Skip to main content

People Who Know Stuff

Berkley MI
Monday

I have no intention of rereading The Stand, Stephen King’s apocalyptic novel of a virus that obliterates most of the U.S. leaving a smattering of survivors to pick up the pieces. I read it twice — I was a bigger fan then than now — but only because he released a second “original” version which was longer and not subject to the editorial restrictions of his earlier career. This version (longer indeed, but not discernibly better) is now trending on Amazon. Why wouldn’t it?
It was never my favorite book, but it is certainly a page-turner, and if the thought of plague fiction doesn’t make you queasy in the current circumstances, you could do a lot worse. But pieces of it have stayed with me — one mark of a good novel — particularly an idea that I’ll sum up as “People Who Know Stuff.”
The survivors in the novel — all of them immune to the virus for unknown, seemingly random reasons — are faced with the dilemma of a world suddenly devoid of expertise. The people who once knew how to run things or make things have mostly died off. There’s nobody to work the power stations, water treatment plants, steel factories, oil refineries, or any of what we now think of as essential infrastructure.
While the survivors can find food easily enough just by rummaging through empty houses, they can’t, alas, turn on the lights. The firing up of a perfectly intact and operational power station is simply beyond them. They also understand that the food situation will not be sustainable long-term.
So sooner or later they will be forced to re-invent agriculture—not to mention hydroelectricity, internal combustion, metallurgy, and pretty much the entire Industrial Revolution—without a clue how to do any of it. The People Who Know Stuff have been taken off the table.
You see where I’m going with this. The metaphor for Trump-era dumbfuckery is irresistible. King was warning us, even back in the seventies, that we reject expertise at our own peril. That simple competence is a valuable commodity. That civilization is a thin veneer easily pierced by existential threat. It’s been said that we are all just six missed meals away from total savagery. If this is true — and I have no reason to doubt it — we are a lot more fragile than we think.
Who among us can start a fire without a match? Even as a Boy Scout I could never pull off the flint-and-steel thing. Who even knows what flint looks like, much less how to find it? And the rub-two-sticks-together idea always seemed fanciful. Yet what would we do if we couldn't make a fire?
Personally, I would have a hard time starting a fire to cook the animal that I’d already had a hard time killing, with a weapon that I’d had a hard time making. And while Peggy can grow pretty decent tomatoes, our survivalist skills are less than finely honed.
So competence matters. And lack of competence matters even more. We can see this playing out in real time, as we try to fight off this virus with little or no federal help. A disaster compounding a disaster.
And it’s not just that the government won’t help. It can’t help. While the basic bureaucracy remains in place, despite its hollowing out, most of the leadership is now in the hands of people who are both incompetent and malignant — a lethal combination. They’ve systematically taken over every agency, and they were already doing incalculable damage to our institutions long before the virus. They have no idea how to manage a pandemic, they’ve purged most of the people who might have helped, and they don’t seem to have either the intellectual or moral bandwidth to care.
Even worse, there seems to be no mechanism in place for learning from this experience. When the next wave of contagion hits us, possibly as early as the fall, we could easily be caught as flat-footed as we are now.
Will there finally be enough masks and PPE six months from now? Don’t bet on it. Will we have our testing act together? Will enough ventilators be in place even then? Will we have effective treatments? Will a vaccine really be in the pipeline? These questions are in no way hypothetical, and there’s little to indicate we’d be happy with the answers.
Yes, there are experts working on these things. Yes, there are competent and dedicated professionals on the case. Yes, there are, even now, People Who Know Stuff, and I for one am really glad to see them. But their ability to launch an effective defense has been crippled, deliberately and methodically.
It’s not just failure of leadership. It’s sabotage of leadership. And expertise. And science. And responsibility.
So the answer to all those non-hypotheticals, as Stephen King would surely agree, is a distressingly tentative maybe.



Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Decents, Deplorables, and the Conditional Mood

  F or my next trick, I’d like to indulge in a linguistic conceit of sorts. I’d like to use the current political nightmare to speculate about a matter of grammar, of all things, that has long intrigued me: Namely, why do so many languages codify the conditional mood — also known as the conditional tense — in their grammar? Why do we use ‘should,’ ‘could,’ and especially ‘would,’ in so much of our speech? Why do we hedge our conversations this way? Why is it more acceptable to say “I would like a cup of coffee” than “Give me a cup of coffee.” Why is one deferential and the other pushy? Why has history passed down this polite form to multiple language groups, in such a similar way? Why is it bad form to use “I want” in a non-confrontational situation? And why does the MAGA crowd insist on such bad form? I have a speculative answer to these questions, but first let me cavalierly divide the world into two groups of people: Decents and Deplorables . Goods ...

Zohran Mamdani is Not Coming to Eat Your Children

  L et’s be clear about one thing. A Democrat is a Democrat. We have neither the time nor the bandwidth to split policy hairs when the country is being burned to the ground. The only thing we need to know about any Democrat is that they’re not Republican. The media would have us believe there’s some deep chasm between “moderate” Democrats and “progressive” Democrats. They talk about “leftists,” as if there’s some diabolical cabal of radicals planning to turn the whole country gay and woke. They talk about “centrist Democrats” as if they just disagree with Trump on an issue or two. All Democrats share some core beliefs, even if they never think about them, even if they take them for granted. Rule of law. Reproductive rights. Civil rights for all. Healthcare for all. Strong safety net. A few others. Republicans, for the most part, want these things as well, but they’ve been brainwashed into thinking otherwise. Still, the legacy media continues to outdo itself ...

Uncertainty is Ready for its Closeup

E very day, we learn a little more about the way the Trump junta operates. We might sum it up with the phrase “Shoot first, ask questions later,” but this is not entirely accurate. They do indeed shoot first, mostly with executive orders that are breathtaking in their over-reach, malicious intent, and criminal shortsightedness. But they don’t so much ask questions later, as they send stupid lawyers into court to defend stupefyingly illegal behavior. They tend to fail, but even in failure, the confusion they create works wonders for them. On what must be several dozen fronts since January, MAGA operatives looking to subvert the government have done so, first by launching whatever harebrained scheme they’ve come up with, then by watching for the fallout. The fallout could be in the form of a court ruling, or howls of protest from the victims, or even from Democrats calling them out. But the point is that they depend on that first launch to shake things up, to flo...