Category: Politics

The philosophical debate over the power and purpose of the state is ancient, but COVID-19 provided a new context for the discussion. Responding to a pandemic requires a robust state and the emergency can be used to justify expanding state power. While such an expansion can be warranted, people should resist setting aside their critical faculties in the heat of a crisis.

One concern is that a pandemic (or any crisis) will be used to infringe upon liberty without addressing the crisis. While a crisis often claims reason as an early victim, the expansion of state power to protect us should be carefully considered in terms of both the loss of liberty and its effectiveness in addressing the crisis. An expansion that does not make us safer is unjustified as we would give up liberty in return for nothing. If the expansion of power makes us safer, then we should still weigh the benefits against the cost, although this assessment will vary. For example, someone who is very afraid of a threat will have a different assessment than someone who thinks it is minor or even a hoax. As another example, someone who values one liberty (say the right to keep and bear arms) will see things differently from someone who does not value that liberty.  While a rational assessment will always have a subjective element, a good faith evaluation is critical. Unfortunately, misinformation and disinformation come into play in such assessments. And, of course, emotions will be factors.

While a rational assessment of expanding the power of state is always important, it is even more important during a crisis. This is because people will be heavily influenced by the strong emotions arising from the crisis and politicians will be trying to exploit this opportunity to expand their power. Businesses and individuals will also try to profit from the expansion of power, often at the expense of others. For example, if the state imposed mandatory tracking during a pandemic, tech companies would be eager to exploit this financial opportunity.

It can be objected that during a crisis there is no time for rational, objective assessment and attempting to do so would be foolish and wrong. While a crisis usually requires immediate action, if there is time to expand state power, then there is time to think about whether to do so. I am not advocating dithering about in pointless debate but advocating giving due consideration to the expansion of state power. It would be foolish and wrong to act without thought.

During the last pandemic, the United States suffered because it did not expand the power of the state in a rational manner. Our leaders knew a crisis was on the way, but many of them delayed, hesitated and took small steps rather than acting aggressively. This was a case where speed was important and the failures were not due to a needless expansion of state power, but a failure to exercise power effectively and decisively.

In addition to carefully considering the expansion of the state’s power, one must also consider the duration of the expansion. An expansion of power that might be justified in a crisis is likely to be unwarranted and unnecessary when the crisis ends. Since rulers are rarely inclined to give up an expansion to their power, it is essential to place a clearly defined and automatic limit on any expansion of power. As a crisis might last longer than predicted, there also need to be rules for how they can be renewed. Otherwise, these expansions can become permanent to the detriment of the people.

There is also the concern that expansion of power can create bloat, such as new positions and entire departments. Such bloat can waste resources and cause inefficiency, something is problematic even in normal times. Bureaucracies tend to grow over time rather than shrink, so the expansion must be limited. That said, there is also a risk in reducing the state too much so that it will be unable to address a future crisis (which is what Musk and Trump seem to be doing as this is being written). The challenge is finding the right balance between being too big and too small; to get it just right. As people often discount the future and engage in wishful thinking, it is challenging to convince people to spend resources to address a crisis that might occur or even one that will occur but at an unknown time. Thus, the expansion and reduction of the state should be carefully considered based on a rational assessment of likely future need. Unfortunately, this approach usually does not win elections.

While expanding state power to respond to a crisis is what people most often think of, a state can also respond by reducing its power. For example, rulers might weaken or suspend regulations or protections for citizens. On the positive side, weakening or even suspending some regulations can be beneficial. For example, during the next pandemic there will be a need to rapidly expand hospitals, so it would be reasonable to suspend or weaken some rules that would impede this. As another example, a need for test kits and treatments can justify weakening or suspending some regulations that would slow things down. Doing so is not without risks but can be justified as one justifies how ambulances drive: going fast and breaking the normal traffic rules creates a danger, but this is supposed to be outweighed by the need for speed.

Just as the expansion of the state must be justified, assessed and kept on a time limit, the same applies to reducing the state. There are obvious concerns that weakening or suspending regulations could do more harm than good. There is also the concern that the unethical will exploit the situation in harmful ways. For example, an unethical pharmaceutical company might exploit weakened regulations to maximize profits. As another example, tech companies might exploit the weakening of privacy laws to gather data they can monetize in harmful ways. Planning for likely crises is what good leaders do; perhaps some will emerge in the next pandemic.

Anyone familiar with sports knows that if team members don’t work together, things will go badly. So good athletes set aside internal conflicts when on the field and come together to win. This does not mean that an athlete should accept anything a teammate might do without complaint. For example, a good athlete would not allow a teammate to cheat or a coach to abuse athletes. As another example, a good athlete would not tolerate a teammate committing domestic violence or engage in dog fighting. While we belong to various competing teams, such as nations, during a pandemic we should all be on the same team since we are playing a deadly game of humans versus pathogens.

Since we should be on the same team during a pandemic, we should set aside our differences and work towards victory. If we fight, bicker and compete against each other, we are hurting the team. If we cooperate, we will help Team Human. As with sports, the more power a person has, the more important it is that they work with the team and set aside less important concerns at least for the duration of the game. While it would be unreasonable to think everyone will be a good team player, there is still the expectation that team members will not try to cause needless conflict or interfere with the effort to win. Unfortunately for the world, there will be people who are bad at being team players, and even some who will actively  cause harm during the next pandemic.

While there are examples outside of the United States, I am an American and have some responsibility for my leaders and fellow citizens. During the last pandemic, Trump was president and can be seen as the head coach of the team America. He should have directed the team to victory, inspired the players and done his job properly.

