In dealing with the extreme danger posed by the coronavirus, wise political leaders will seek out the counsel of learned public health authorities and take their opinions very seriously. In this crisis, it is sensible to presume that we will follow the advice of our public health experts.
But that presumption must always be rebuttable. No governor or mayor should either unquestioningly follow all the recommendations of our public health experts or ever make a decision without also consulting the best experts on every principal component of our society, including the economy, education, and the service sector. Sound public policy is the product of good judgment, not expertise, no matter how extensive. We vest the authority to make our most important decisions in politicians because individuals possessing both general knowledge and a keen understanding of public opinion are more likely to strike a proper balance between all our societal needs.
While only fools reject the importance of expert advice, we must also accept that there is often a negative correlation between high levels of expertise and good policy judgment. The overwhelming commitment of talent, time, and discipline required to become an expert in an area as challenging as public health can produce a form of intellectual myopia that makes it difficult for the expert to comprehend the negative effect implementing the expert’s proffered recommendations will have on other social goods. When these consequences are pointed out to them, experts in a particular field are inclined to conclude that the policy consequences regarding their area are far more important than the impact of these policies on any other.
This past week, we witnessed an example of how this fervent commitment to the importance of one’s priorities can lead to errors of judgment. One of the most inspiring innovations produced by the ingenuity and passionate religious commitment of our neighbors is the drive-in religious service, in which the faithful, creatively balancing their commitment to their faith and to public health, drive up to church in their cars and remain there, keeping a safe distance from each other while the service is conducted in the parking lot.
Unfortunately, a local public health expert and officer, with good intent, wrongly urged people, even on Easter, to skip the service and stay home. Now, the official had legitimate concerns – he was afraid that people might leave their car to use the restroom or unconsciously gather together outside their cars. If he had simply cautioned against these potential lapses in social distancing, few would have noticed, and some might have appreciated the reminder.
The heavy-handed admonition to drop the whole enterprise, however, demonstrates how tone-deaf experts can be to vital concerns outside their purview. No elected official who understands the Oklahoma character would fail to perceive and account for the importance of the semblance of communal worship on the central day of the Christian faith or investing a modicum of trust in our people to make choices consistent with the safety of themselves and their families.
Without doubt, this incident was a minor slip by a dedicated official performing heroic labors at a time of peril. But as the situation evolves so will the cost-benefit calculus measuring whether we should follow every jot and tittle of the experts’ advice. When necessary, our leaders need to muster the knowledge and confidence to say no.
Andrew Spiropoulos is the Robert S. Kerr, Sr. Professor of Constitutional Law at Oklahoma City University and the Milton Friedman Distinguished Fellow at the Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs. The views expressed in this column are those of the author and should not be attributed to either institution.