• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

How America Stopped Trusting the Experts (1 Viewer)

NWRatCon

Eco**Social Marketeer
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 6, 2019
Messages
31,745
Reaction score
31,673
Location
PNW
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other

How America Stopped Trusting the Experts (Atlantic, gift article)​

This is the interview of Tom Nichols, author of The Death of Expertise: The Campaign Against Established Knowledge and Why It Matters. An excerpt, also gifted, is here.

I think this phenomenon is extremely important to the health of the nation and, like medicine, a vaccination against suspicion is in order. Skepticism is natural, and should be a conservative's approach, but outright rejection is not a conservative value.

Consider the appointment of a vaccine skeptic to be Florida's Surgeon General, and the damage he has done, not just to Florida, but to the nation, by his promotion of vaccine rejection.

Measles spread to at least 3 other states after trips to Florida (CBS)​

"The U.S. recently marked an unwanted milestone in this year's measles surge, with more cases in the first three months of 2024 than in all of 2023.

The CDC says cases have also been reported in Arizona, California, Georgia, Illinois, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New Jersey, New York City, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Washington.

Among measles infections reported so far this year, the CDC said March 18 that 93% had been linked to travel outside of the country."
 
Now, back to Nichols. From the interview: "we didn’t see COVID coming, or the way that the pandemic deepened the crisis of trust in knowledge. In the book, and in presentations I would give over the years, I predicted that a crisis would probably alleviate some of this problem as people turned to science for answers and help, and I was wrong. So I thought it was important to look at the past few years more carefully and ask why things got worse.

Isabel: You write in the excerpt that “when the coronavirus arrived, a significant number of Americans were already primed by the media, their political leaders, and their own stubborn narcissism to reject expert advice during a crisis.” When do you think America’s faith in experts began to plummet?

Tom: It’s almost a cliché to haul off easy answers and say “Vietnam and Watergate,” but even clichés contain some truth. It really is the case that the crisis of expertise began in the early 1970s, for several reasons. The misconduct of a president and several executive-branch agencies produced a feeling that U.S. institutions were no longer led by wise people. And a war that we couldn’t seem to win had a profound effect on trust and social cohesion."

And from his book: "Experts hate to be wrong. When I first started writing about the public’s hostility toward expertise and established knowledge more than a decade ago, I predicted that any number of crises—including a pandemic—might be the moment that snaps the public back to its senses. I was wrong. I didn’t foresee how some citizens and their leaders would respond to the cycle of advances and setbacks in the scientific process and to the inevitable limitations of human experts.

The coronavirus pandemic, in particular, would prove the perfect crucible for accelerating the decline of faith in experts. Paranoia and appeals to ignorance have long been part of the American political environment, but they were especially destructive at a time when the U.S. was riven by partisan hostility. The pandemic struck at multiple political and cultural weaknesses within the edifice of American life: A mysterious disease—from China, no less, a nation that typically serves as a source of American anxiety—forced citizens to rely on the media, including outlets that many of them already distrusted, for scattered pieces of information from white-jacketed experts and relatively unknown government officials.

Many elected leaders, especially at the national level, failed in fact to lead. The dysfunction of President Donald Trump’s administration, on COVID-19 and on so many other issues, has been amply documented in numerous books and articles. Despite the undeniable success of Operation Warp Speed, the government’s crash program to work with private industry to develop a vaccine in record time, Trump and his people have much to answer for—including the hesitancy they engendered among Americans to take the very vaccines that his administration helped develop.

The road to America’s pandemic meltdown, however, did not begin with Trump. When the coronavirus arrived, a significant number of Americans were already primed by the media, their political leaders, and their own stubborn narcissism to reject expert advice during a crisis. The collapse of gatekeeping authority in the media, the explosion of worthless online sources, the emergence of celebrity pseudo-experts, and the unwarranted self-confidence of millions of people who believed that they could simply “do their own research,” as the internet mantra has it, all combined to make a brutal outbreak of disease even more deadly."
 

How America Stopped Trusting the Experts (Atlantic, gift article)​

This is the interview of Tom Nichols, author of The Death of Expertise: The Campaign Against Established Knowledge and Why It Matters. An excerpt, also gifted, is here.

I think this phenomenon is extremely important to the health of the nation and, like medicine, a vaccination against suspicion is in order. Skepticism is natural, and should be a conservative's approach, but outright rejection is not a conservative value.

