ChatGPT:
The PBS Frontline documentary presents a comforting story: that democracy was threatened, but institutions held. Prosecutors, judges, journalists, and legal scholars are framed as heroic figures—calmly defending the “rule of law” against chaos and populism. But through Stephen Turner’s lens, this narrative is not just naive—it is a textbook example of how expert rule disguises political power as neutral knowledge.
I. The Expert Problem: Power Without Accountability
Turner’s core insight is simple: experts wield power without public accountability. Unlike elected officials, they don’t answer to the people. They answer to their disciplines, their institutions, and—ultimately—the class interests that govern them.
In the Frontline story, the Department of Justice, elite law schools, and major media outlets all present a unified moral vision. But Turner reminds us: this vision is not disinterested. It’s the worldview of a professional-managerial elite—highly educated, urban, secular, and ideologically progressive. Their expertise is not “neutral.” It’s infused with values and assumptions that serve their class.
II. The Knowledge Gap: Trust When You Can’t Verify
One of Turner’s most important contributions is the concept of epistemic asymmetry. When experts speak, the public often has no way to assess whether they’re right or wrong. We are told to “trust the process”—not because we understand it, but because we can’t understand it. This creates a dangerous dynamic: the less we know, the more we’re expected to obey.
The Frontline documentary leans heavily on this. Prosecutors say “no one is above the law,” scholars say “this is what democracy looks like,” and we’re meant to nod along. But Turner would ask: what if that consensus isn’t based on truth, but on shared professional ideology? What if “the rule of law” just means elite control of narrative?
III. Depoliticization: How Experts Kill Debate
Turner warns that experts depoliticize what should be public debates. Once an issue is labeled technical—like election integrity, prosecutorial discretion, or national security—it is removed from democratic contestation. The public is sidelined, and dissent is pathologized as ignorance or extremism.
This is exactly what Frontline does. The documentary never considers that prosecutions or institutional responses might be politically biased. It treats legal action as objectively righteous—because it aligns with expert opinion. Dissenters aren’t debated; they’re diagnosed.
IV. Symbolic Legitimacy: Narratives as Substitutes for Consent
Turner also sees the rise of symbolic politics—where narratives replace genuine democratic legitimacy. In post-democratic regimes, institutions don’t serve the people; they perform their virtue for them. Public trust is manufactured through media rituals, expert soundbites, and moral storytelling.
Frontline doesn’t inform—it reassures. It offers a morality tale where the “good guys” win and the system prevails. Turner would say this is exactly how post-democracies survive: by convincing people that procedures are justice and credentials are truth.
V. Conclusion: Expert Rule Is Not Democratic Rule
Stephen Turner’s work dismantles the Frontline worldview. The documentary is not journalism—it’s a priestly chant of expert authority. It tells you the system works, not because you’ve seen it work, but because the right people say so.
But Turner’s warning is clear: when politics becomes expertise, the people lose their voice. Rule by experts is not a higher form of democracy. It’s a soft technocratic dictatorship—disguised in robes, citations, and credentials.
What we need is not more trust in elites. We need more political clarity—about who decides, in whose interest, and under what constraints. That, Turner reminds us, is the essence of democracy.
