Liberals still working in the national media, largely shielded from the economic pain of coronavirus lockdowns, have absolutely no idea what it’s like to approach a situation without politics in mind. Like the liar who can’t believe anyone else, they are naturally accusing anyone who dares speak ill of the indefinite lockdowns of being politically motivated.
It never occurs to New York Times columnists that people might oppose the too-often absurd restrictions on normal business for any number of reasons outside of politics, such as their own financial situation or their personal liberty.
To wit, New York Times writer Michelle Goldberg wrote Monday that “Donald Trump and his allies have polarized the response to the coronavirus, turning defiance of public health directives into a mark of right-wing identity.”
It’s always anti-lockdown protesters versus “public health.” It’s as if there’s no alternative way of thinking about a situation that includes a massive country of 330 million people, the world’s largest economy, and a virus that, though highly contagious, results in only mild symptoms for the overwhelming majority of people who are infected, and which is afflicting one specific region of the nation far more than the others.
Under those conditions, it’s ridiculous to think that there are only two options or that any dissent against an indefinite economic shutdown is grounded in politics.
To drive home her point, Goldberg cited a Washington Post poll that found that three-quarters of the public agrees with the statement that “the U.S. should keep trying to slow the spread” of the virus, “even if that means keeping many businesses closed.” The other quarter believed that the country “should open up businesses and get the economy going again, even if that means more people would get the coronavirus.”
In other words, this poll got the results it got by employing the same logical fallacy that Goldberg indulges in — the one known as “false dilemma.”
How about another option that wasn’t included in the survey: Everyone should do their part in slowing the spread of the virus by taking proper health precautions while returning to work in as safe a manner as possible.
Any reasonable person can look at where we are right now and come to the conclusion that it’s probably better in the long run that we allow people in most parts of the United States to start working and spending money again, albeit with greater efforts at hygiene with face masks and frequent hand-washing.
This conclusion is becoming an increasingly necessary one. The federal government simply lacks the resources to be a reliable or sufficient source of long-term income for the millions of people out of work. Any normal, non-political-obsessive can acknowledge that. Or at least, any normal person can admit that the option of moving closer to normal work activity is not necessarily in opposition to “public health,” even if it’s not under ideal conditions.
The government was given two months to “slow the spread” of the coronavirus. We’ve seen that happen — it’s a big success, but one that has come at a devastating cost to the livelihoods of countless people.
It is both a delusion and a conceit to hold that all objections to everlasting lockdown measures stem from “right-wing identity.”