Consider the appointment of a vaccine skeptic to be Florida's Surgeon General, and the damage he has done, not just to Florida, but to the nation, by his promotion of vaccine rejection.

Measles spread to at least 3 other states after trips to Florida (CBS)​

"The U.S. recently marked an unwanted milestone in this year's measles surge, with more cases in the first three months of 2024 than in all of 2023.

The CDC says cases have also been reported in Arizona, California, Georgia, Illinois, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New Jersey, New York City, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Washington.

Among measles infections reported so far this year, the CDC said March 18 that 93% had been linked to travel outside of the country."
Not trusting experts is one of the dumbest stages of modern America.....................no wonder so many Darwin Awards were given recently....
 
Why are experts always surprised?
 
30 years of Rush Limabugh telling people that any news he didn't approve of was lying.
It wasn't just him alone, there were a bunch of different commentators like that. Still are, for that matter.

He was probably the flagship, if there was any such organization involved.
 
Fauci and WHO was not only wrong on Covid but actually lied on aspects of it. Another lie was the Hunter laptop was Russian disinformation by 51 former intel officers. Who were also wrong on weapons of mass destruction starting the Gulf war. Also lies by FBI on the fake Russian disinformation for the FISA warrants. No wonder we don’t trust these so called experts.
 
Now, back to Nichols. From the interview: "we didn’t see COVID coming, or the way that the pandemic deepened the crisis of trust in knowledge. In the book, and in presentations I would give over the years, I predicted that a crisis would probably alleviate some of this problem as people turned to science for answers and help, and I was wrong. So I thought it was important to look at the past few years more carefully and ask why things got worse.

Isabel: You write in the excerpt that “when the coronavirus arrived, a significant number of Americans were already primed by the media, their political leaders, and their own stubborn narcissism to reject expert advice during a crisis.” When do you think America’s faith in experts began to plummet?

Tom: It’s almost a cliché to haul off easy answers and say “Vietnam and Watergate,” but even clichés contain some truth. It really is the case that the crisis of expertise began in the early 1970s, for several reasons. The misconduct of a president and several executive-branch agencies produced a feeling that U.S. institutions were no longer led by wise people. And a war that we couldn’t seem to win had a profound effect on trust and social cohesion."

And from his book: "Experts hate to be wrong. When I first started writing about the public’s hostility toward expertise and established knowledge more than a decade ago, I predicted that any number of crises—including a pandemic—might be the moment that snaps the public back to its senses. I was wrong. I didn’t foresee how some citizens and their leaders would respond to the cycle of advances and setbacks in the scientific process and to the inevitable limitations of human experts.

The coronavirus pandemic, in particular, would prove the perfect crucible for accelerating the decline of faith in experts. Paranoia and appeals to ignorance have long been part of the American political environment, but they were especially destructive at a time when the U.S. was riven by partisan hostility. The pandemic struck at multiple political and cultural weaknesses within the edifice of American life: A mysterious disease—from China, no less, a nation that typically serves as a source of American anxiety—forced citizens to rely on the media, including outlets that many of them already distrusted, for scattered pieces of information from white-jacketed experts and relatively unknown government officials.

Many elected leaders, especially at the national level, failed in fact to lead. The dysfunction of President Donald Trump’s administration, on COVID-19 and on so many other issues, has been amply documented in numerous books and articles. Despite the undeniable success of Operation Warp Speed, the government’s crash program to work with private industry to develop a vaccine in record time, Trump and his people have much to answer for—including the hesitancy they engendered among Americans to take the very vaccines that his administration helped develop.

The road to America’s pandemic meltdown, however, did not begin with Trump. When the coronavirus arrived, a significant number of Americans were already primed by the media, their political leaders, and their own stubborn narcissism to reject expert advice during a crisis. The collapse of gatekeeping authority in the media, the explosion of worthless online sources, the emergence of celebrity pseudo-experts, and the unwarranted self-confidence of millions of people who believed that they could simply “do their own research,” as the internet mantra has it, all combined to make a brutal outbreak of disease even more deadly."
The heavy handed misinformation campaign overseen by the Bush administration that meant to manipulate (which it did by and large) the American public and politicos alike into voting for/supporting the multi-trillion dollar, nearly decade long disaster that was the Iraq War should've also been cited specifically.
 