As noted in other essays, rather than being honest about the facts of the pandemic, Trump and his allies downplayed it and then floated stories about hoaxes. Rather than listen to medical experts, Trump and his fellows spread disinformation and misinformation. Trump and his fellows also delayed our response to the virus, something that cost us dearly. What Trump and his fellows should have done is play for Team Human.  To use an analogy, Trump was like a coach who refused to acknowledge that an opposing team was even on the field. Like a bad coach, Trump insisted his team would not need to practice and prepare, that it would be an easy win. And he lied to the team.

During the pandemic, Trump was consistently Trump.  First, he  engaged in conflicts with governors. Part of the problem was that Trump saw himself as making business deals rather than being the leader of a country in crisis. Another part of the problem is that Trump apparently cannot avoid petty fights. He takes things very personally, something that has generally not been true about other American presidents. For example, while Bush was criticized about his handling of Katrina, Bush did not withhold help because  governors failed to appease his ego. To continue the team analogy, Trump was a like a coach who retaliates against the assistant coaches if they  do not appease his ego. Criticism, however legitimate, was met with hostility and punished. This actively harmed the team.

It could be objected that the governors were also to blame. They had a responsibility to work with his flaws to get what their state needed. So, if the governor of NY needed to praise Trump to keep him from vindictively denying the state full assistance, then he must praise Trump. While this makes pragmatic sense, it is morally horrific. In a democratic country it is not the duty of governors or citizens to appease the ego of the president to get them to do their job. It is the duty of the president to do their job, even in the face of criticism. That is how a responsible government is supposed to work. If a leader cannot step up and do the job, they should step aside. Going back to the team analogy, if a narcissistic coach is damaging the team, the solution is not for the assistant coaches to work harder to appease his ego. The solution is to get a new coach.

Second, Trump advanced the conspiracy theory that medical professionals are stealing protective equipment, citing an unnamed distributor who (allegedly) claimed that the hospital was buying too much equipment for its needs. Pushing this conspiracy theory was damaging. Trump  likes conspiracy theories and often used them to shift blame from himself. But this does the team no good. Going back to the analogy, this would be like the head coach falsely accusing team trainers of stealing supplies and blaming them for his failure to ensure that the supplies would be available for the big game.

Trump supporters might, at this point, accuse me of hypocrisy: “How can you speak of unity while criticizing Trump?” The first reply is from basic logic: even if I were a hypocrite, this would not refute my claims. To think otherwise would be to fall victim to the ad hominem tu quoque. One version of this fallacy involves concluding that because a person’s actions are inconsistent with their claim, their claim must be wrong. But this is bad logic. For example, suppose that Bill claimed adultery is wrong and then committed adultery. This would show that he was a hypocrite but would not disprove his claim.

The second reply is that my view is that we should have critical unity. This is not uncritical unity in which people are expected to just go along with whatever the leaders say and do. Uncritical unity can be worse than a lack of unity. For example, imagine if everyone simply went along with Trump’s initial claims about the virus and no one ever pushed back against his misinformation and disinformation. Things would have been much worse. As another example, imagine that during the next pandemic a “radical leftist” state government legally seized  the property of the rich to distribute the resources to help people survive. Trump supporters would obviously not respond by saying “well, we must unite behind our leaders” and go along with this.

The critical part of critical unity in a crisis does need to have limits. The criticism should be grounded in truth, based in principle and aimed at addressing real problems. Criticizing Trump’s disinformation, misinformation, conspiracy theories, and so on while urging unity is critical unity. I apply the same standards across the political spectrum. So, for example, if a Democratic leader spreads pandemic disinformation or refuses to do their job because they are spatting with a Republican, then I would be critical of them. I will also be supportive across the spectrum when leaders are stepping up and doing the best they can. For example, I disagreed with Ohio Governor Mike DeWine on some things (although we both went to college in Ohio) but I credited him for his serious response to COVID-19.

The lesson here is that we need to have unity in times of crisis (which is obvious), but it would be unwise to have unthinking and uncritical unity (which is equally obvious). While we should work with our leaders, they need to prove worthy of our uniting under their leadership. Trump served as paradigm example of how a leader can actively divide rather than unify in a time of crisis. If he or a similar person (be they a Democrat or Republican) is president during the next pandemic, we can expect things to go just as badly.

As the COVID-19 pandemic played out, Trump wavered on social distancing. One reason was that billionaires  argued for getting back to work during the pandemic. In  neutral terms, their argument was that the harm of maintaining  social distance would exceed the harm caused by sending people back to work.  This is a classic utilitarian approach in that the right action is the one that creates the greatest good (or the least harm).  Lieutenant Governor  Dan Patrick  advanced a similar, but much harsher argument. On his view, the damage done to the economy by trying to protect people s far outweighs the harm done by putting people at risk. He went so far as to claim that he would be willing to die for the economy and seemed willing to sacrifice other seniors as well. While this was not a mainstream view, it got some traction on Fox News. While some billionaires and Patrick acknowledge a downside to their proposals, some claimed the deaths would be good, another plus rather than a minus.

While it is tempting to dismiss the billionaires as greedy sociopaths who would sacrifice others to add to their vast fortunes, they do raise a moral problem: to what extent should some people be sacrificed for the good of others? We allowed, and rightly praised, sacrifices by health care workers, grocery store workers and many others who risked themselves for others. As with the billionaires’ argument, this can be morally justified on utilitarian grounds: the few put themselves at risk for the good of the many. They kept the rest of us alive by taking care of us, ensuring food remained available and so on. It is inarguable that these sacrifices were good, essential and heroic. It is also inarguable that some of them died because they stayed at their posts and did what must be done to keep the rest of us and our civilization alive. For essential goods and services, the risk seemed morally acceptable; especially from the viewpoint of people who were not themselves in danger. But what about the broader economy?

