A recent editorial from the Post Editorial Board discusses comments made by U. S. Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. She suggested that "nonpartisan experts" should control significant areas of the federal government, sidelining elected officials. This perspective raises questions about democracy and the role of experts in governance.
1. Jackson's Argument: Justice Jackson believes that experts, distinguished by their credentials, should make critical decisions in place of elected officials, whom she perceives as less knowledgeable.
2. Constitutional Foundation: The U. S. Constitution assigns the president authority over the Executive Branch to execute laws and appoint officials. This design ensures checks and balances with other government branches, preventing any single branch from having unchecked power.
3. Critique of 'Experts': The editorial argues that relying on “nonpartisan experts” can undermine democracy. Elitism, it contends, often leads to decisions made by unelected individuals, creating what is referred to as an "administrative state"—a group of bureaucrats who operate without public accountability.
4. Historical Context: The piece mentions that progressives, dating back to President Woodrow Wilson, have favored bypassing traditional checks and balances to allow government intervention, framing their actions as beneficial for the populace.
5. Concerns Over Groupthink: The editorial warns that decisions made by these experts may not reflect public will and could be influenced by biases, creating potential groupthink. It emphasizes that democracy is rooted in elections and the people's voice, rather than in the judgment of a select few.
6. Reflection on Past Decisions: It references the recent COVID-19 pandemic as an example where expert opinions varied significantly, pointing to the risk of placing absolute trust in credentials without scrutiny.
The editorial argues that America was designed to be governed by its citizens through democracy, not by an elite group of experts. It calls for a focus on the electorate’s will rather than deferring to a so-called “priestly caste” of educated individuals in power. This debate is crucial in considering the future of governance in the United States.
No comments:
Post a Comment