How America Stopped Trusting the Experts (Atlantic, gift article)​

This is the interview of Tom Nichols, author of The Death of Expertise: The Campaign Against Established Knowledge and Why It Matters. An excerpt, also gifted, is here.

I think this phenomenon is extremely important to the health of the nation and, like medicine, a vaccination against suspicion is in order. Skepticism is natural, and should be a conservative's approach, but outright rejection is not a conservative value.

Consider the appointment of a vaccine skeptic to be Florida's Surgeon General, and the damage he has done, not just to Florida, but to the nation, by his promotion of vaccine rejection.

Measles spread to at least 3 other states after trips to Florida (CBS)​

"The U.S. recently marked an unwanted milestone in this year's measles surge, with more cases in the first three months of 2024 than in all of 2023.

The CDC says cases have also been reported in Arizona, California, Georgia, Illinois, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New Jersey, New York City, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Washington.

Among measles infections reported so far this year, the CDC said March 18 that 93% had been linked to travel outside of the country."
Our institutions and science are corrupted this is an obvious fact to anyone with eyes to see.

but yes there's an overreaction and some circles on the right. Corruption doesn't mean everything or even most things are wrong. it just means yes there's corruption and the other side is now using science as for political purposes. And so science cannot can no longer be trusted at face value it has to be examined the light of reason, sadly.

The left used to be far more skeptical of science when they did not have the reigns of power decades ago
 
The heavy handed misinformation campaign overseen by the Bush administration that meant to manipulate (which it did by and large) the American public and politicos alike into voting for/supporting the disaster that was the Iraq War should've also been cited specifically.
Honestly, I think that is why Powell was so pissed when it turned out he'd been manipulated. He put his reputation on the line by using that information and got burned.

Iraq War role was a stain on Powell’s record — one he openly said he regretted (WaPo)​

“I didn’t lie. I didn’t know it was not true. I was secretary of state, not the director of intelligence,” he said in a 2005 interview, just months after he was asked to resign from the administration of President George W. Bush.

But “I don’t spend a lot of time looking in rear view mirrors, because you can’t change anything,” he said. “I’ve seen people eat themselves alive wondering what should have been done differently.”

It should also be remembered, that Powell was a victim of the COVID pandemic, too, as was my sister. If it had been handled competently, both of them might still be alive. (That's why I carry personal anger about the issue.)

Nichols also wrote

Our Own Worst Enemy: The Assault from Within on Modern Democracy

"Over the past three decades, citizens of democracies who claim to value freedom, tolerance, and the rule of law have increasingly embraced illiberal politicians and platforms. Democracy is in trouble - but who is really to blame?

In Our Own Worst Enemy, Tom Nichols challenges the current depictions of the rise of illiberal and antidemocratic movements in the United States and elsewhere as the result of the deprivations of globalization or the malign decisions of elites. Rather, he places the blame for the rise of illiberalism on the people themselves. Nichols traces the illiberalism of the 21st century to the growth of unchecked narcissism, rising standards of living, global peace, and a resistance to change. Ordinary citizens, laden with grievances, have joined forces with political entrepreneurs who thrive on the creation of rage rather than on the encouragement of civic virtue and democratic cooperation. While it will be difficult, Nichols argues that we need to defend democracy by resurrecting the virtues of altruism, compromise, stoicism, and cooperation - and by recognizing how good we've actually had it in the modern world."
 
Honestly, I think that is why Powell was so pissed when it turned out he'd been manipulated. He put his reputation on the line by using that information and got burned.

Iraq War role was a stain on Powell’s record — one he openly said he regretted (WaPo)​

“I didn’t lie. I didn’t know it was not true. I was secretary of state, not the director of intelligence,” he said in a 2005 interview, just months after he was asked to resign from the administration of President George W. Bush.

But “I don’t spend a lot of time looking in rear view mirrors, because you can’t change anything,” he said. “I’ve seen people eat themselves alive wondering what should have been done differently.”

It should also be remembered, that Powell was a victim of the COVID pandemic, too, as was my sister. If it had been handled competently, both of them might still be alive. (That's why I carry personal anger about the issue.)

Nichols also wrote

Our Own Worst Enemy: The Assault from Within on Modern Democracy

"Over the past three decades, citizens of democracies who claim to value freedom, tolerance, and the rule of law have increasingly embraced illiberal politicians and platforms. Democracy is in trouble - but who is really to blame?

