America Deserves a Second Opinion

Dr. Fauci’s latest admission of a noble lie to the New York Times — that he has “slowly but deliberately been moving the goal posts” of his public herd immunity estimates “partly based on new science, and partly on his gut feeling that the country is finally ready to hear what he really thinks” — drew apt comparisons to the disappointing elite described in Martin Gurri’s The Revolt of the Public.

Antonio García Martínez tweeted in reaction, “I see @mgurri and the unsustainability of elite authority everywhere I look now.”

Dr. Fauci is the perfect archetype of Gurri’s Olympian technocrat, an elite man of the “center” whose mastery of esoteric knowledge has granted him the privilege of distance from the public. His foil, President Trump, is the perfect archetype of Gurri’s tribune of the deplorables, a man of the “border” whose mastery of communicating sectarian rage won him the bully pulpit in order to take the Faucis of the world down a peg.

Dr. Fauci is a good man. He has devoted his life and estimable technical gifts to the public weal. His role in PEPFAR alone, not to mention Operation Warp Speed, should seal his place in the book of noble public servants. Nonetheless, he is a leader elevated in a bygone era whose virtues are wrong for the present age.

In a world of institutional monopoly on technical knowledge and societal narrative — the industrial information ecosystem of the 20th Century — the license to tell the noble lie was one of the highest badges of elite merit. Aspiring technocrats day dreamt in Ivy League libraries of the public crisis during which they might be called upon to lie to the naive face of Joe Public for his own good, all while feeling a warm glow of both intellectual superiority and moral rectitude.

Yet in a world where the flow of information is less like that of a unidirectional command through an industrial hierarchy and more like that of a leaking industrial solvent corroding the pipes that carry it, the noble lie (once revealed) is a grave threat to what shred of public trust in institutions remains.

Revealing the noble lie at this juncture, when public trust in authority is not an abstraction but an essential prerequisite to the widespread adoption of world-saving vaccines, is a devastatingly bad judgment call that can only come from someone as bright and well-intentioned as Dr. Fauci when he is being loyal to an institutional value system that made the noble lie a key feature of his public-health ministerial portfolio.

If we want a “legitimate hierarchy” — the kind that might be able to achieve the requisite buy in for a world-saving vaccine — we now require new virtues and values among our leaders.

As Gurri himself writes, “The qualities I would look for among elites to get politics off this treadmill are honesty and humility: old-school virtues, long accepted to be the living spirit behind the machinery of the democratic republic, though now almost lost from sight.”

I leave it to the reader to determine whether the clinical mien of Dr. Fauci evinces humility.

Needless to say, the noble lie is not honesty. Since Dr. Fauci is a good man loyal to public well-being he should use his technocratic perch to communicate to our budding next generation of elites that the time has come for a new ethic of elite truth-telling that aligns the esoteric and exoteric narratives.

The development of safe and effective COVID-19 vaccines is a triumph of the elite — a technical problem solved. While the elite are competent at solving technical problems, they mistook this ability for the capacity to solve social problems. As Gurri puts it:

Modern government’s original sin is pride. It was elected on a boast — that it can solve any “problem,” even to fixing the human condition — and it endures on a sickly diet of utopian expectations. We now know better. Since the fall of the Soviet Union, we have understood that even the most brutal application of power cannot redeem the human lot.

Martin Gurri, The Revolt of the Public (Stripe Press 2018), 424.

It is revealing that Dr. Fauci’s noble lie centered around the concept of herd immunity. Given the development of multiple safe and effective COVID-19 vaccines, herd immunity in large part becomes a function of public adoption of the inoculation, which in turn is in large part a function of public trust in authority.

Fauci’s increasing confidence in the public’s willingness to get the jabs led him to reveal that herd immunity was further away than he previously told. The logic of this communication strategy — to this observer at least — is not immediately obvious. Presumably Fauci’s thinking was that the public should not be demoralized by a goal that is too far away as to appear unattainable, as that demoralization would lead too many citizens to forego the vaccine, effectively thinking “since we’ll never get to 90%, what’s the use in me bothering to get the vaccine at all” — call this the “demoralization theory.” This theory of human reasoning, however, is also not obviously correct. One can imagine — and in fact has observed — public health communications that make the picture look worse to the public than it actually is in order to inspire action; this approach with respect to herd immunity would make one offer a higher estimate in order to scare the public into getting vaccinated in droves if we’re to have any hope at all of beating this thing — call this the “scared straight theory.”

Public health communicators have lied on both sides of the ledger — making the problem seem more manageable than it is and worse than it actually is in order to inspire desirable public action. This inconsistency in the strategy of the noble lie reveals a belief in the value of noble lying itself that is stronger than a belief in either the demoralization or scared straight theories of public action. Again, the elite are competent at solving technical problems (developing a safe and effective COVID-19 vaccine) but incompetent at solving social problems: nudging public behavior in the right direction.

In discussing herd immunity, Dr. Fauci is essentially discussing how much longer we have to live in fear and a state of suspended animation. He acted the part of the parent driver on the road trip who fibs “just a little farther” in response to “are we there yet” in order to forestall a tantrum (or mutiny).

Query, however, what the appropriate metric for the end of our lives in fear and suspended animation actually should be. When a safe and effective vaccine is in the offing, high levels of caution and risk aversion are eminently rational — as we may actually slay this dragon. This observer endorses this approach based on the belief that the dragon will actually be slain by the technical miracle of our COVID-19 vaccines. Yet if the dragon were somehow not likely to be slain, by this observer’s lights, life in the bunker would still need to end at some point nonetheless. Reasonable precautions like masks and rapid at-home testing would remain eminently sensible and essential in a world of an extant dragon and reemergence from the bunker, yet all dreams deferred would not remain sensible: we can sacrifice one Thanksgiving and one Christmas with loved ones, but any more beyond that and what life really are we preserving in the bunker? Noble lies avoid this question. A healthy and competent society should not be in the business of avoiding difficult questions, nor should its leaders.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s