rationally defend their antipathy: the man is simply unworthy of the office, and no cost/benefit analysis should be applied to efforts to prevent him from returning.

    In each case, the essential quality is one of innate superiority: they are correct and the matter is not debatable. Not by decent people, anyway, and not on platforms within the control of the intellectual authorities.

     

    • #25
  26. Raxxalan Member
    Raxxalan
    @Raxxalan

    Henry Racette (View Comment):
    In each case, the essential quality is one of innate superiority: they are correct and the matter is not debatable. Not by decent people, anyway, and not on platforms within the control of the intellectual authorities.

    More over to debate the matter is to risk being branded a heretic and excommunicated from society.  That is what the essence of cancel culture is.

    • #26
  27. Unsk Member
    Unsk
    @Unsk

    Glenn:

    our experts can’t define a woman, a recession or a raid

    But Glen, don’t you know that is a feature not a bug. This vagueness/ purposeful lack of precision and honesty  can be used at appropriate times you see, particularly when necessary to protect our betters. 

    • #27
  28. RufusRJones Member
    RufusRJones
    @RufusRJones

    Old Bathos (View Comment):

    I don’t associate Liz Cheney’s shtick with the expert cult but it is consonant with the smarmy arrogance of the self-appointed elite.

    The rulers have lost touch not just with the people but with the animating principles of good government–fiscal responsibility, humility and defending and implementing the values of culture of the American people, not contempt for and forceful attempts to replace those values.

    A soft landing at a big law firm, a media gig, or a seat on a corporate board is reserved for those who successfully espouse and promote the new anti-populist dogmas.

    Experts have a clerical role by providing the official lie that all of this is consonant with science and cleverness which, by definition, are good for you.

    We central plan too many things and this class of people either doesn’t care for the reasons you stated, use it steal from everybody else, or just averts their eyes because they don’t want to believe it. They all know each other. It’s integrated comprehensively into their lifestyle.

    • #28
  29. RufusRJones Member
    RufusRJones
    @RufusRJones

    Douglas Pratt (View Comment):

    This is what happens when you make politics your religion. When your basic definitions of what is right and wrong depend on politics, “truth” becomes “whatever works.” So you can contradict yourself, you can invent “facts,” you can ignore things right in front of you, because all that matters is that it accomplishes what you want.

    I can deal with someone whose belief structure is different from mine, because they have such a structure. There is no dealing with moral relativism. No way to work with them, no way to even communicate. Certainly no way to convince them that they are wrong. They never even consider that alternative.

    It doesn’t work. They don’t want to admit it. So then they do more. Repeat. All of their friends think like this. Their living depends on it. Etc.

    • #29
  30. No Caesar Thatcher
    No Caesar
    @NoCaesar

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… (View Comment):

    Hank, I don’t think that the problem is with “experts” in principle, though I’m not fond of the idea of someone being an “expert” in the area of morality. “Elder” is probably a better term.

    I think that the problem is that many of the “experts” that we have are wrong. They seem to have terrible ideas.

    We need to be listening to the best among us, I think. The difficulty is in identifying them. We do not have anything like a moral consensus in our country. Trump wasn’t, and isn’t, a very admirable character himself, though he has some admirable traits, and at least he seems to be fighting the bad folks on some fronts.

    In the absence of a moral consensus, the default seems to be a gradual libertarian descent into Sodom and Gomorrah, coupled with a failure to have enough children to perpetuate ourselves. (I know that you and I both did our part, but as a matter of demographics, we’re no longer having enough kids.)

    A true expert is always on the look out for being wrong, and is prepared to change conclusions if the facts no longer support a prior position.  It is good marker when an expert admits “I don’t know” to a question, or when they outline the strengths of contrary conclusions.  Someone who tries to muffle contrary viewpoints is the definition of insecure, and is not reliable or trustworthy (whether or not they claim expertise).  

    • #30
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.