{"id":329,"date":"2024-06-18T02:24:26","date_gmt":"2024-06-18T02:24:26","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.sterlingcooper.info\/blog\/?p=329"},"modified":"2024-06-18T02:24:26","modified_gmt":"2024-06-18T02:24:26","slug":"biden-administration-laments-that-the-experts-who-are-running-the-country-will-be-fired-if-trump-wins","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.sterlingcooper.info\/blog\/biden-administration-laments-that-the-experts-who-are-running-the-country-will-be-fired-if-trump-wins\/","title":{"rendered":"BIDEN ADMINISTRATION LAMENTS THAT THE EXPERTS WHO ARE RUNNING THE COUNTRY WILL BE FIRED IF TRUMP WINS…"},"content":{"rendered":"

ONLY DEMOCRATS AND THEIR EXPERTS CAN BE RELIED UPON TO RUN THE COUNTRY CLAIMS THE CURRENT CROP OF EXPERTS!<\/p>\n

Washington Post Warning: If Trump Wins, We\u2019ll No Longer Have the \u201cExperts\u201d in Charge<\/h1>\n

Like the weirdos appointed by the Biden administration…?<\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/span><\/div>\n
\"WaPo
<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n
\n
\n
\n
<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\u201cI would rather be governed by the first 2,000 people in the telephone directory,\u201d wrote the late William F. Buckley in 1961, \u201cthan by the Harvard University faculty.\u201d It might be wise bearing this in mind in light of the warning just issued by The Washington Post<\/em>:<\/p>\n

If Trump is reelected, states the paper\u2019s Karen Tumulty, he\u2019s going to rob us of \u201cHarvard-faculty governance.\u201d<\/p>\n

That\u2019s putting it figuratively, of course. What Tumulty actually wrote is that Trump would \u201creplace the professionalized civil service of today\u201d with \u201ca government of amateurs.\u201d<\/p>\n

In a Monday piece titled \u201cTrump wants a government of amateurs \u2014 accountable only to him,\u201d the philosophically tumultuous Tumulty opines<\/a>:<\/p>\n

Give him this: He has made no secret of his intention to kick over a host of institutions with that vision in mind if voters decide to give him a do-over in the White House. One plan that hasn\u2019t gotten nearly enough attention, however, is Trump\u2019s desire to replace the professionalized civil service of today with his own version of the 19th-century \u201cspoils system.\u201d<\/p>\n

He\u2019s already tried. Near the end of his presidency, Trump issued an executive order making it possible for him to fire tens of thousands of civil servants in policy making positions and to install political allies in their places. It was to be done through a newly created status known as \u201cSchedule F.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u2026 Trump would move quickly to reinstate Schedule F \u2014 and, no doubt, broaden it \u2014 if he is reelected.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Of course, another way of saying \u201ckick over a host of institutions\u201d is \u201cdrain the swamp\u201d \u2014 which is precisely what many voters want<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Moreover, Tumulty\u2019s claim is comical, notes commentator Jack Hellner. \u201cI am having trouble locating the principled professionals hired by Biden,\u201d he wrote<\/a> Wednesday, \u201cwho also disagree with Biden and his radical policies, because as I see it, Biden hires are the epitome of \u2018political allies.\u2019\u201d For sure \u2014 they operate as a hive mind.<\/p>\n

But Tumulty isn\u2019t alone in revving up the laugh meter. In a Politico<\/em> \u201cPlaybook\u201d interview last weekend that Hellner quips could pass for a Babylon Bee piece, Kamala Harris criticized Trump<\/a> for selecting running-mate short-list choices who all support him and his policies. My, what a radical. She claimed Trump just wanted an \u201cenabler.\u201d<\/p>\n

Of course, the immediate question to Harris from a conscientious media would\u2019ve been: \u201cIf that\u2019s how it\u2019s meant to be, would you please name a few issues or policies on which you disagree with Joe Biden?\u201d<\/p>\n

She would\u2019ve stammered and sputtered worse than journalist Francesca Fiorentini did recently when pressed to explain<\/a> what \u201ccrime\u201d Trump was convicted of in New York.<\/p>\n

Mentioning that appointing people who\u2019ll advance your agenda is what all<\/em> presidents do, Hellner went on to illustrate<\/a> that dissent is wholly absent in the Biden administration. This is obvious, though. More interesting is a deeper issue.<\/p>\n

That is, what does \u201cprofessionalism\u201d or \u201cexpert\u201d status really denote?<\/p>\n

Being a \u201cprofessional\u201d simply means that a person does something as a profession<\/em>; it doesn\u2019t guarantee competence. Why, in the early days of golf and tennis, for instance, the \u201camateurs\u201d often surpassed the \u201cpros\u201d (e.g., Bobby Jones in golf).<\/p>\n

Of course, we\u2019d hope that doing something as a career would yield true expertise, but is this always so?<\/p>\n

Question: How many Supreme Court decisions are 5-4? Many. So while all nine justices are supposedly juridical experts extraordinaire, in some cases they\u2019re split as close to 50-50 as possible.<\/p>\n

Will the real experts please stand up?<\/p>\n

This isn\u2019t unusual. On many if not most issues \u2014 and all <\/em>controversial ones \u2014 you\u2019ll find \u201cexperts\u201d on both sides. The only exception is when the issue has more than two sides; then there are experts on all of them. To which \u201cexperts\u201d do you listen?<\/p>\n

Making this determination even more difficult is that even brilliance doesn\u2019t immunize one against gross error. Just consider that \u201cAlbert Einstein predicted: \u2018There is not the slightest indication that nuclear energy will ever be obtainable. It would mean that the atom would have to be shattered at will,\u2019\u201d related<\/a> late Professor Walter E. Williams in 2017.<\/p>\n

\u201cIn 1899, Charles H. Duell, the U.S. commissioner of patents, said, \u2018Everything that can be invented has been invented,\u2019\u201d Williams continued. \u201cListening to its experts in 1936, The New York Times predicted, \u2018A rocket will never be able to leave the Earth\u2019s atmosphere.\u2019\u201d (Williams provided numerous other examples<\/a>, too.)<\/p>\n

Experts become more errant still when government gets involved. As Williams\u2019 college mentor, economist Milton Friedman, pointed out when contrasting the market with top-down control, government hires are appointed based on \u201cpolitical self-interest.\u201d Ergo<\/em>, keeping their jobs depends on deferring to political imperatives, not expertise-oriented ones.<\/p>\n

A good example is Covid, about which government \u201cexperts\u201d \u2014 whose prescriptions were most errant \u2014 routinely contradicted private-sector experts. Epidemiologist Knut Wittkowski explained the disagreement<\/a> simply in 2020. \u201cWell, I\u2019m not paid by the government,\u201d he said, \u201cso I\u2019m entitled to actually do science.\u201d<\/p>\n

As for Biden\u2019s \u201cexperts,\u201d what have they wrought? A short list:<\/p>\n