The billionaires were correct that a badly damaged economy would harm workers. As evidence, consider what happened to workers during the depressions and recessions inflicted upon them in the past. Things were already bad for many before the pandemic and the economic damage made things worse. As such, there was certainly a good argument for getting the economy back on track as soon as possible. But did the utilitarian argument support the billionaires’ view?

When engaging in an honest utilitarian calculation of this sort, the three main factors are values, scope and facts. In the case of the facts, one must honestly consider the consequences.  The scope determines who counts when assessing the harms and benefits. The values determine how one weighs the facts, what is considered good and what is seen as bad. It is a fact that the social distancing practices did economic damage. Many people were unable to work, many businesses closed or operated at minimum levels and so on. It was also a fact that relaxed social distancing to get people back to work resulted in more infections which caused more suffering and death. The billionaires and those who disagree with them agreed on these facts; but they disagreed about matters of scope (who counts) and value (what counts more). The billionaires showed no concern for the well-being of workers and it would be absurd to think they suddenly started to care. As such, the scope of their concern was, at most, their economic class of billionaires. In terms of values, the billionaires value money, more so than the well-being of workers (otherwise they would provide better pay and benefits). As such, their argument made sense to them: relaxing the restrictions benefited them financially and the harm would, as always, be suffered by other people. Those who think that everyone counts and who value life and health over profits for billionaires saw the matter differently.

It could be objected that while the billionaires are interested in their profits, they are also correct that workers would have been hurt more by the ongoing economic damage. As such, it was right to relax the restrictions because it was also better for the workers.  There are two main replies to this argument. The first reply is to argue that the billionaires were wrong in their assessment: even in their economic terms, relaxing the restrictions caused more economic damage than keeping them in place. To use an analogy, imagine a business in a large building that is on fire. One could argue that having the fire trucks pump water into the building will do a lot of damage and that the fire should be allowed to burn out while employees continue to work. But this can be countered by pointing out that allowing the building to burn will do far more damage in the long term and kill more people.  As such, unless the goal is short-term profits and long-term disaster, then it would have been best to keep social distancing in place until it was medically unnecessary.

The second reply is that people suffered, as they have for a long time, because of the economic and social structures we have constructed. We had vast resources to mitigate the harm that was done—the problem is that these resources were (and are) hyper concentrated into the hands of a few and most people lacked the resources to endure the pandemic on their own (and many lacked the resources to endure “normal” life before the pandemic). The truth is that we could have gotten through the economic harm of the pandemic better if we had been more willing to share the resources and wealth that we all created. It was ironic that the billionaires had a fix on hand for many of the harms they predicted: the economic and social structures could have been radically changed for the good of us all, rather than focused on the good of the elites

The lesson I hope we learned here is that the sacrifices of those in essential areas, like those working to provide food and health care, are morally justified and laudable. Another lesson is that the sacrifices extracted from the many by the few to expand their wealth are neither justified nor laudable. What is perhaps more horrifying than the billionaires’ view that people should die for the economy is that they believe they can make such statements in public with impunity and without fear of consequences. I hope that more people will see this for what it is, and they will work to change the world. Unfortunately, many have chosen the side of the billionaires once again and now they openly rule the oligarchy of America.

As COVID-19 ravaged humanity, xenophobia and racism remained alive and well. For example, an Iranian leader  played on fears of America and Israel. He advanced, without evidence, the claim that the virus was created specifically to target Iranians. In addition to conspiracy theories that the Chinese engineered the virus (either to reduce their own population or for use against other nations) there was also a worldwide rise in xenophobia and racism against Asians.

One reason for the xenophobia and racism is that people were looking for a visible enemy upon which to take out their fear and anger. Many people felt helpless and afraid during the pandemic and as humans are inclined to focus on other humans as threats, there was a rise in xenophobia and racism. People are also inclined to seek an intelligence behind dangers, as they did when they attributed natural disasters to gods. Since humans suffer from in group bias and evil leaders feed xenophobia and racism, it is no surprise that people are sought a scapegoat for the  crisis: someone must be to blame. Someone must pay.

The United States, with a long tradition of racism against Asians, saw an increase in xenophobia and racism. While most incidents were limited to verbal hostility, racism in the context of disease raises serious concerns. The United States has a history of weaponizing racism in the context of diseases and we should be on guard against this, because leaders try to appeal to their base and divert attention away from their failings. An example of an American leader’s effort to use xenophobia and racism is Donald Trump using the term “Chinese virus” in place of “coronavirus” or “COVID-19.”

Trump did have excellent, albeit evil, reasons to use these terms. One is that it appeals to parts of his base. This dog whistle sends the message he is speaking to them.  A second reason is that it shifted blame from Trump’s inept and harmful early handling of the pandemic. By presenting it as a Chinese virus Trump created the appearance the threat is the responsibility of a foreign power (and people) and attempted to mitigate his responsibility. Third, it helped create an “us versus them” mentality, with the “them” being other people rather than the virus. Unfortunately, while Trump gained some apparent advantages from this approach, it came with a high cost.

There are those who will defend Trump and take issue with my criticism of him. My first response is that Trump is just an example for the problem of xenophobia and racism. If a Trump defender claims he was not engaged in any racism or xenophobia, then I would refer to the United States being blamed by other for the virus. I suspect a Trump supporter would agree that the xenophobia of other countries towards the United States was not helpful and was, in fact, detrimental.