In Our Own Worst Enemy, Tom Nichols challenges the current depictions of the rise of illiberal and antidemocratic movements in the United States and elsewhere as the result of the deprivations of globalization or the malign decisions of elites. Rather, he places the blame for the rise of illiberalism on the people themselves. Nichols traces the illiberalism of the 21st century to the growth of unchecked narcissism, rising standards of living, global peace, and a resistance to change. Ordinary citizens, laden with grievances, have joined forces with political entrepreneurs who thrive on the creation of rage rather than on the encouragement of civic virtue and democratic cooperation. While it will be difficult, Nichols argues that we need to defend democracy by resurrecting the virtues of altruism, compromise, stoicism, and cooperation - and by recognizing how good we've actually had it in the modern world."
A bit of an aside, and I'm sure Nichols probably doesn't dismiss them entirely, but NGL, that summary sounds dangerously apologetic for and dismissive of the very real pitfalls of globalization and the ever increasing plutocratization of politics, and frankly ignores the relationship between these things and the public discontent that illiberal demagogues like Trump exploit. Median real wages, for example, that have remained effectively stagnant for around half a century in much of the developed world and most certainly in America while the cost of such critical things as housing, healthcare and higher education have easily outstripped these limited gains (by and large as a direct result of an unholy marriage of globalization and plutocratic capture) are ample breeding grounds for such politicos and movements.

It's certainly possible that egocentrism and complacency are contributors, even significant contributors, but I think the real, truly compelling roots are more systemic.
 
Last edited:
Fauci and WHO was not only wrong on Covid but actually lied on aspects of it.
??? wrong. If you can show us even ONE lie, fine, but you can't
If you do not trust experts then who do you trust??? The guys at the local watering hole?????
 
Fauci and WHO was not only wrong on Covid but actually lied on aspects of it. Another lie was the Hunter laptop was Russian disinformation by 51 former intel officers. Who were also wrong on weapons of mass destruction starting the Gulf war. Also lies by FBI on the fake Russian disinformation for the FISA warrants. No wonder we don’t trust these so called experts.
Making conspiracies has become MAGA’s go to for recruiting others who need to believe.
 
There's a difference between trusting experts and trusting science and trusting politicized experts and politicized science.

The unnamed and unaccountable federal bureaucrats, the Democrats, and their DNC political propagandist lamestream media have been so badly wrong so often, always cutting one way politically, it is only prudent to adopt a position of severe skepticism for ever word that comes out of their mouths.

They all have self-invalidated any credibility they've ever had and had ever built up.
 
Making conspiracies has become MAGA’s go to for recruiting others who need to believe.
You make a good point about "need to believe" - as it is a personal imperative - but also "who need them to believe". They don't want to feel alone. It's all about feeling, without bothering with bothersome things like "facts" and "connections".
 
Something that people may not understand about Nichols - he's no liberal. He is a died-in-the-wool conservative, but now an ardent anti-Trumper, because he's spent a career dealing with national security topics.

From Wikipedia: "Nichols received a faculty appointment at Dartmouth College. He remained there until 1997, teaching political science and Russian affairs.[10][11]

In 1997, Nichols became professor of strategy at the U.S. Naval War College, a position he retained until 2008.[12] Subsequently, Nichols was named professor of national security affairs at the war college. He retired in 2022.[12] He also is a senior associate of the Carnegie Council on Ethics and International Affairs New York City.

Concurrent during his tenure at Dartmouth, Nichols served as legislative aide for defense and foreign affairs to U.S. Senator John Heinz (R-Pennsylvania).[12][13]

In 2005, Nichols was appointed to visiting and adjunct faculty roles at La Salle University and Harvard University, respectively.[12] Nichols was named a fellow at Harvard's John F. Kennedy School of Government in 2008."

So, on occasion, that conservative bent exposes itself in topics and words. But, that is an important point, and why I bring this up: Anti-intellectualism is not conservatism. Yes, they both come from a similar mindset - skepticism of change - but conservatism has, from its very roots, been wedded to intellectual endeavors and strives for intellectual respectability (not always effectively). It follows logical processes and relies on data and structure. The modality of the rejectionistas doesn't do that. It is a very, very different thing.
 
30 years of Rush Limabugh telling people that any news he didn't approve of was lying.
Yeah and not JUST Rush but all of them. It was a concerted, knowing effort to dispute experts, institutions, elites, and the government itself. Reagan’s famous line about the government knocking on the door to help.

