The ignorant self-anointed make the case that the self-anointed are ignorant

I just mentioned some new research on the Washington, D.C. bureaucracy in a post, Article I, Section 9, Clause 8.

Here is further information from the Washington Post in Washington’s ‘governing elite’ think Americans are morons by Jeff Guo. As I mentioned in my earlier post, the sample size was too small (and not randomized) to be reliable. At best, the study is possibly indicative rather than at all conclusive.

Guo includes more of the data from the survey. The results for how bureaucrats assess the knowledge of the citizens they serve.

Click to enlarge

How much bureaucrats think they should take into account the views of citizens.

Click to enlarge

I am enough of a technocrat to believe that matters of empirical reality are not subject to democratic resolution. Reminds me of Boswell's account of Johnson's refutation of the Bishop's passionately fashionable conviction in immaterialism.

After we came out of the church, we stood talking for some time together of Bishop Berkeley's ingenious sophistry to prove the non-existence of matter, and that every thing in the universe is merely ideal. I observed, that though we are satisfied his doctrine is not true, it is impossible to refute it. I never shall forget the alacrity with which Johnson answered, striking his foot with mighty force against a large stone, till he rebounded from it, 'I refute it THUS.'

Boswell's Life of Samuel Johnson by James Boswell

It is amusing to see Guo, a member of the Washington, D.C. elite, illustrate the researcher's point that the self-anointed are proof against self-comprehension. He observes:

A lot of this elitism is probably justifiable. When only 36 percent of adults can name the three branches of government, you wouldn’t want to hand over control of FDA to, say, your next-door neighbor. In the sample of bureaucrats that Bachner and Ginsberg looked at, the majority had master’s degrees or more. It should be a comfort knowing that there exists a specialized class of people who have dedicated their lives to understanding the intricacies of, say, tax credits for the poor or the diplomatic intrigues of the Caucasus.

Bachner and Ginsberg don’t dispute that many voters are ignorant. In their view, however, D.C. insiders are needlessly disdainful of the regular Americans they are supposed to be helping and that this breeds distrust on both sides. Perhaps that’s one reason, they say, that American faith in government is at a 50-year low.

“Ordinary folk might not know a lot, but that’s not an excuse to ignore them,” Ginsberg said in a recent phone interview.

Suitably imbued with the Reform Marxist view that the elite, the vanguard, should be in charge, Guo's response to the research is the self-serving conclusion that the elitism is justified because the peasants are indeed ignorant. Reminds me of William Buckley's opinion:

I am obliged to confess I should sooner live in a society governed by the first two thousand names in the Boston telephone directory than in a society governed by the two thousand faculty members of Harvard University.

Indeed.

The Reform Marxist wishes to exercise power and justifies their own desire by denigrating the abilities of their fellow citizen. See the comments to Guo's article to realize that Guo's view is shared by his readers, the self-same Washington elite being criticized in the research. The patrician Buckley hews closer to the American ideal by his expression of the very American sentiment that we are all unbound potential that should not be shackled by mere credentialism.

Guo places his sentiments and sympathy with the Washington elite. Reform Marxists believe the vanguard are the experts who can make better decisions for everyone else. Regrettably for Reform Marxists, the self-regard for credentialism and expertise is ill-grounded. The research shows that a group of informed participants will always outperform individual experts. Individual experts know more about the narrow subject but the broader participants have a better knowledge of the entire context.

Poor old Guo ends his article in a fashion, were anyone outside of the beltway to read it, to inspire further outrage and contempt.

When I spoke to Bachner and Ginsberg over the phone, I asked them if they might be over-interpreting their survey results. Did the data really show that bureaucrats harbored “utter contempt for the citizens they served”? Could it simply be that bureaucrats hold an accurately low opinion of the public’s expertise on policy matters?

Perhaps, they responded, but that still doesn't give bureaucrats license to ignore the public’s sentiments.

Fair enough. But respect, as the saying goes, is a two-way street, and Americans have a long and ignoble tradition of denigrating expertise. Today, nearly 40 percent of adults think there isn’t evidence for global warming. Skeptical parents won't vaccinate their children, endangering their communities with breakouts of preventable diseases like measles. So maybe we can make a deal. If we want experts to listen to our opinions, we might also do them the courtesy of sometimes listening to their opinions, too.

Guo's rejection of the research is based on the opinion that the peasants should respect their betters in Washington. The self-anointed vanguard of totalitarian betters indeed. Tar and feathers seems like the time honored response.