My second response is that Trump engaged in in open racism and xenophobia. He used the well-worn xenophobic and racist trope of the foreign disease and the diseased foreigner—which was also used in the racism aimed at the allegedly diseased caravans heading towards the United States from the south. That Trump’s defenders had to engage in relentless efforts to explain away his seemingly racist claims undercuts their own case. One would have needed to argue Trump unintentionally but constantly used racist tropes and language. While not impossible, it does strain the boundaries of possibility.

Another piece of evidence is that Trump used his infamous sharpie to cross out “Corona” in his speech and replace it with “Chinese”, showing his use was intended, rather than a slip.  His defenders could engage in verbal gymnastics to explain this. One strategy was to argue Trump used the phrase “Chinese virus” as “Spanish flu” was used. While this approach has some appeal, using the phrase “Spanish flu” is also problematic. Labeling a disease with a specific country or ethnicity tends to lead to stigma and racism. As such, using the “Spanish Flu” defense is like defending the use of “wetback” by saying that people also used “wop.”

A second strategy is to argue that Trump was just referring to where it came from and, for bonus points, one can point out that it was originally called the “Wu Han virus.” One can say that it cannot have been racist or xenophobic for Trump to use “Chinese virus” because the Chinese used “Wu Han virus.” The easy and obvious reply is that the use of the term “Wu Han virus” was also seen as problematic, for the same reasons that “Spanish flu” and “Chinese virus” are problematic. To use an analogy, this would be like a Chinese leader talking about “Caucasian flu” and saying that was just fine because, for example, Americans first started using a term like “Connecticut flu” when the disease first appeared in Connecticut. Since Trump decided to refer to it as the “Chinese flu” and there are no good reasons to use that term, the best explanation is the obvious one: Trump used a xenophobic and racist dog whistle, cashing in on the well-worn trope of the diseased foreigner and the foreign disease. For those who would try to present this in a positive light, one must ask why do this? And why defend him against the umpteenth reasonable charge of racism and xenophobia?

As noted above, there was already racism and xenophobia against Asians (and Asian Americans) and Trump’s insistence on calling it the “Chinese virus” was likely to have contributed to the uptick in such incidents. Using this sort of label also put the United States at odds with other counties. And other countries blaming us had the same effect. Having Americans turn against other Americans is harmful, especially during a crisis in which community unity is an important part of our survival toolkit. It is also harmful to create conflict between nations when cooperation will improve our response to pandemics. A pandemic is a war between humans and a disease. Creating conflict between humans might serve the selfish goals of some leaders, but it harms humanity. As such, a key lesson from the COVID-19 pandemic is that using racism and xenophobia will only make things worse. As it always does.

In the face of a crisis politicians often have an incentive to conceal, lie and spread disinformation. There seems to be a natural impulse to do these things to avoid blame or perhaps from wishful thinking. A politician might have good reasons to conceal and deceive, such as to not seem weak to other nations or to avoid panicking the population. But concealing facts is likely to make things worse, while disinformation will make it even worse than that.

A lesson that should have been learned from the 1918 influenza pandemic is that honesty and accurate information are critical to fighting a pandemic. The threat of the flu was initially downplayed, allowing it to spread. Officials also failed to inform the public of the true danger. One example is the infamous Philadelphia parade which allowed the flu to spread like wildfire.  This resulted in the deaths of over 1,000 people and over 200,000 were infected. While this disaster should have provided a  lesson, the denial, downplaying and deceit continued. The inaction extended to the top, with President Woodrow Wilson (a Democrat) remaining silent about the flu. While there is no way to calculate  how many people would have not died if accurate information had been provided, it is reasonable to infer that many lives could have been saved.  Given this historical lesson, we should have been ready to face COVID-19 with honest, accurate information. But this was not the case. As an American, I will focus on my government, though examining other nations would also be useful.

When COVID-19 was first identified in January, former Trump officials  (Bossert and Gottlieb) started sounding a warning about the virus, drawing the obvious and tragic lessons from the 1918 pandemic. The initial response from Fox News was to cast the virus as a hoax intended to harm Trump.  According to Snopes, Trump did not directly claim the virus was a hoax but instead accused the Democrats of creating a new hoax—the target of the alleged hoax being his inept and dangerous handling of the virus.   This evolved into downplaying the severity of the threat, with Trump making dangerously false claims about the spread of the virus and other critical matters. While the White House and Fox news eventually seemed to take the threat seriously, dangerous disinformation was still being spread. One example of moral irresponsibility was the claim that test kits were readily available so that the federal government would be able to provide them to the states. This was not true and the lie costs states time they could have used to create and distribute their own test kits. It was as if your home was on fire and the fire department said that they were just about there with their great new firetrucks. But they were lying, they were not on their way and only had some garden hoses.

Because of the downplaying and deceit, there were deaths that could have been prevented by the truth. If Trump and Fox News had told the truth from day one, people would still have gotten sick, but we would have been better prepared and could have mitigated the harm. Instead, Trump and Fox News (and others) aided and abetted the viral enemy with disinformation and some deaths are partially their fault. 

The lessons from COVID-19 are a repeat of those of the 1918 pandemic: those in power need to provide honest and accurate information in response to public health threats. Such honesty can cost a politician, especially if they are ill equipped to handle the crisis. But the cost of silence and disinformation is always higher when it is paid by the public. But a leader’s concern should be the good of the people, not their own private good.

It could be objected that there have been cases in which silence and disinformation were beneficia. That is, the leaders’ concealment or lying caused a better outcome than the truth. While this might have some merit in some cases, the 1918 and 2019 pandemics shows this is a poor response to pandemics.  To claim there might be unknown cases in which silence or deception were the best choices would be to use an appeal to ignorance fallacy. Claiming silence or deceit is good because there might be unknown cases in which they worked is terrible logic. While the above focuses on politicians and leaders, it is also worth considering the threat of disinformation from members of the public.

