WHAT CAN WE LEARN FROM THE PANDEMIC?

 

There is little disagreement that policy errors were made during the pandemic. The problem is that Democrats, Republicans, and even scientists who specialize in public health cannot agree on what the miscalculations were or how to prevent them in the future. This result should not be unexpected.  The Pew Research Center has concluded, “The most significant pandemic of our lifetime arrived as the United States was experiencing three major societal trends: a growing divide between partisans of the left and right, decreasing trust in many institutions, and a massive splintering of the information environment.”

Democrats point to the lax preparation and prevention efforts employed by the first Trump administration. They believe there were many warning signals before COVID-19 swept across the nation. There is also criticism of the slow roll out of available vaccines in the final months of the 2020 Trump presidency.

Republicans argue that the Biden administration and governors in blue states called for “draconian” lock-down, masking, and distancing mandates that caused harm to our economic and social fabric.  They contend that elected Democrat officials gave too little priority to individual choice and did not support businesses or parents who wanted their children back in the classroom.

The only fact on which all parties agree is that “Operation Warp Speed,” a national program employed by Trump officials to quickly develop a vaccine was an unmitigated success. With vaccine production using mRNA as a delivery mechanism, scientists moved quickly to clinical and human trials. This allowed the vaccines to become the fastest ever developed and approved.

As of January 30, 2021, five of the six vaccine candidates had entered phase 3 clinical trials. Two candidates from Moderna and Pfizer/BioNTech received an emergency use authorization from the FDA. This decision was indispensable to lessening the effects of the pandemic. A week later, on February 5, 2021, the U.S. had over 26 million cumulative reported cases of COVID-19 and about 449,020 reported deaths.

 

In May 2023, the World Health Organization (WHO) declared an end to the public health emergency. Adequate time has now passed to permit social scientists and historians (with no political axe to grind) to review the voluminous documentation and statistical evidence generated by federal/state agencies and scientific entities.

The initiation of governmental policies to mitigate the harm is now more or less settled. On 23 January 2020, the Chinese government banned travel to and from Wuhan and enforced a national policy of quarantines in affected regions. The WHO examined this approach and bought into the Chinese model, which swiftly became conventional wisdom around the world. As a result of this thinking, America launched masking, distancing, and lockdowns on a broad scale.

This commentary will discuss a recent book that focuses on the governmental responses to COVID-19 and other strains of the virus. The publication gives a fair and honest assessment in which no political party, elected official, or federal agency escapes unscathed. It is a straight-forward report that we all need to consider in order to learn from the pandemic moving forward.

The book, In Covid’s Wake: How Our Politics Failed Us, is the work of two public policy professors at Princeton University, Stephen Macedo and Francis Lee.  Among other favorable reviews, this study has been called “compelling” by Fareed Zakaria and “social science at its finest” by George Will.

Macedo and Lee describe how, influenced by China’s lockdown, federal agencies departed from their already existing pandemic plans that minimized the use of social distancing and masking. In making difficult choices, “follow the science without question” replaced open scientific debate and valuable input from non-scientists.

The authors found that benefits and damages were unfairly distributed. Priority was placed on avoiding hospitalization and death with little consideration of economic loss or the long-term harm caused by missing school and locking-down communities. Even when the virus started acted differently than predicted, scientific conformity replaced open debate and reasoned thought.

Macedo and Lee point to Sweden, which never mandated masks or staying at home and kept schools open. Statistics now show that Sweden had one of the lowest death rates in Europe. Initially In America, states that locked down for longer, fared no better than those that did not. However, once vaccines were readily available, red states did not do as well because vaccine skepticism increased the number of infections.

The authors conclude that: 1) the federal policies adopted largely benefited the wealthier “laptop class” and left so-called essential workers unprotected, 2) extended school closures hit the least-privileged families the hardest, and 3) science became politicized, and dissent was driven to the margins. 

On this third point, it now seems an unwarranted partisan position for Atlantic magazine to accuse the state of Georgia of performing “an experiment in human sacrifice” when the governor eased its lockdown requirements. Elected officials can often fairly weigh considerations that experts may not consider or fully appreciate.

