Dysfunctional public intellectuals

Two instance of the mainstream media being willfully blind.  The first is reported from Why Did New Zealand's PM Call It Quits? by Bari Weiss.

Could there have been a more perfect avatar of Davos-progressivism than New Zealand’s Jacinda Ardern? There she was—the youngest woman on the world stage, and pretty to boot. When she brought her three-month-old to the UN General Assembly, the press went wild. 

Outside of New Zealand, the press loved everything Ardern. Her handsome fiance. Her fashion sense. The fact that she was the first Kiwi PM to march in a gay pride parade.

“Lady of the Rings: Jacinda Rules,” declared Maureen Dowd of The New York Times. 

Vogue crowned her the “anti-Trump.” 

But while the leader was beloved by elite Americans, the warm feeling didn’t extend to her own citizens. The most recent polls out of New Zealand saw Ardern’s Labor Party approval ratings in the low thirties.

Facing the prospect of a devastating election in October, Ardern pulled the plug. Last week, she resigned.

“I know there will be much discussion in the aftermath of this decision as to what the so-called ‘real’ reason was,” said Ardern. “I can tell you that what I am sharing today is it.”

The reason? “I know what this job takes, and I know that I no longer have enough in the tank to do it justice.”

The Washington Post chalked the whole thing up to sexism. “Sexism dogged Jacinda Ardern’s tenure. Battling it is part of her legacy.”

Never mind that New Zealand implemented some of the most draconian Covid policies in the world outside China. Or that there is growing gang violence in the country. Or that inflation there is at 7.2 percent.

A politician who savages their own citizenry to the widespread dissatisfaction of said citizenry chooses to step down before being rejected by the voters.  It is an old tale.  In fact, it is the very essence of democracy.  Citizens remove politicians for bad results all the time.  For the Washington Post to ascribe this to sexism is incredible.  The citizens of New Zealand were not sexists when they elected her but are now sexists when they reject her demonstrated governance?  

That's not sexism you putz.  That's democratic accountability.  They hoped for more from her and she failed to deliver.  End of story.  Trying to ascribe that to sexism is either illogical or ideological fanaticism or both.

Similarly, there is a second example from You can't make it up by Noah Carl.  

These days, once-great academic institutions are fond of commissioning long reports into their historical “links” with slavery, racism and/or eugenics. When the report inevitably finds that such “links” exist and are very concerning, the institution issues a statement denouncing itself and promising to “do better”.

The latest example of an academic institution partaking in this ritual is the American Society of Human Genetics – publisher of the prestigious American Journal of Human Genetics.

On Tuesday, the ASHG released a lengthy report titled ‘Facing Our History – Building an Equitable Future Initiative’. The report was accompanied by the usual statement in which the institution “acknowledges and apologizes, deeply and sincerely, for the participation of some ASHG founders, past presidents, and other leaders in promoting eugenic ideals that harmed people of minoritized groups”.

Poor black people in inner cities who’re scared to leave their homes because violent criminals roam the streets can finally rest easy: an institution they’ve never heard of issued a statement they’ll never read! These statements aren’t about helping black people, of course. They’re about keeping activists off the backs of scientists, and making work for people with degrees in critical race theory.

Anyway, one paragraph in the statement did catch my eye. It outlines some of the “challenges” facing human genetics, one of which is “denouncing the warping of science for advocacy agendas”. Here, they’re presumably referring to the misuse of science to justify racism and eugenics.

What’s remarkable, though, is that the very same paragraph includes this sentence: “ASHG encourages individual members, peer societies, academic centers, agencies, industry partners, and others to reflect on how everyone’s contributions will help foster inclusive equity agendas.”

Screenshot of the ASHG statement.

So on the one hand, we must denounce the “warping of science for advocacy agendas”. But on the other, we must “help foster inclusive equity agendas”. You can’t make it up! They even managed to use the same word “agenda” in both places.

These are our dysfunctional pundits.

Electing a woman as Prime Minister is admirable but rejecting her for her failed policies is sexism.   ASHG wants to avoid advocacy agendas but enthusiastically supports a specific advocacy agenda.  Universities support free speech but not speech of which they disapprove.

Were we to get rid of all mainstream media reporters and pundits, all academia except those who teach or research in fields that pay above the national average, and all bureaucrats other than those who are accountable directly to Congress - just imagine how efficient, effective, and prosperous this nation would be.