As would be expected, citizens also spread misinformation. In some cases, this is the result of ignorance. People might act from benevolent motives, but they are doing harm by spreading untrue claims. For example, a person might believe that drinking bleach can cure COVID-19 and they share because they care. While benevolent motives cannot be faulted, people have an obligation to critically assess claims before they share them A quick test of a claim is to check it against one’s own observations, against one’s background information and against credible claims. Using the bleach example, bleach bottles have prominent warnings about the dangers of bleach (observation) and most people should have in their background information that bleach is a poison.  If a claim matches up with all three, then it is reasonable to accept it as likely be true. If it does not, then it is often reasonable to doubt the claim or at least suspend judgment. People also need to critically assess the sources of claims. If no source is provided, then one must go with the above methods of testing a claim. If a source is provided, the source must be confirmed and assessed. The credibility of source depends primarily on the knowledge of the source (how likely they are to be right) and their lack of bias (a biased source is less credible, since they have a reason to lie). In general, knowledgeable and unbiased sources are good sources; biased or ignorant sources are not. When in doubt it is wisest to suspend judgment.

There are also those who knowingly spread misinformation. This might be to make money, such as Televangelist Jim Bakker’s efforts to sell a fake corona virus cure or for political advantages, such as Russia’s efforts to worsen the pandemic by spreading disinformation in the West. There are also trolls who spread disinformation because it is amusing or because they want to hurt people. There is  no reasonable way to argue that it is morally acceptable for people to lie in health crisis to make money or because a troll likes engaging in harmful trolling. But perhaps a case can be made justifying nations weaponizing misinformation. After all, if using war or otherwise hurting and killing people are morally acceptable, then hurting people through misinformation would also seem acceptable. That is, if we accept killing people with bullets and bombs, then it is hard to balk at killing with lies.

One possible response is to argue that a pandemic is a war with two sides: humans and the pathogen. As such, when a country uses disinformation in a pandemic, they are aiding the enemy of all humanity and are committing treason in a time of war. A less dramatic and more pragmatic response is to point out that misinformation, like a virus, tends to spread, so a country that weaponizes misinformation runs the risk of it infecting their own population. Social media is, of course, the vessel of choice for distributing most disinformation and misinformation.

While there can be sensible debate about what sort of political speech social media should restrict, if any, there seems to be no good arguments that social media companies should allow and enable the spread of misinformation and disinformation about a pandemic. Returning to the virus analogy, this would be like Uber having a policy of allowing drivers to knowingly drive  people infected with dangerous diseases around to interact with healthy people just because they can make some money. There is also the war analogy. If social media does not fight misinformation and disinformation in a pandemic, they are aiding and abetting the enemy in a time of war.

In closing, the lessons here are clear: leaders need to immediately provide accurate information about pandemics, citizens need to be critical in their acceptance of information, and intentional spreading of disinformation should be regarded as moral crime against humanity in a time of war.

When everyone is in danger from a disease, it seems irrational for a political party to politicize the threat. But this happened during COVID-19.  One reason is that while Americans seem extremely polarized; this is  more appearance than reality. While Americans do disagree strongly on some issues, there is considerable consensus about many issues. Because of this, political parties need to manufacture a conflict in which they can score points. Since a threat generates strong emotions, it can be ideal for politization as a party can tap into the emotions and manipulate them to its advantage. Taking a threat seriously can also be contrary to the interests of some and they will try to prevent this by politicizing the threat. If they succeed, they can recruit voters and get them to support policies that endanger these voters. Thus, a political party can have two excellent reasons to politicize a universal threat: to score political points and serve the interests of those who benefit from allowing the threat to remain unaddressed.

Politicization can be effective at engaging emotions and disengaging reasoning. There are many fallacies (such as group think) and cognitive biases (such as in group bias) that feed and are fed by ideology. If you are liberal, then you probably just thought of the Republican politicization of climate change. If you are a conservative, you might have been thinking about the sins of the Democrats. If so, then you can see how conflict can easily be created along party lines.

The COVID-19 virus presents a threat to everyone, but it was politicized. Initially the Trump administration downplayed the virus and accused the Democrats of using it to attack Trump and the idea that is a hoax aimed at hurting Trump persists. There were short-term advantages to politicizing the virus, such as keeping the markets calm through ignorance, to allow business to continue as usual and to hope that the virus would not arrive until after the 2020 election. Political points were also scored against the Democrats by accusing them of making up a virus threat to hurt Trump.

From the Republican perspective, the Democrats were the villains, doing terrible things to harm Trump and impede his efforts. On their view, it was the Democrats who were manufacturing the conflict; first by creating a virus hoax and then by interfering with Trump’s efforts to address the virus.  How one sees this matter will, obviously, tend to shake out along ideological lines, thus politicizing the issue of politicization.

While, as noted above, political points can be scored by politicizing an objective threat, this does have negative consequences. The most obvious is that time and resources are spent fighting manufactured political battles rather than uniting against a threat to everyone. Another consequence is that manufacturing a conflict requires that misinformation, thus misleading people and this can have enduring consequences. In the case of the virus, while Fox News and the White House did shift their position to match reality, the groundwork they laid still serves as a foundation for the enduring view that the virus is either a hoax or not very serious.

Some Republicans will want to blame the Democrats; a common narrative is that their impeachment efforts are partially to blame for the virus crisis. As would be expected, one’s ideological lens determines how one sees this matter: Trump and Fox News as the villains who politicized the virus or the Democrats as the villains who distracted Trump from the virus.

