Last update: Tuesday 2/1/21
This note, originally posted on 12/16/20, is being reposted on the day after President Biden's call for national unity in his inaugural address. Some media pundits have claimed that Biden's call reflects his idealistic personality; but this note presents data that supports his lofty goal with regards to the issue that he has identified as his administration's top priority -- managing the coronavirus pandemic
The exit polls published by the NY Times (11/3/20) highlighted sharp differences between Republicans and Democrats that were broader than the voters' preferences for candidates Trump or Biden. Their responses to one question concisely framed the voters' divisions with regards to COVID mitigation policies
A. Question from exit poll
- The policy preferred by most Democrats involved extensive mitigation:
"Containing the coronavirus now, even if it hurts the economy" ==> Dems(79%), GOP( 19%)
In other words, most Democrats would accept more unemployment, personal distress, and business failures in order to contain the virus. - The policy preferred by most Republicans involved minimal mitigation:
"Rebuilding the economy now, even if it hurts efforts to contain the coronavirus" ==> Dems (20%), GOP (78%)
In other words, most Republicans would accept higher hospitalization rates and death rates in order to rebuild the economy.
Not-so-deep divisions
In previous notes on this blog, I have referred to the "deep divisions" among U.S. voters with regards to social mitigation. But in the last few days I have come to think that the divisions really aren't so deep, that their apparent depth is an illusion, a gross misperception of modest differences. Like an optical illusion, this political illusion derives from our brains' imposition of assumptions derived from prior experiences upon the facts at hand about the people in the other party. We don't see them as they really are; we see them as framed by our assumptions, assumptions that might not be valid.
Personal disclosure -- I did not come by this epiphany via a sudden encounter with a burning bush or a near death experience. It is the result of almost daily meditations on a fact that has boggled my mind ever since the 2016 election ==> Two of my friends voted for Trump, two good friends I had known for over 60 years, two of my smartest friends, two friends who had one the best marriages ever, two of my wisest friends. Nevertheless, they voted for Trump in 2016 (and voted for him again in 2020).
For the last four years I have struggled to understand how this was possible. Yes, I voted for Hillary in 2016 and for Joe in 2020. I loath The Donald; I hold him in contempt. So the remainder of this discussion explains how I have come to see how much closer my opinions are, not to Trump's opinions, but to the opinions of the vast majority of the 74 million people who just voted for hm. Needless to say, conversations with my friends have been awkward during these past four years. Hopefully, this awkwardness will dissipate now that I have seen how much closer our positions are.
B. Party cores and fringes
Differences in broad preferences still distinguish voters for Democratic and Republican candidates. In this discussion, Democratic voters include registered Democrats plus independent voters who voted for Democratic candidates; similarly Republican voters included registered Republicans plus independent voters who voted for Republican candidates.
Democratic voters tend to want more government services and more governmental regulations; they are also willing to pay higher taxes for these services and for the enforcement of these regulations. By contrast, Republican voters tend to want more private sector services and less governmental regulations; so they want lower taxes.
Within this broad context, it's also useful to distinguish the large majority in the core of the Democratic Party from its small vociferous fringe; the fringe favor policies that are not supported by the core. Similar distinctions can be made between the core of the Republican Party and its vociferous fringe. I say "vociferous" because the fringes are populated by a higher percentage of political activists than the cores, activists whose views become overrepresented in our media. I will repeat two points about cores and fringes throughout the remainder of this discussion:
- The fringes of both parties have gotten so much attention from the media that most of the members of each party tend to judge the other party by their assessments of policies that are only advocated by the fringe of the other party.
- The party cores are very similar; their differences are qualitative and can best be described with terms like "more of" vs. "less of".
It is generally agreed that the GOP fringe has moved further from the GOP core than the Democratic fringe has moved from its core. For example, the Democratic fringe supports single payer health care, generous unemployment benefits, and student loan forgiveness. The GOP fringe labels these platforms as "socialist" even though they are embedded in the political infrastructures of most capitalist democracies. By contrast, the GOP fringe has adopted conspiracy theories like QAnon and the "deep state", notions that are only shared by the fringe elements of other democracies.
In the November 2020 election, I would estimate that the Democratic fringe included about 20 percent of the Democratic voters; but the GOP fringe was much smaller, about 10 percent, due to its radical posture. But 10 percent of the 74 million votes received by candidate Trump = 7,400,000 votes, which is still a very large number, large enough to make so much "noise" in the media as to make it difficult for anyone, including members of the Republican core, to accurately perceive the relatively small size of this fringe.