Really it’s just a tactic to be able to force your political agenda on a “free society.” You have to get them to reject the things that get in the way of your political goals themselves. You have to get them to vote against smart people inclined to say “hey, wait a minute, that’s crazy!”

Nowadays a Harvard PHD automatically gets you the eye of suspicion. If you’re a scientist you are just making shit up so you can get funding, and if you’re teaching kids things the parents don’t want to believe you are a pedo.

I’m an optimist though. Things can go on a long time in the margins but once the MAGA crowd started actually pulling the trigger the rubber met the road and most people saw what was at stake, even if they didn’t want to.
 
Something that people may not understand about Nichols - he's no liberal. He is a died-in-the-wool conservative, but now an ardent anti-Trumper, because he's spent a career dealing with national security topics.

From Wikipedia: "Nichols received a faculty appointment at Dartmouth College. He remained there until 1997, teaching political science and Russian affairs.[10][11]

In 1997, Nichols became professor of strategy at the U.S. Naval War College, a position he retained until 2008.[12] Subsequently, Nichols was named professor of national security affairs at the war college. He retired in 2022.[12] He also is a senior associate of the Carnegie Council on Ethics and International Affairs New York City.

Concurrent during his tenure at Dartmouth, Nichols served as legislative aide for defense and foreign affairs to U.S. Senator John Heinz (R-Pennsylvania).[12][13]

In 2005, Nichols was appointed to visiting and adjunct faculty roles at La Salle University and Harvard University, respectively.[12] Nichols was named a fellow at Harvard's John F. Kennedy School of Government in 2008."

So, on occasion, that conservative bent exposes itself in topics and words. But, that is an important point, and why I bring this up: Anti-intellectualism is not conservatism. Yes, they both come from a similar mindset - skepticism of change - but conservatism has, from its very roots, been wedded to intellectual endeavors and strives for intellectual respectability (not always effectively). It follows logical processes and relies on data and structure. The modality of the rejectionistas doesn't do that. It is a very, very different thing.
We should actually thank Trump for waking us up.
 
Something that people may not understand about Nichols - he's no liberal. He is a died-in-the-wool conservative, but now an ardent anti-Trumper, because he's spent a career dealing with national security topics.

From Wikipedia: "Nichols received a faculty appointment at Dartmouth College. He remained there until 1997, teaching political science and Russian affairs.[10][11]

In 1997, Nichols became professor of strategy at the U.S. Naval War College, a position he retained until 2008.[12] Subsequently, Nichols was named professor of national security affairs at the war college. He retired in 2022.[12] He also is a senior associate of the Carnegie Council on Ethics and International Affairs New York City.

Concurrent during his tenure at Dartmouth, Nichols served as legislative aide for defense and foreign affairs to U.S. Senator John Heinz (R-Pennsylvania).[12][13]

In 2005, Nichols was appointed to visiting and adjunct faculty roles at La Salle University and Harvard University, respectively.[12] Nichols was named a fellow at Harvard's John F. Kennedy School of Government in 2008."

So, on occasion, that conservative bent exposes itself in topics and words. But, that is an important point, and why I bring this up: Anti-intellectualism is not conservatism. Yes, they both come from a similar mindset - skepticism of change - but conservatism has, from its very roots, been wedded to intellectual endeavors and strives for intellectual respectability (not always effectively). It follows logical processes and relies on data and structure. The modality of the rejectionistas doesn't do that. It is a very, very different thing.
That's why I presume he didn't mention the Iraq War and its associated manipulations; it's some definite egg on the face of his political camp, and him personally as a supporter of the war.
 
Fauci and WHO was not only wrong on Covid but actually lied on aspects of it. Another lie was the Hunter laptop was Russian disinformation by 51 former intel officers. Who were also wrong on weapons of mass destruction starting the Gulf war. Also lies by FBI on the fake Russian disinformation for the FISA warrants. No wonder we don’t trust these so called experts.
There are actually real lies and wrongs perpetrated by the left throughout history but most of these are not them. This is literally just more buying of the propaganda sold by mostly corporate interests to keep us dumb and afraid so we buy more of what they’re selling. The gulf war was one libs were wrong about. Hillary calling black men during the crack epidemic “super predators” another.