There are three solutions to the needless harm caused by this sort of politicization. The first is that politicians need to exercise judgment and restraint before engaging in politization of a crisis. The problem is that it is seen as a useful political tool. As such, getting politicians to use good judgment and exercise restraint is challenging. The second solution is that voters can support candidates who are more likely to exercise judgment and restraint. Third, voters also decide how they respond. If they resisted efforts to politicize a crisis that should be non-partisan, then the efforts of politicians would be far less likely to succeed.

One concern is the charge of politization can be used, ironically, to politicize an issue and silence legitimate criticism. For example, the facts show that Trump’s initial handling of the crisis was terrible and that he made untrue claims about the virus and the situation. As such, legitimate criticisms of these failures could be non-political. But if critics are Democrats or liberals, they could be accused of politicizing. To address this problem, critics should focus on the facts and steer clear of what might appear overtly political. This will be challenging, since the other party is unlikely to accept legitimate and fair criticism and will claim it is unfair politicization. As such, the manufactured polarization in the United States that has served the parties has done massive damage to America. As should be expected. Unless we address this, new crises will  repeat the harmful politicalization of the  COVID-19 crisis.

In the United States, health care is often seen as a private good. The benefit of a private good belongs primarily (or even exclusively) to the individual. But a private good could have some broader benefit as well. A private good is usually seen as being the responsibility of the beneficiary. Put roughly, you should pay for your private good, not the rest of us. There are many things that are clearly private goods.

For example, my running shoes are a private good because they benefit me, and I should be the one to buy them.  In terms of broader benefits, my health means that I do not miss work, and this benefits my employer and students. But this is not enough to make them a public good.  .

Obviously. a public good is supposed to benefit the public and is often seen as being the responsibility of society. Put roughly, it is a good for us and we should pay for it collectively. A public good need not benefit everyone directly. For example, public transport does not directly benefit someone who never uses it and only gets around by walking or biking.  There is considerable debate over what goods (if any) should be public. Public versus private health care is a matter of debate in the United States.

Apart from the United States, most wealthy countries have chosen public health care. The United States offers some public health care in the form of Medicare and Medicaid but people need to qualify for both and the Trump administration and Musk are doing what they can to cut into these programs.

Most working people rely on private health care. One reason is the rhetorical narrative that health care is a private goo or at least better as a private good. In terms of being a private good, the idea is that each of us is responsible for our own health care in that we must earn the money to pay for insurance and treatment. With the exceptions of Medicare and Medicaid, we are on our own. The idea is that my health is good for me, but not for you, hence I should bear the cost.

There are also arguments that private health care is better than public health care. This can be countered by the fact that people go bankrupt due to medical expenses, people cannot afford and hence do not get basic care, and people  turn to GoFundMe to pay their medical bills. It is true that we have the best health care money can buy, if you have the money to buy it. I will set aside this debate to focus on the main issue: whether health care is best seen as public or private good. One way to approach this matter is to consider paradigm cases of public goods.

Consider, if you will, an alternative America in which defense, police, fire and the legal system are private goods analogous to how health care is a private good in the real America. In this alternative America, citizens need to purchase military, police and legal insurance or face high costs for purchasing military, police, fire and legal services. In the case of military and police coverage, a citizen would be provided with various degrees of military protection for their person and property. Without such coverage, a citizen would need to pay high costs to secure such services as defense against foreign enemies and police investigations into crimes committed against them. Those who could not pay might be able to qualify for some basic services through government programs such as Militaryaid and Policecare. Those unable to qualify for these programs and unable to afford the services would be on their own. They would need to rely on self-defense, a garden hose and vigilante justice to address threats and crimes against them. This would be fair and just—after all, having the military protect me does not benefit you, nor does having the police investigate theft of my truck benefit you. Only having the military protect you benefits you. Only having the police investigate the theft of your truck benefits you. So, by the logic of health care as a private good, police and military services are also private goods. The same would also apply to aspects of the legal system. Being able to defend my property or other rights in a legal system does not benefit you, it just benefits me.

There would be, of course, certain police, military and legal activities that would occur because they would be good for these institutions and the state. The police would certainly enforce laws that generated revenue for them and the state; but if the law served only your private good, then you would need to pay for its enforcement. Such institutions would be lean and efficient, operating in accord with strict market forces as God intended. Unless, of course, they grew bloated and inefficient.

In this world, the results would be like health care in the real world. People would be locked into jobs to keep their police, military, fire and legal benefits. People in need would turn to GoFundMe to pay to have their spouses’ murder   investigation or keeping Canadians off their land. Many people would be victimized, injured or killed because they lacked basic coverage. But defenders of the system would praise it for all it alleged virtues and mock other countries for their public police, military, fire and legal services.

Things like police, military, legal and fire services are seen as public goods because they meet a state’s minimal obligation of protecting its citizens. Such goods require large expenditures, thus requiring collective funding and this can be seen as justifying providing a collective good. The same can be applied to health care; just as the state should protect its citizens from ISIS, fire and crime, it should also protect its citizens from COVID-19 and cancer. After all, you are dead whether you are killed by an ISIS bomb, a criminal’s bullet or COVID-19.

Police, military and other such services are also seen as public goods because they do (mostly) benefit everyone—even though the specific applications benefit specific people. The same also applies to much of health care. For example, infectious illnesses spread and containing them is a public good. As another pragmatic example, sick and injured people contribute less to the economy, so treating them benefits the public by getting them back into serving their core functions in capitalism: working and spending. As such, health care should be seen as analogous to the public goods of the military, police, fire, and legal system. There are, of course, obvious exceptions in which medical procedures are entirely private goods (like face lifts) but these exceptions do not disprove the general principle.