If we are to learn anything from the pandemic, we must realize that governments need “a more honest politics of crisis policymaking, a greater willingness to acknowledge doubt and recognition of people with varying views.”

In the next crisis, Macedo and Lee warn, “we must not forget the deepest values of liberal democracy: tolerance and open-mindedness, respect for scientific evidence and its limits, a willingness to entertain uncertainty, and a commitment by the government to tell us the whole truth.”

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

HONOR CHARLIE KIRK WITH SCHOLASTIC DEBATING PROGRAMS

 

The assassination of political activist and media personality, Charlie Kirk, has opened up a new chapter of political violence in America. Kirk was a commentator and influencer, not an elected official. He was apparently targeted because of his conservative political views. Some observers believe this event could trigger an escalating response of tit-for-tat violence from extremist elements and mentally unstable individuals.

No one should brush off this event or try to rationalize the outcome based on right-wing or MAGA talking points. I will echo the words of progressive commentator Ezra Klein in his New York Times opinion column shortly after the killing: “The foundation of a free society is the ability to participate in politics without fear or violence…Kirk was practicing politics in exactly the right way. He was showing up to campuses and talking with anyone who would talk to him…A taste for disagreement is a virtue in a democracy.”

The question becomes whether something positive can result from Kirk’s killing that would address the almost insurmountable divide between political partisans. In my view, a timely positive step would be to have a nationwide discussion on the importance of scholastic training in policy debate techniques to improve communication skills in American society.

Modern American education ignores the long tradition of teaching oratory and rhetoric. It treats the subject of policy debating as a minor club activity, not important enough for the classroom. Accordingly, young students’ political views are shaped by partisan parents and social media. They develop narrow silos of thought and are not exposed to positions that support the wide range of political philosophy that defines our democratic republic. Moreover, today’s youth and in many cases their parents have not developed listening skills or the ability to move beyond stereotypes when discussing a sensitive topic.

Oratory and rhetoric began in ancient Greece with the Sophists and was codified by Aristotle. These learning tools later became a cornerstone of classical education in both the Greek and Roman worlds. They involve learning how to effectively persuade and communicate when participating in public and social life. 

In English education the history of oratory and rhetoric spans centuries. Classical educators believed that this tradition trained future leaders. Works like Hugh Blair's Lectures on Rhetoric and Belles-Lettres (1783) became standard texts in universities across Europe and America.

In time, these subjects fell out of favor due to the curriculum split between English language and English literature. In addition, instruction in the sciences replaced these classical teaching tools. Modern educators often labeled these communication skills negatively and unnecessary in teaching a basic education to students with lower aptitudes.

Early in life, I was exposed to an example of formal policy debate that has served me well.  In my small New Jersy elementary school, our eighth-grade teacher felt that it was important to have an intermural policy debating team. One of my fondest memories was making it to the finals against a close friend. In 1964, he was a Republican Goldwater conservative. I followed my family’s long-standing tradition as a Democrat and embraced the administration of Lyndon B. Johnson following the assassination of President Kennedy.

Our debate topic was “American Use of Foreign Aid.” The Democrats supported it. Conservative Republicans thought it was a waste of taxpayer dollars.

A week before the debate, our thoughtful teacher, Mr. Gallagher, gave us the debate instructions. Each of us would be asked to advocate for the policies we disagreed with. He knew that being compelled to defend positions opposite our ideological beliefs would provide a richer learning experience.

To learn the status of teaching debate and communication skills in today’s environment, I went to the American Debate League for some answers. This nonprofit organization was founded in 2014 to provide young people of all backgrounds with basic debating skills. Their mission, through training and competition, is to improve self-esteem, academic achievement, and graduation success.

At the beginners level, students are asked to perform the most common type of public speaking. Each participant studies a subject and presents their ideas at the end of the semester. The students are taught how to implement persuasive speech that will convince the audience to consider a proposed point of view, motivate them for a behavior change or to take action.

This exercise is about knowing and understanding the audience before developing a speech to persuade them.  This means that each participant must listen to their peers before shaping the content. While hundreds of students participate annually in League activities, it is only a drop in a very large bucket.

