In a remarkable concurrence in the case of United States v. Skrmetti, Justice Clarence Thomas issued a clarion call against the dominance of an elite expert class that has long dictated policy while ignoring the will of the people. This challenge to the so-called expert consensus is a necessary critique that reverberates beyond the courtroom and into the very fabric of our democracy.
Expert Class Misguides Policy
Justice Thomas rightly identifies the troubling trend of allowing a small group of so-called experts to overshadow the voices of ordinary citizens. He warns that this elitism can distort and stifle democratic debate. This is particularly evident in areas like health policy, where experts during the COVID-19 pandemic advocated for measures that many later deemed ineffective, such as mandatory mask-wearing and school closures. As reported by The Wall Street Journal, dissenting voices were often blacklisted, leaving the public with a narrow view of what constituted valid scientific discourse.
Loss of Public Trust in Experts
The public's trust in the expert class is at an all-time low. According to recent data from Gallup, only a third of Americans express great confidence in higher education. This decline reflects a broader skepticism toward experts who have increasingly become advocates for progressive social agendas rather than impartial arbiters of knowledge. The idea that we must rely on a narrow band of elite opinion is being challenged by the very citizens whose lives are impacted by these policies.
US Supreme Court to hear challenge to ban on transgender care ...
Ideological Echo Chambers in Academia
Justice Thomas highlights the troubling ideological homogeneity that pervades academia, where dissenting voices are often silenced or purged. This has created an environment where the prevailing orthodoxy goes unchallenged. As discussed in my book The Indispensable Right, the suppression of conservative viewpoints in universities has resulted in an academic landscape that does not reflect the diversity of thought found in the general populace. The expert opinions that dominate the discourse are often those that align with a particular ideological agenda, rather than a balanced examination of the evidence.
Consequences of Ignoring Reality
The implications of this trend are profound. When experts advocate for policies that contravene common sense—such as the promotion of gender ideology that denies biological reality—they risk alienating the very people they purport to serve. The public is increasingly aware of these contradictions. For example, the National Institutes of Health has faced scrutiny over policies that prioritize ideological conformity over scientific integrity, leading to a backlash against proposed treatments and guidelines that lack empirical support.
The Supreme Court Building - Supreme Court of the United States
Calls for Accountability and Transparency
Justice Thomas’s call for accountability is a necessary step toward restoring trust in both the legal system and the expert class. The Supreme Court's recent move to reconsider the Chemron Doctrine signals a shift toward greater scrutiny of agency decisions, pushing back against the idea that experts should operate without oversight. This is a crucial development for the preservation of our democratic principles and the protection of American interests.
As citizens continue to engage with these issues, it becomes clear that the expert class has a responsibility to earn the trust of the public they serve. The rise and fall of this class is a testament to the dangers of hubris and ideological orthodoxy. The call for a return to objective inquiry and open discourse is not just a critique; it is a necessary demand for a healthier democracy.