Your tag line “no wonder we don’t trust these so called experts” is the giveaway. It’s just parroting the propaganda you’ve been fed and now digested.

And hey, no shade. We are all guilty of it from time to time. Politics is a nasty business.
 
That's why I presume he didn't mention the Iraq War and its associated manipulations; it's some definite egg on the face of his political camp, and him personally as a supporter of the war.
Here, I think you'd be wrong. Nichols has, on numerous occasions, acknowledged his mistake on the Iraq war. For Example,

I Supported the Invasion of Iraq (Atlantic)​

"Of course, the Iraqi dictator was doing his damndest to convince the world that he had weapons of mass destruction, because he was terrified of admitting to his worst foe, Iran, that he no longer had them. (He sure convinced me.) But this was no evidence of an imminent threat requiring instant action, and the WMD charge was the shakiest of limbs in a tree full of much stronger branches.

Bush used the WMD rationale as just one in a kitchen sink of issues, likely because his advisers thought it was the case that would most resonate with the public after the September 11 terror attacks. For years, most Western governments saw terrorism, rogue states, and WMD as three separate problems, to be handled by different means. After 9/11, these three issues threaded together into one giant problem—a rogue state supporting terrorists who seek to do mass damage—and the tolerance for risk that protected the Iraqi tyrant for so many years evaporated.

In 2003, I was far too confident in the ability of my own government to run a war of regime change, which managed to turn a quick operational victory into one of the greatest geopolitical disasters in American history. Knowing what I now know, I would not have advocated for setting the wheels of war in motion. And although Bush bears the ultimate responsibility for this war, I could not have imagined how much Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld’s obsession with “transformation,” the idea that the U.S. military could do more with fewer troops and lighter forces, would undermine our ability to conduct a war against Iraq. As Eliot Cohen later said, “The thing I know now that I did not know then is just how incredibly incompetent we would be, which is the most sobering part of all this.” (Emphasis mine)
 
Here, I think you'd be wrong. Nichols has, on numerous occasions, acknowledged his mistake on the Iraq war. For Example,

I Supported the Invasion of Iraq (Atlantic)​

"Of course, the Iraqi dictator was doing his damndest to convince the world that he had weapons of mass destruction, because he was terrified of admitting to his worst foe, Iran, that he no longer had them. (He sure convinced me.) But this was no evidence of an imminent threat requiring instant action, and the WMD charge was the shakiest of limbs in a tree full of much stronger branches.

Bush used the WMD rationale as just one in a kitchen sink of issues, likely because his advisers thought it was the case that would most resonate with the public after the September 11 terror attacks. For years, most Western governments saw terrorism, rogue states, and WMD as three separate problems, to be handled by different means. After 9/11, these three issues threaded together into one giant problem—a rogue state supporting terrorists who seek to do mass damage—and the tolerance for risk that protected the Iraqi tyrant for so many years evaporated.

In 2003, I was far too confident in the ability of my own government to run a war of regime change, which managed to turn a quick operational victory into one of the greatest geopolitical disasters in American history. Knowing what I now know, I would not have advocated for setting the wheels of war in motion. And although Bush bears the ultimate responsibility for this war, I could not have imagined how much Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld’s obsession with “transformation,” the idea that the U.S. military could do more with fewer troops and lighter forces, would undermine our ability to conduct a war against Iraq. As Eliot Cohen later said, “The thing I know now that I did not know then is just how incredibly incompetent we would be, which is the most sobering part of all this.” (Emphasis mine)
Oh, I'm aware of his mea culpa piece in the Atlantic which was very welcome, but I would guess he, nonetheless, doesn't want to draw attention to the truly cankerous shortcomings of Trump's predecessors in conservativism from which he hails when he's trying to steer the Republican party back there. Just saying it's kind of inconsistent at best, and disingenuous/dishonest at worst, to name drop Vietnam and Watergate, but spare the far more timely and frankly relevant and impactful Bush and the Iraq War even the scantest mention when it comes to discussing the roots of distrust in experts and government.

One thing that will remain truly and eternally embarrassing to Nichols is the fact that Dubya and his ilk have absolutely done more material damage, strictly by tangible numbers and metrics, to America than Trump has thus far. Neither Donnieboy's rancid pseudo-populism or Dubya's wasteful and overreaching neoconservatism should have any future in American politics, and I'm not so sure Tom's willing to give up on the latter.
 
Last edited:

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom