On the one hand, it is well and good that major policy decisions, especially in the fields of foreign policy and national security, be left to experts and politicians. After all, their expertise and background are invaluable to making sound decisions in this arena. On the other hand, it is dangerous to rely only on experts; their methods may yield misinformed decisions

This claim is certainly true that politicians and other government experts should have a significant say in formulating major policies. However, that does not mean that they must always make the decisions, nor does it mean that their opinions and perspective are necessarily better than those of the general public. Politicians, being politicians, are prone to making poor decisions at times, and, as mentioned, their opinions can be biased. In addition, political experts are only human and, while they may have a broad knowledge base, they may still be woefully ignorant of particular issues that bear directly on a policy in question. For example, a significant percentage of military experts believe that war with Iran is undesirable, yet they are making that case based on outdated information. This is especially true for those who base their arguments on the idea that Iran is intent on developing a nuclear weapon. However, Iran has never declared its intention of developing nuclear weapons, and as recently as 2013, their nuclear facilities were declared to be entirely peaceful. It is also true that other nations, specifically Israel, have stated their intent to bomb Iran’s nuclear facilities, and that Israel’s secretive nature makes it impossible for the international community to verify if the nuclear program is indeed peaceful. Although experts are more knowledgeable than the average person, they are not infallible, and members of the public should be consulted as well

Just as the government should rely on experts, so too should the public. As humans, the general public has a unique perspective, especially with regard to issues that affect them directly. Therefore, their opinions should certainly be taken into account when formulating policies. One recent example of this was when President Obama announced his decision to defer some military action against Syria. Although his rationale was sound, many Americans were angered by the decision, and protests broke out in several cities. Had Obama not listened to the American people, the United States may very well have suffered significant blowback for its perceived inaction. Additionally, citizens are in the best position to identify potential issues well in advance of experts. For example, the Pulse nightclub shooting in Orlando, Florida, occurred before government officials were able to determine the likelihood that a lone gunman was responsible. Had government officials acted sooner, additional lives could have been saved. The tragedy could have easily been prevented by a citizen coming forward to report the incident

Ultimately, the claim is correct, in that politicians and government experts should have a significant say in policymaking. However, it is incorrect in asserting that opinions and perspectives are always better than those of the general public. While politicians and government experts certainly have valuable knowledge, that should not be the sole factor in making policy decisions. After all, when history proves that a politician or expert made a bad decision, the public can vote him or her out of office.