Review: The Death of Expertise

Yesterday I finished Tom Nichols’ quick read, The Death of Expertise. In a nutshell:

Americans have reached a point where ignorance, especially of anything related to public policy, is an actual virtue. To reject the advice of experts is to assert autonomy, a way for Americans to insulate their increasingly fragile egos from ever being told they’re wrong about anything.

Immediately coming to mind after reading that excerpt was images of Sean Hannity and other commentators  railing against “snowflakes,” a pejorative term for millennials that demand “safe spaces” and recognition of their value. In fact, Nichols devotes an entire chapter to higher education, noting that students are increasingly rude to professors, increasingly less deferential now that education has become a business and the customer is always right – even when the customer is clearly, factually, and undeniably incorrect. Most institutions of higher learning now give out As and Bs to 80% of the students in any given class.

Although conservatives are usually quick to point out the disturbing consequences of this failure of higher education, an area dominated by liberal thinkers, Nichols ideologically balanced in his arguments against anti-intellectualism. He blames talk radio hosts like Rush Limbaugh for only featuring single viewpoints, and even screening callers to ensure that there will be no on-air debating. Nichols also targets President Trump, who has promoted misconceptions about vaccination and President Obama’s birth place.

Regardless of who is to blame for the tension between intellectual elites and the larger populace, the mutual contempt could spell disaster for the American republic, which relies on an informed citizenry.  Although Nichols fears that an economic collapse or natural disaster may be necessary to bring these warring groups together, he does provide a roadmap for going forward. Nichols implores the general citizenry to take the time to consider expert opinions, for example, and directs experts not to withdraw into their proverbial ivory towers.

Given that every American bears responsibility to the republic, this book is worth a read.

9780190469412.jpeg

Review: Between the World and Me

Ta-Nehisi Coates’ Between the World and Me is quite possibly one of the most demoralizing works I’ve ever read. This feeling is driven home even farther when considering that the book is written as a letter to Coates’ 15-year-old (at the time of its writing) son. Ouch!

I picked up the book for two reasons. First, it’s been on the New York Times Bestseller List for quite a while, and I was sick of looking at it without having read it. Second, I’m always interested in hearing other perspectives, and Coates has a significant reputation as a voice in the black community.

Coates does have an interesting perspective on race. For starters, he writes that “race is a child of racism, not the father.” In other words, race is a classification artificially manufactured by humans, rather than reflecting any meaningful distinctions. Nevertheless, Coates recognizes that black people have formed a community; it is diverse, but black people have come to identify with one another as a result of the oppressive American sorting system.

However, Coates begins to lose me when he begins decrying the education system as a tool of oppression, “a jail of other people’s interests.” To many, including many people with disabilities who have also suffered oppression, education has provided a path to economic freedom and upward mobility. Coates never really answers challenges such as this, except for saying that the individual intentions of educators should be forgotten: “What any institution, or its agents, ‘intend’ for you is secondary.” Later he writes that his “classroom was a jail of other people’s interests.” What a great thing to tell a teenager…

Coates continually engages hypocritical thinking Although he writes that he “raised [his son] to respect every human being has singular,” he refuses to respect individuals, such as the teachers described above or the police officer that shot his friend. Instead, he considers them tools of an oppressive system that cares only about promoting the American Dream. Throughout the book, Coates lovingly discusses past girlfriends, his wife, son is, and friends. But he refuses to grant individual white people the benefit of the doubt or to even view them as individual actors rather than “majoritarian pigs” in some diabolical system of systemic oppression.

Don’t get me wrong – Coates has ample reason to be upset about the way America has treated black people. Beyond slavery and sins of the past, America still makes it difficult for black people to find things like affordable and accessible housing. There are prejudices built into the system. However, unlike Coates, I haven’t given up on trying to improve the system. He tells his son, “Perhaps one person can make a change, but not the kind of change that would raise your body to equality with your countrymen.”  That statement sickens me, as does Coates’ Jeremiah Wright-like reaction to 9/11. I still believe in my country, in all of its people.

Review: Reflections on the Revolution in Europe

Christopher Caldwell’s Reflections on the Revolution in Europe: Immigration, Islam, and the West isn’t a new book, but it’s one that I’m glad I picked up. In fact, the 2010 tome sheds important light on why Britons Brexited and Donald Trump is the United States’ next president.

41mlrai4zll-_sx323_bo1204203200_

Caldwell suggests that when European nations began guest worker programs in the post-World War II era, they situated themselves, unknowingly, to become “a continent of migrants.” At the time of its writing, the book claims that of 375 million residents of Western Europe, approximately 40 million non-natives are domiciled in the region. Many of these migrants come from Islamic cultures. This is notable, in that “the Islamic and the Christian worlds have opposed one another, violently at times,” for more than a millennium. The book considers whether Europeans and Islamic immigrants can live together peacefully in the years to come, as well as contemporary socio-political circumstances.

According to Caldwell, less than one-fifth of Europeans believe immigration has had positive results for their nations. Before the reader write Caldwell and his fellow Europeans off as racist, xenophobic, or Islamophobic, it is enlightening to objectively consider immigration’s net effects. Caldwell’s book offers that objective analysis.