When the COVID-19 virus invaded the United States, it found an ill-prepared and complacent foe. As such, the impact proved devastating. One clear lesson is that the aggressively for-profit health care system is a weak point in our national defense against disease. I will make my case with the obvious analogy between health care and military defense.

Imagine, if you will, that the United States military operated like our health care system. Our current health care system is analogous to relying on mercenaries, albeit with a professional code of ethics and some loyalty to the nation. During normal times, the health care system is almost entirely mercenary: it fights battles to make a profit. This is not to disparage medical professionals, but the profit model chosen by those who control health care. Because the goal is profit, the health care system is operated to minimize costs and maximize income. This means operating like a mercenary force: employing minimal personnel to do the job, maintaining only necessary resources for normal operations, focusing on the highest paying customers, and only taking on profitable contracts. This is a rational way to operate a mercenary unit. But is it a good way for a national military to run? That is, would it make sense for the United States to switch from a public military to a mercenary military?

Laying aside the usual problems of loyalty and dependability, relying on a mercenary (for-profit) military model would be a problem for the United States. One obvious problem is the United States needs a large force that ready to engage in prolonged conflicts that we do not always get to pick. After all, national security need not match up with what would be the most profitable military operations and requires keeping resources available, such as the reserves, that no purely for-profit military would sensibly maintain. If the United States relied on a mercenary military for its defense, it would face many challenges in times of crisis: rapidly ramping up to meet the challenge, making the operations profitable enough to motivate mercenary forces (such as paying them enough to protect everybody). These are, in fact, all the reasons why a country should have a public, national military rather than relying on mercenaries. After all, the United States needs a military that is ready to face whatever threat arises and not a force limited by the need to make a profit. It is thus no surprise that our mercenary healthcare system runs into analogous problems.

Being focused on profits, the health care system operates with minimum resources and personnel. Maintaining a reserve of medical professionals and the resources needed for a crisis would cut deeply into profits. The government, it should be noted, does keep some medical resources in reserve, but this is obviously the public sector in operation. Because of this razor thin operation that maximizes profits, the health care system is like a mercenary unit: ill-prepared when the battle turns into a full-scale war requiring large reserves and resources. The health care system normally deals with the problem of resources by allocating them based on profit; like a smart mercenary commander who accepts the lucrative contract to fight easier opponents. In the case of health care, the wealthy get the best health care money can buy, while the poor get whatever is left over. But in the case of a national crisis, the response must be large scale: it is an invasion and not just the usual battles. People face the same problem, be it in a battle fought by mercenaries or health care provided by mercenaries: they need to be able to pay in order to get protection.

One principled reason we have a national public military rather than using mercenary forces is that we accept that the military should protect all citizens and not just those who can afford to hire their own mercenary forces. The same principle should apply to health care: having a mercenary medical system means that a citizen’s survival depends on what they can pay, and this is not acceptable. If we believe that the state should protect all citizens equally from ISIS and North Korea, then we should accept that the state should protect all citizens equally from COVID-19 and H1N1.

It could be sensibly argued that the military model fits in the case of pandemics and while health care should be modified to address the threat of pandemics, the for-profit model should remain for everyday medical matters. So, for example, everyone should have access to testing and treatment for COVID-19, but we should still be on our own when it comes to the flu, hepatitis or automobile accidents.

One reply is to argue that the state has obligations in the everyday medical care of the citizens. To use another analogy, if handling pandemics is like fighting a war, lesser threats are analogous to small-scale conflicts or police operations. We do not, for example, expect Americans to pay to get police services to address crimes against them, just because the crime is against them and not a pandemic of crime.

This is not to say that the state must pay for everything. No doubt someone is thinking about the state  paying for breast implants or face lifts. But expecting the state to pay for these would be like expecting the state to pay the bill because a citizen wanted to see a military parade on their street. As such, only the medically necessary should be covered. Just as we limit the obligations of the national military and local police, the obligations of health care can also be limited. This can lead to debates about what is necessary, but these disputes can be addressed in good faith.

It could be objected that people bring on their own health problems by bad choices and this should not be the responsibility of the state. But the same argument would apply to the police and military. For example, if the police thought that you did not take enough precautions to protect your car, they could refuse to do anything about it being stolen. Or, as another example, if you get attacked and injured, they could refuse to help you because you failed to take enough karate.

If we continue to rely on mercenary health care as part of our national defense, we can expect things to play out in a manner analogous to relying on mercenary forces for our national defense: no matter how brave or dedicated the individual soldiers are, a mercenary system is simply not up to facing the challenge.

As noted in previous essays, a tactic used by critics of capitalism is to accuse them of envy. As an argument, the Accusation of Envy is a fallacy. However, as was noted in the previous essay, a person’s envy could bias them and impact their credibility. Even when envy is relevant to credibility, proof of envy has no relevance to the truth of the person’s claims or the quality of their arguments. But from a rhetorical standpoint, such attacks can be effective: if someone is convinced another person is envious, they will often dismiss claims and arguments for psychological rather than logical reasons. Some people also enjoy attacking those they disagree with and casting them as being corrupted by vices. So, how would one tell if another person is envious?

My rough account of envy is that it involves an improper desire for what someone else has and the feeling includes an unwarranted resentment towards the possessor of the desired thing.  It often includes the desire to unjustly take it from the other person. An envious person would tend to be unable to get what they desire. If they could, they would presumably cease their envy (though they might become jealous). Determining if a person is envious would require assessing a person in terms of these factors in a fair and objective way.

A central part of the assessment is determining if the person has an improper desire for what someone else has. If a person shows no interest in the alleged object of desire, the accusation of envy would seem unwarranted. Even if a person is interested, it must be shown there is a defect in their desire and that unwarranted resentment is present.  As an illustration, consider the difference between training to be as good a basketball player as Jordan because he is an athlete you respect and bitterly begrudging his ability because you wish you had his talent.

 Discerning the presence of unwarranted resentment involves assessing the person’s words and deeds relative to the target of the alleged envy. Due caution must be taken to distinguish criticism and even anger from unwarranted resentment. Consider the difference between being justly angry at someone who harmed you and being unjustly resentful of someone who has done well in an area where you have failed. If a fair and objective assessment shows that the person is suffering from envy, then it would be reasonable to make that claim. But this would still be irrelevant to the truth of their claims and the quality of their arguments.

In some cases, people will make their envy clear: they will express bitter, yet unwarranted, resentment and have a record of failed attempts to acquire what they desire. They might even admit their envy. In other cases, it will be harder to determine if a person is envious. After all, strong criticism can resemble unwarranted resentment, and justified anger can arise from a string of unfair failures. For example, a person who tries to start a small business and is repeatedly driven out of business by corporations exploiting their unfair advantages could be seen as having righteous anger at an unfair system or cast as a failure who is envious. If a person does not show clear signs of envy or denies that they are envious, one evil rhetorical tactic that can be used is Secret Motive.

Secret Motive (or Real Motive) is a rhetorical technique in which a person is accused of having a secret, typically bad, motive for their claims, arguments or actions. That is, they are being accused of having a real motive that is wicked. This is often a set up for an ad hominem attack based on the alleged secret motive. For example, consider a critic of capitalism who denies they are envious of the rich and there is no good evidence to the contrary. An evil “solution” is to insist their real motivation is envy, despite the lack of evidence. The accuser often claims a special insight or understanding into the psychology of the accused and this is why they somehow know the person’s secret motive despite being able to provide evidence for their claim. While primarily a rhetorical device (and hence not an argument) it can also be cast as a fallacy:

 

Premise 1: Person A asserts that person B has a secret (or real) motive.

Conclusion: B has a secret motive.

 

The error occurs when A fails to provide adequate evidence for their conclusion. This is not to say that “evidence” will never be provided; but what is offered fails to support their claim. For example, the “evidence” of envy might be that the person has been critical of the rich, though they have never expressed resentment at wealth earned fairly and have never exhibited interest in becoming rich. But the accuser somehow “knows” the accused is secretly envious, apparently through some exceptional epistemic abilities. Aside from dishonesty, one possible motivation is that the accuser honestly cannot conceive of anyone being critical of capitalism for a good reason. Hence, they infer there must be a secret wicked motive. But it is more likely the accuser knows there are good criticism of capitalism and to not accuse the critic of wicked motives would be to acknowledge this.

The defense against this technique is objectively assessing whether adequate evidence exists for the accusation of the secret motive. If not, the claim should not be accepted. It must also be remembered that even if a person has a bad (secret or not) motive, this is irrelevant to the truth of their claims and the quality of their arguments.

 

I am, on occasion, critical of capitalism. I am, on occasion, accused of being critical because I am allegedly envious or a Marxist. If these were attacks aimed only at me, they would be of no general interest. However, accusing critics of capitalism of being motivated by envy or Marxism is a common tactic that warrants evaluation. I will begin with the accusation of envy.

While the accusation of envy is rarely presented as a developed argument, it aims to refute criticism of capitalism by attacking the critic’s motive.  The logic is that their criticism is wrong because they are envious of those who are winning capitalism. Obviously, this reasoning is fallacious and can be called the Accusation of Envy or Refutation by Envy. This fallacious argument has the following form:

 

Premise 1: Person P makes critical claim C about X.

Premise 2: P is accused of envy (typically relating to X).

Conclusion: Therefore, claim C is false.

 

This is a fallacy because whether a person is envious has no bearing on the truth of the claims they make. Even if a person is driven by envy, it does not follow that their claims are false. The following example illustrates this “reasoning” is flawed:

 

Sam: “When tyrants oppress their people and commit genocide, they are acting wrongly.”

Sally: “Why you are just envious of tyrants. So, you are wrong. They are acting justly and morally.”

 

Another absurd example, involves math:

 

Cool Joe: “2+2 = 7.”

Mathematician Mary: “That is wrong; 2+2=4.”

Cool Joe: “You are just envious of my being so cool. And rich. And handsome. So, you are wrong. 2+2 =7.”

Cool Cathy: “Oh, Joe, you are so right, and Mary is so wrong. Work through your envy and maybe you’ll get a man someday.”

 

Even if Mary was envious of Joe, it does not follow she is wrong when she claims 2+2 =4. The example is intended to be absurd, because its absurdity shows that this logic is fallacious.  If this logic was good, it would be easy to “disprove” anything, be it basic truths of math or criticisms of capitalism.

As such, accusing anyone of envy does not refute claims. Since this is a fallacy, it might be wondered why someone would use this tactic. One possibility is that the fallacious attack is the best the person has; they have no good refutation. A second possibility is that while fallacies are logically flawed, they can be very powerful persuasive tools. As a practical matter “winning” an argument has nothing to do with truth or the quality of the logic; it is about persuading the target audience to accept a claim whether it is true. Ad hominem style attacks are effective psychologically, so this tactic can be a winning one. In many cases the target audience wants to reject the criticism, hence they are happy to accept any “reason” to do so.

It might be wondered whether a person’s envy can be relevant to their claims. While it is, as shown above, irrelevant to the truth of their claims, it could be a relevant factor in assessing bias. But even if a person is biased, it does not follow that their claim must be false.  It is to the matter of envy and credibility that I will turn in the next essay.