Musings on the "Naomi Klein Problem"

Naomi Klein has no formal training in social science. She writes books that have a superficial weightiness, but when examined more critically are found to present illogical theories supported by stories that she interprets without complying with any obvious rules of empirical research. Moreover, her theses often borrow liberally from existing social science research, which she twists to advance her normative agenda. To be blunt, I doubt that any chapter of any of her books would receive a passing grade in any graduate seminar I have ever led or taken. (I remain undecided about what grade I would give her writing in an undergraduate POLI class). Her books become best sellers, she is invited to speak to large audiences, and appears as a guest on talking head TV.

Klein, of course, is symbolic of a broader phenomenon in which people who lack social science training write books that pretend to be serious but aren't really. The arguments thus made then shape public discussion and debate. If you don't like my focus on Naomi Klein, then substitute Thomas Friedman or David Brooks or Robert Kaplan, or Amy Chua, or your own least favorite such writer. They are all the same.

There are (at least) two dimensions to this phenomenon that I don't understand. First, I do not understand why the media turns to non-experts to expound on "global issues." I can think of about 100 people more qualified to expound on the relationship between crisis and reform than Naomi Klein. So, why does the media select the least qualified person? I suspect the answer lies in some combination of having a PR person to issue press releases, I publisher willing to cover expenses to support a recent book, and a media that needs to fill air time. In other words, finding Naomi Klein is easy; finding Alan Drazen and Alberto Alesina is not.

Second, I do not understand why social scientists have ceded this ground to Naomi Klein. That we have ceded this ground is obvious. Sam Huntington, and perhaps, though to a lesser extent Robert Putnam, are the only top-flight political scientists who target a significant portion of their writing to a broad public audience. The rest of us conduct research and write monographs tailored to narrow professional audiences. My point is not to diminish the importance of such research, but to question our unwillingness to communicate our findings beyond a narrow professional community. Because social scientists have ceded this ground, Naomi Klein is the most eager person available. So, the media talks to Naomi.

All of this matters because it produces low quality public debate. "Morrissey", in a comment on an earlier post, proposed the "marketplace of ideas" as a solution to my skepticism about how we can believe what we believe when we try to extract meaningful information from all of the noise. Yet, if the marketplace of ideas is to resolve this problem at least some of the ideas being debated must be supported by logic and systematic empirical evidence. The ideas that emerge are those that have withstood serious scrutiny. Yet, because those who shape the debate too often have a political agenda and lack training in principles of scientific research and deep knowledge of the topic, while those who have this training and knowledge show little interest in shaping the public debate, the marketplace of ideas can't solve the problem.