The role of our media in these misperceptions demands notice. Our media have become increasingly fake. The assertions of the conservative/populist media, dominated by the Republican fringe, are often blatantly false. By contrast, the fakeness of Democratic liberal/progressive media is more insidious. Their "facts" are real facts, i.e., they are true statements. But their facts are framed by false assumptions, e.g., assertions that the bizarre beliefs of the Republican fringe are the beliefs of the Republican core. As consequence, most Democratic news junkies like me were stunned by the 74 million votes that candidate Trump received in 2020. My question when the votes were first tallied ==> How could all those people believe all that crazy stuff? My answer now ==> Most of them didn't ... :-)
During his term in office, President Trump satisfied traditional Republican preferences. He defunded government programs, he shredded regulations, and he slashed corporate taxes. So he retained the support of most of the core of the Republican party's voters, Beyond this, his crude lies retained the support of the party's gun-toting, shoulder-to-shoulder, unmasked fringe. However, his racism, his denial of climate change, and his mismanagement of the pandemic propelled enough defections from the GOP core to cost him the election.
- "Poor handling of virus cost Trump his reelection, campaign autopsy finds", Josh Dawsey, Washington Post, 2/1/221
Nevertheless, the election results show that the GOP core was loyal to the GOP's down-ballot candidates. Indeed, the Republican party gained enough seats in the House to cut the Democratic Party's lead from 31 down to 11 seats in that branch of Congress; and thus far the GOP has lost only one Senate seat. (Reminder: Two closely contested Senate elections in Georgia will be determined by the outcomes of runoff elections in January 2021.)
C. COVID commonalities of the cores
This section quickly checks off social mitigation procedures for individuals about which there is little or no evidence of significant disagreement between the Democratic and Republican cores.
- Testing, follow-up tracing, and quarantine
President Trump's White House requires frequent tests of himself and staff; infected staff go into quarantine; as per the Washington Post article linked below, there is little evidence of substantial follow-up tracing of the infected staff members' contacts. Similar comments about Republican senators, congressmen, and governors.
"Guests at Trump’s events scattered across the country. Potentially exposed, many of their contacts may never be identified.", Isaac Stanley-Becker, Rosalind S. Helderman, Josh Dawsey and Amy Gardner, Washington Post, 10/8/20 - Social distancing
Although his hard core followers in the GOP fringe have famously clustered shoulder-to-shoulder at his rallies, President Trump has frequently called attention to the fact that he himself spoke at these rallies from podiums that were dozens of yards from his fans. Most GOP congressmen and senators maintain social distancing - Wash your hands frequently; don't touch your face
Renowned for his germ phobia long before he was elected, President Trump can be assumed to be a frequent hand washer. Does he ever touch his face? Who knows, but certainly not after his hands have touched someone or something that might carry a germ. Indeed, most Americans, regardless of party, have been taught since childhood to wash their hands, don't rub their eyes, and don't put their fingers in their mouths during cold or flu season.
D. COVID differences between cores
The topics covered in this section represent substantial differences of opinions between the Democratic and Republican cores. My point in each case is that the differences are real, but they are much smaller than they have been made to appear in the liberal/progressive media. As I have noted previously, our liberal/progressive media report genuine facts, but they encourage misinterpretations of these facts by presenting them in misleading frames. To paraphrase Homer's warning to the residents of Troy, I seek to caution readers to be wary of liberal/progressive media bearing false contexts ... :-)
-- COVID-19 is just a "nasty flu"
This statement or other words to this effect have often been made by Trump supporters during interviews with liberal/progressive media. Interpreting the statement as evidence of a gross misunderstanding of how deadly COVID-19 really is, the reporters often expressed subdued dismay that was echoed thereafter by one or more of the media's pundit doctors who sadly shook their heads. Why don't these people understand that COVID-19 is far deadlier than seasonal flu?
It seems to me that these Trump supporters are merely using a different name to describe the same disease. When they say "nasty" they are acknowledging that COVID-19 is much worse than seasonal flu. Their calling it a "flu" also provides clues as to how they intend to deal with it ==> washing their hands frequently, not touching their mouths or rubbing their eyes, keeping their distance from strangers, drinking lots of fluids, getting plenty of rest, fortifying their systems with vitamins and other food supplements, and covering their mouths when they cough or sneeze. Their first three strategies are right out of the CDC's COVID mitigation playbook.
Their calling it a "flu" should also serve as a reminder that there has been at least one flu that still seems to be far deadlier than COVID-19, i.e, the 1918 Spanish flu. That flu killed at least 50 million people world-wide and almost 700,000 in the U.S. when the U.S. population was about 100 million people. Today's U.S. population is about 330 million, which is more than three times as large. If today's COVID was as deadly as the Spanish flu, it would kill more than three times as many people as the Spanish flu, i.e., 3 times 700,000 = more than 2 million. So far COVID has only killed about 300,000. Perhaps it may exceed 2 million someday, but we're not there yet. Indeed, the high speed development and approval of COVID vaccines make it less likely that this will occur.
Finally, their calling COVID-19 a "flu" signals a familiar political preference. As noted in the first section of this discussion, Republican voters are not stupid or crazy; they are just more inclined to accept higher hospitalization rates and higher death rates in order to rebuild the economy than Democrats. We don't shut the economy down for seasonal flus; we didn't even shut the economy down during the deadly super flu of 1918. If we are in a "war" against this virus, Republican voters don't want to win the war in a manner that risks losing the peace that follows.
-- Government mandates about which businesses and other organizations can be open and at what capacity
Welcome to the labyrinth!!! I am referring to the thousands of documents produced by the CDC as well as by state and local public health agents that provide guidelines for the safe conduct of a wide variety of public and private sector activities in the midst of the coronavirus pandemic. A search for "guidance" on the CDC's COVID-19 website on Sunday 12/13/20 yielded links to 1,077 documents.
Given the huge number of activities under consideration, some guidelines provide more effective guidance than others, at least in their initial editions. So no one should be surprised that some activities have been addressed more than once. More troublesome are guidelines that must be revised because they appear to be discriminatory. To be specific, some guidelines may appear to restrict some activities more severely than the guidelines for other comparable activities. The most problematic are the guidelines that restrict the exercise of what many regard as being part of their most fundamental rights, e.g., religious rights.
In a 5 to 4 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court recently blocked the mandate issued by New York State's Governor Andrew Cuomo with regards to the maximum number of persons allowed to attend religious services. New York classifies geographical regions as yellow, orange, and red zones, with the red zones being the hottest hot spots for the coronavirus.
The governor's mandate limited attendance in orange zones to 25 people, but only allowed 10 people in red zones. These restrictions were applied to all religious buildings, no matter how large these buildings were. Comparable restrictions were not imposed on businesses like pet stores and liquor stores. The Catholic and Jewish plaintiffs alleged that the mandate was a discriminatory restriction on their First Amendment's freedom of religion rights. While the court was considering the case, Governor Cuomo rescinded his mandate. Nevertheless, the court continued its deliberations and ultimately rejected his mandate. A much fuller description can be found in the following New York Times article.
- "Splitting 5 to 4, Supreme Court Backs Religious Challenge to Cuomo’s Virus Shutdown Order", Adam Liptak, NY Times, 11/26/20
What's notable about the court's decision with regards to our discussion of divisions is that the governor of New York is a liberal Democrat, and the five justices who voted against his mandate were conservative Republicans, three of whom were appointed by President Trump. Chief Justice Roberts, a conservative Republican, joined the three liberal Democratic justices in their losing efforts to sustain the governor's mandate. None of the decision makers involved in this case -- the governor and the justices -- are members of their party's fringe; they are all core.
The liberal/progressive media underscored the decisive vote cast by newly appointed Justice Barrett. Indeed, a previous challenge to restrictions on religious services in California and another in Nevada had both been rejected by 5 to 4 decisions when the late liberal Justice Ginsburg held the seat now held by conservative Justice Barrett.
But I would argue that the present court might have rejected the challenges to Governor Cuomo'a mandate had he revised it to include some non-discriminatory nuance, e.g., by imposing the same kinds of restrictions on religious services that he imposed on non-religious activities ... or ... by specifying that the number of people allowed to attend religious services would be a function of the size of the religious building, with no arbitrary upper limit. Very small churches, synagogues, mosques, etc, could only admit a handful of socially distanced attendees; whereas St. Patrick's Cathedral could admit hundreds. There would still be fewer attendees than if there were no restrictions, but there would be enough to make it worthwhile for religious groups to hold services in shifts.
I would further argue that most core vs. core disagreements over COVID restrictions could be resolved this way, by enabling more of something or less of something, rather than by imposing all or nothing solutions.
E. COVID differences between cores and the GOP fringe over face masks
This final section discusses the conflict over masks between the GOP fringe and both cores, Democratic and Republican, a farce that would be a slapstick comedy were it not for the thousands of unnecessary deaths left in its tragic wake.
