By now, most everyone is aware of how proud Donald Trump is of passing a cognitive awareness test. If you are not aware, you are perhaps one of those astonishingly wise people who, on principle, has chosen not to watch television or pay attention to media during the pandemic. In case you missed it, hereโin the presidentโs own wordsโis what he had to say about the test and why he is so proud of himself.
Person. Woman. Man. Camera. TV. Iโm sure that the promotion people are printing t-shirts with those words, apparel that will rival MAGA hats as the presidentโs fans seek to usher him into another four years of office.
For the sake of argument, letโs assume that the president did recently take the test heโs so proud of; letโs also assume that he did well on it. That means that not only can he remember five words in proper order, but he also can tell the difference between an elephant and a rhinoceros, as well as being able to count backwards by 7 from 100 (I wonder what he did after he got to 2โnegative numbers move one into a different cognitive space).
A Facebook friend wrote that โI used to administer this test when I worked in long-term care/skilled nursing homes,โ while another wrote that โWe used it on the geriatric unit as a quick screen for dementia.โ What does this tell us? I guess that we should feel comforted to know that, at least on the day he took the test, Donald Trump was not as far down the road of dementia as many of us have suspected. I propose that instead of debates between Biden and Trump between now and November, we hold a cognitive test contest.
What qualifies a person to be the โmost powerful person in the worldโ? Donald Trumpโs all-too-public-and-obvious inadequacies aside, even the most brilliant person in the world cannot possibly have even a small fraction of the detailed knowledge necessary to make the daily informed decisions that the presidency of the United States requires. This is why we fully expect every president to be surrounded with experts, with โthe best people,โ as Trump promised he would do (and didnโt). Just as importantly, we expect the President to listen to these experts.
Sadly, it has become more and more typically โAmericanโ over the past several yearsโfacilitated by social mediaโto downplay the importance of expertise and to pretend that a few moments of Googling and rummaging around on the Internet qualifies each of us as โexpertsโ on any given topic. The Donald Trump presidency has taken full advantage of what Isaac Asimov described several years ago:
There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that โmy ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.โ
As an academic and a college professor who spent ten years in college higher education to earn my Ph.D., I find myself at the crossroads of expertise and common knowledge on a daily basis. A prime example of this dynamic was on display last December in a House Judiciary Committee hearing that was an early part of the impeachment hearings. The witnesses at the hearing were four academic, legal experts on all matters concerning impeachment. One of the witnesses was Stanford law professor Pamela Karlan. There was something about Professor Karlan that some found so off-putting that they just had to bloviate about it. Hereโs a representative reaction to Professor Karlan from โFox and Friendsโ the morning after the hearing:
The disdain is evident, and, you know, it sort of recalls back to the 2016 election when voters didnโt feel heard, when they resonated with President Trump, because there is this elitist, disdainful reproachment coming from the far left, and especially in academia, that makes people feel disconnected and undercut. Everything about her exuded that she was better, and smarter, than anyone watching. And thatโs so off-putting.
Now that just pisses me off. And not because of her ubiquitous use of โyou know,โ the awkwardness of โrecalls back,โ or because sheโs using a word (โreproachmentโ) that actually isnโt a real word.
It pisses me off, first, because at least in the smattering of social media outrage I subjected myself to, Professor Karlan was the only one of the panel of four legal experts called to testify who generated this reaction. I wonder if it has anything to do with the fact that the other three witnesses at the hearing were men. No, that couldnโt possibly be true. In a world where candidates like Hillary Clinton, Kamala Harris, Elizabeth Warren, and Amy Klobuchar are judged for being too assertive or โshrill,โ when a similar tone in a male candidate would be either ignored or praised (has any male candidate for any office ever been described as โshrillโ?), it couldnโt possibly be the case that there is general discomfort with a woman who is pointed, direct, and knowledgeableโcould it? Nah.
It also pisses me off because the quote from โFox and Friendsโ above exhibits a whole bunch of lame stereotypes about academics, stereotypes that anyone whose life is spent in academia (as mine has been for more than three decades) quickly becomes so sick of that they want to vomit. After seeing the clip quoted above on Twitter, I responded with this:
Iโve been a college professor for 30 years. Iโm used to being in a room where everyone believes they are the smartest person there. And they very well may be. Half the people at monthly department meetings in my department of 20 faculty have confidence that could seem like disdain (but isnโt). Deal with it.
As I read that now, six months later, Iโm realize that it is far more measured than I was feeling at the time. Over the past two decades I have been both a department chair and the director of a large academic program that, at any given time, involved 75 faculty and 1800+ students. People often used to suggest that trying to direct faculty must be like โherding cats.โ I always responded that itโs worse. Itโs like herding cats when each of the cats in the room has a Ph.D. and is sure that she or he is the smartest cat in the room.
My guess is that Dr. Karlan was in academic โprofessor and expertโ mode in front of the Congressional committee last December; that is, after all, why she was asked, along with her three expert colleagues to be there. I donโt know for sure, because I was on campus in the classroom, then in meetings, during the hearing. But I donโt need to see it to know exactly what happened to generate animosity such as that expressed on โFox and Friends.โ A highly educated and trained scholar with relevant expertiseโin this case, expertise in legal and interpretive matters concerning impeachmentโwas asked to respond to questions relying on her training and expertise. She did, directly and pointedly. And then she is criticized for acting and sounding like the very expert and highly trained person that caused her to be summoned to the hearing in the first place.
Any academic or college professor could provide you with multiple examples of the same dynamic. โPlease provide us with your expertise and knowledge, but please donโt do it in such a way that makes us feel that you have more knowledge or expertise than we do. Otherwise we might decide that you are an elitist and that you think that you are better than we are.โ News flash, people. Dr. Karlan does know more about the topic under consideration at the hearing than you do. Thatโs what being an โexpertโ on something means. The fact that she communicates her knowledge and expertise in a manner that you find โelitistโ is your problem, not hers. Your ignorance is not just as good as her knowledge. If you are threatened or annoyed when you find out that some people know more than you on any number of subjects, thatโs on you, not them. There is a difference between elitism and knowing what the fuck you are talking about.
To quote a phrase from 24/7 new channel talking heads that is vastly overused, โlet me be perfectly clear.โ If you got the impression, โFox and Friendsโ person, from Professor Kaplanโs testimony that she thinks she is โsmarterโ than you, thatโs because concerning the matters on which she was speaking, sheย isย smarter than you. And me. And probably all but a couple hundred or so human beings on the planet. Thatโs why sheโs an โexpert.โ Sheโs earned the right to deliver her insights with an authority and air that might cause you to surmise that she thinks sheโs better than you. Thatโs because in this case sheย isย better than you. Her opinion matters more than yours. Thatโs why the Judiciary committee wanted to speak to her and not to you. In this case, your opinion doesnโt matter. But her knowledge does.
Back to the Presidentโs test.ย Person. Woman. Man. Camera. TV.ย Perhaps we should fashion a version of the same test for those who aspire to the Presidency, with five different words.ย Fairness. Responsibility. Honesty. Integrity. Compassion. I seriously doubt that the current occupant of the Oval Office would remember any of those, let alone in the prescribed order. Itโs much more difficult to remember words that you donโt know the meaning of.