Indeed, civil liberties have been restricted for all Europeans in the wake of mass immigration. As authorities have placed radical mosques under surveillance, governing bodies have rolled back privacy rights for all Europeans so as not to viewed as singling out those of a particular religion. (Again, no one wants to be considered a “hater” or “Islamophobe.”) To keep from being overwhelmed by the outcome of family reunification programs (noting that practitioners of the Islamic faith traditionally have far, far higher birth rates than those of generally-secular Europeans), Denmark made it increasingly difficult to gain Danish citizenship, making it tough for even for a native Dane to get citizenship for a foreign spouse.

Although some – Caldwell cites European elites, and I’d cite Hillary Clinton in her latest attempt at becoming president – argue that immigrants bring benefits, particularly in economic form, to their home countries, this has been questionable – at least in Europe’s case. Caldwell writes: “Instead of using their benefits to pay for say, food, [immigrants] may use them to pay for, say, Islam. Two-thirds of French imams are on welfare.” Eventually, Europeans determined that immigrants were threatening the sustainability of their welfare economies.

The result was that elites began couching immigration in terms of moral imperatives. We hear something similar in the United States when people claim we have a moral obligation to admit Syrian refugees. The trouble with arguing that the admission of refugees is a moral imperative means that one cannot pick and choose among those asylum-seekers with the best credentials; one is morally obligated to accept all in need, or at least those in the greatest need (i.e., those worst off). It also means that many of the refugees admitted into Western countries are Islamic. “For Europe, the biggest nearby humanitarian catastrophes and the bloodiest nearby wars were either in the Muslim world (Iran, Iraq, Somalia, Eastern Turkey) or on its borders (the former Yugoslavia).” Further, these people are moving to their new land not to do, but to be. This dynamic has created a situation in which immigrants are coming in great numbers – in entire communities. Rather than assimilation, these many communities coexist within their own subculture.

The next two sections of the book – which I won’t spoil for you here – address Islamic and Western culture. Caldwell tackles difficult questions that make Westerners squeamish, including: Is Islam a peaceful religion? Is tolerance beneficial for its practitioners? Is Western culture in decline? Is Islam more sustainable and attractive than Western culture? I found Caldwell’s analysis truly helpful and balanced. Given that “the clash of cultures” is likely to be a hot topic in 2017, I highly recommend this book!

Review: Crisis of Character

I recently read Gary Byrne’s Crisis of Character: A White House Secret Service Officer Discloses His Firsthand Experience with Hillary, Bill, and How They Operate. I thought I was in for some exciting red meat-style dishing about political scandal. Although a part of the book told tales about Bill’s dalliances with White House staff, it wasn’t what I was expecting. In fact, the book only made fleeting references to Hillary giving Bill a black eye during an argument and mistreating administration staffers.51uz1Izzz5L._SX329_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg

Instead, a much larger portion of the book focuses on the Department of Justice (DOJ) forcing the author to testify during the impeachment situation. Apparently the author is no fan of the DOJ nor even the Secret Service, which wasn’t particularly helpful in advising Byrne when his career was on the line.

The book is basically an autobiography of the years Byrne served his country in the Air Force, Secret Service, and eventually as an air marshal. He frequently discussed the ineptitude of bureaucrats, and suggested that middle management positions are rarely awarded on the basis of merit. Moreover, he shared scary anecdotes about how management repeatedly lowered standards for those serving as protectors of the American people in the interest of political correctness or laziness.

If you are looking for a book that bashes the Clinton Machine, other books are probably better suited to that end. However, if you are looking for an insider’s perspective on federal bureaucracy and service, this book is worth a read.

The Left Advocates Discrimination on Basis of Disability

Last week Indiana Governor Mike Pence signed House Enrolled Act 1337 into law. Pro-abortion advocates on the left instantly began howling that Pence, a cold-hearted Republican, is encroaching on women’s rights. However, many of the same advocates refused to acknowledge that the Act forbids discrimination on the basis of disability. Indiana Code 16-31-2-1.1(1)(K) now provides:

That Indiana does not allow a fetus to be aborted solely because of the fetus’s race, color, national origin, ancestry, sex, or diagnosis or any potential diagnosis of the fetus having Down syndrome or any other disability.

Those on the left argue that Pence and fellow Republicans are using these protected classes to further their agenda, without actually caring for members of those classes. To their credit, I don’t know that parents traditionally opt for abortion based on factors like ancestry. However, mothers do regularly abort fetuses with diagnosed disability.

The numbers are startling. For example, 87% of fetuses diagnosed with Down syndrome are aborted.  Another site puts the number at 92%.  If this is not obvious discrimination against the disability community, I don’t know what is. And I am horrified that local disability organizations are more interested in pushing a liberal agenda then celebrating steps taken by the General Assembly to reject eugenic ideals.

Many expect that the new law will not stand up to judicial scrutiny. We shall see.  But I am jubilant that Indiana, the first state to adopt eugenics laws, is now on the forefront of protecting disabled fetuses. (I’m experiencing a bit of schadenfreude, too, now that liberals have been cornered into choosing which traditional voting block – e.g., fertile women or people with disabilities – to which they will pander.)