The farce began one day in March 2020 during one of the the White House task force daily TV shows when the task force made the surprising announcement that none of us should wear face masks. The declared that ordinary cloth masks provided no protection for the wearer from COVID-19. Indeed, ordinary masks were worse than useless because their wearers might develop a false sense of security and stop social distancing, washing their hands frequently, etc, etc, etc. The only worthwhile masks were the N95 masks that were needed by doctors, nurses, and other health care professionals; but N95s were in short supply, so non-medical professionals should not buy them.
A couple of weeks later, the task force did a 180 degree about-face: suddenly ordinary face masks were very good things that everyone should wear, especially when they found themselves in situations wherein they could not maintain the recommended social distance from other people. This reversal left many people confused, a confusion that has persisted to this day. On the other hand, some of us who had been surprised by the initial announcement found this "revision" reassuring because it confirmed what we had known most of our lives.
When we were children, we were all taught to cover our mouths when we coughed or sneezed in order to prevent others from catching our cold or flu; so wearing masks to prevent the spread of a virus was nothing new.
What was new about this particular virus was the fact that we could spread it to others before we developed any symptoms ourselves, i.e., before we knew we had the virus. Even if we tested negative, we might have contracted the virus after we were tested.
So the safest thing each of us could do when we were in public would be to act as though we really had the virus, i.e., wear a mask, especially in circumstances wherein maintaining the recommended social distancing from other people was difficult. If we wore a mask, we would protect the others around us from catching our virus (in case we really were infected), If everyone wore masks in public, everyone would protect each other, including us (in case someone we encountered really was infected).
- "At the heart of dismal U.S. coronavirus response, a fraught relationship with masks", Griff Witte, Ariana Eunjung Cha and Josh Dawsey, Washington Post, 7/28/20
As is usual for articles in liberal/progressive media nowadays, the facts reported in this article seem credible, but their context is the usual less-than-credible assumption that a much higher percentage of Republicans than Democrats oppose mandates based on science, in this case mandates for wearing masks, because they are crazy and/or stupid. Please allow me to identify three types of GOP opponents to mask mandates: the first two are intelligent members of the GOP core; the third are definitely flapping out there somewhere on the fringe.
Original adherents to the original task force guidelines for social mitigation wash their hands frequently, never touch their faces, etc, etc, etc; but most importantly, they go out of their way to maintain social distance from people outside their families at all times. The task force made no claim that masks were as effective as social distancing, so they see no reason to wear masks instead of maintaining the recommended social distance. They are also concerned that wearing a mask might send misleading signals to mask wearing strangers that it's OK for the strangers to get closer to them than the recommended social distance.
Responsible adherents to the original task force guidelines welcome the flexibility that masks afford in their workplace and in their social interactions because sometimes it's damned near impossible to maintain the recommended social distance. However they feel strongly that it's their personal responsibility to put on a mask when they interact with other people who are closer than the recommended social distance; governments should not mandate that they wear masks all the time.
#YOLO fatalists (You Only Live Once) don't want the virus to run their lives, so they stand shoulder-to-shoulder without masks at Trump rallies, in bars at motorcycle reunions, and at parties in the White House, while laughing loudly in each other's faces. If they get sick and die from the virus, then "it is what it is" ... Welcome to the GOP fringe ... :-(
The "original adherents" and the "responsible adherents" do the right thing without pressure from government mandates because they have more self-discipline than most people. As members of the GOP core, they tolerate higher hospitalization rates and death rates than members of the Democratic core. The good news is that they will concede the necessity for mandates that will compel compliance from less disciplined members of their communities if these rates get too high. As reported in the following article in the Washington Post, even Republican governors who were subjected to relentless pressure from President Trump to oppose mask mandates conceded this necessity.
- "Adopting mask mandates, some GOP governors give up the gospel of personal responsibility", Isaac Stanley-Becker, Washington Post, 11/17/20
The moral of this final section is the same as for all of the previous sections of this note: readers should be wary of liberal/progressive media that present facts in false contexts about "deep" divisions between Republicans and Democrats with regards to COVID mitigation policies.
- "Red voters and blue voters", Last update: 12/6/20
- "We need a different kind of coronavirus task force", Last update: 11/28/20
- "Congratulations, Dr. Fauci!!! Thank you for your service. Now would you please, please, please fade back into your full time job at NIH." Last update: 11/19/20
- "Trump supporters who reject masks and other mitigations are not stupid and/or crazy" Last update: 11/18/20
- "Where do we go from here?" Last update: 10/30/20
No comments:
Post a Comment
Your comments will be greatly appreciated ... Or just click the "Like" button above the comments section if you enjoyed this blog note.