June 20, 2024
On expert analysis vs. expert punditry...
In the next week or so, the Supreme Court will rule on the matter of presidential immunity in Trump v. United States. Today’s columnist, a site favorite and former U.S. Attorney, considers whether a president ought to have immunity and, if so, how much.
It’s a question many are gaming out in anticipation of the decision, but I particularly value this author’s opinion because he’s an expert. Like, an actual expert. Not a pundit masquerading as an expert. (For a spectacular demonstration of the difference, check out this video.)
I’m as guilty as anyone for falling for the pundit-as-expert trap. Because pundits are experts… at messaging. They sit behind big desks, they speak in somber tones, they surround themselves with newspapers and fancy graphics and underlings slouched over their work in the background. Just writing that made me think of Walter Cronkite announcing the JFK assassination. But pundits aren’t reporters. They aren’t policy experts. They’re party mouthpieces who say, “I told you so,” when they get things right. When they get things wrong, if they acknowledge it at all, they say, “We dodged a bullet,” which is another way of saying, “I was right but we got lucky.” Real experts can’t afford to be so blithe with their opinions. Otherwise, they aren’t experts for long.
With all that in mind and with this Supreme Court ruling arriving soon, we’re at a moment where the difference between experts and pundits will likely be quite stark. Experts like today’s author see the possibility, not to mention validity, of a middle road decision in Trump v. United States: presidential immunity for official duties. Many prominent pundits, depending on their party, either can’t conceive of the Supreme Court making a reasonable decision or can’t conceive of a decision that would find Trump culpable for January 6.
If the mouthpieces on the left are wrong and the Supreme Court denies Trump blanket immunity, I wonder if they’ll admit they didn’t know what they were talking about? Will they apologize for catastrophizing the situation as they castastrophized the independent state legislature case that came to nothing last year? If they won’t, I think it’s fair for their viewers to question their motives. More than that, I think it’s fair for their viewers to ask what actual meaningful service they provide.
Same goes for the mouthpieces on the right. If they’re wrong and the Supreme Court puts restrictions on presidential immunity, will they admit they didn’t know what they were talking about? Will they concede that provably false claims of election fraud don’t fall under a president’s official duties? If they won’t, it’s again fair for viewers to question their motives and ask what service they provide.
Pundits from both sides pretend to be experts. They’ve got the desks, the voices, the confidence. Too bad they’re missing just one thing: the expertise. I’m hoping this case proves it once and for all.
(P.S. I realize what I’m doing here is punditry. Where I hope I’m different is I don’t pretend to be a policy expert, I’m not an ideologue, and I can admit when I’m wrong, especially when it’s in writing. For example, check back when the Court’s decision on presidential immunity comes out. If it’s not an 8-1 or 7-2 decision against Trump’s broad immunity claims, I’ll be surprised. I’m guessing — in my non-expert opinion based on listening to the SCOTUS arguments — there will be a carve-out for official duties that will be understandably if irritatingly vague, but the federal cases against Trump will survive. Again, I’m not an expert. You didn’t ask. I just want to prove I can admit being wrong. Which I’m not.)