In December of 2023, Brookings Research issued a report, “How Competitive Debate Can Improve Public Education.” The report concluded that “policy debate is a rare activity with the potential to meaningfully improve reading achievement among public secondary school students, to promote critical thinking skills that are in short supply, and to do so in a way that promotes equity of educational outcomes. Further, the skills gained through debate are transferable and help prepare young people for college, career, and meaningful engagement with the world.”

The Trump administration can constructively honor the life and work of Charlie Kirk, who was an accomplished debater.  It should immediately provide funding for scholastic programs on policy debate in every age-appropriate school. America can replace domestic threats of “going to war” with classes to save democracy.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

“AMERICA FIRST” SPELLS THE END OF AUTHENTIC HISTORY

 

“America First" is a nativist political slogan and foreign policy doctrine that advocates prioritizing right wing economic, political, and ideological interests of the United States above those of other nations. The slogan dates back to the isolationist polices of Charles Lindburgh and his America First Committee. In the lead-up to World War II, Lindburgh’s organization supported Nazi Germany and wanted America to remain neutral.

The slogan has again gained wide acceptance in the Trump administration. It is invoked to frame MAGA positions on immigration, trade, international relations, and more recently, American history.

The MAGA concept of “America First” is being utilized to bring about the end of accurate and honest portrayals of American history. Historical narratives that do not support the MAGA “America (and Trump) can do no wrong” agenda including the slaughter/displacement of Native Americans, slavery, Jim-Crow laws, Japanese internment, “Black Lives Matter,” and “LGBTQ+ History” are being deliberately erased from the public record.  

Federal venues under the control of the Trump administration have been sanitized of exhibits and documentation that reject the nativist ideology of “America First.” Erroneous history has taken its place.

Recently on Truth Social, Trump announced: “The Smithsonian is OUT OF CONTROL. Everything discussed is how horrible our country is, how bad slavery was, and how unaccomplished the downtrodden have been. I have instructed my attorneys to go through the Museums and start the exact same process that has been done with Colleges and Universities where tremendous progress has been made. This country cannot be WOKE, because WOKE IS BROKE.”

In addition, the conservative Heritage Foundation, which has provided the Trump presidency with a detailed road map for his authoritarian actions, has attacked the Smithsonian Museums for being a “disgrace to American History.”

Political thinkers have long identified the conditions that allow established democracies to transform into dictatorships. Unvarnished modern history (the type Trump is attempting to eradicate) has taught us to expect censorship of past events when an authoritarian regime gains power and begins to remold society. The message is clear – the past does not repeat, but it does instruct.

In the years preceding the French Revolution, the French philosopher, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, was a fierce critic of unjust rule and was fundamentally against the absolute rule by a single person. For Rousseau, a social contract, popular sovereignty, and equality were foundational to democracy. In his Discourse on Inequality (1775) Rousseau gave us some prescient advice. He argued that the progression of inequality, fueled by greed, ultimately leads to despotism, a state where a single ruler unjustly controls everyone.  

Rousseau explains that “the many” are disadvantaged against “the few” because they lack a single voice with which to protest. The many falls into a trap because they come to feel they have no choice, that it is already too late to resist. Rousseau understood that when the status quo gets you fed and gives you protection, you have to be very brave to resist or to walk away.  As Rousseau predicted, few Americans are protesting Trump’s efforts to rewrite history.

Regarding the doctrine and foreign policy, in 1941, President Franklin D. Roosevelt confronted Lindburgh’s America First Committee and its isolationist, fascist, and anti-immigration policies with a better vision for the world. FDR supported the founding principles of the United States with a commitment to fight for freedom. He battled fierce conservative and wealthy resistance as he sought to provide military support for Great Britain.

On October 22, 1941, Roosevelt gave a speech in opposition to America First, “We have wished to avoid shooting, but the shooting has started. And history has recorded who fired the first shot. All of us Americans are faced with the choice between the kind of world we want to live in and the kind of world which Hitler and his hordes would impose on us.” On December 7, Japan bombed Pearl Harbor, and Germany declared war.

The former Yale University historian Timothy Snyder in The Road to Unfreedom has written extensively about Vladimir Putin’s manipulation of Russian history to support his “Russian First” doctrine. Synder reports that Putin's regime systematically distorts and suppresses the past to legitimize its rule. To enforce his version of history, Putin's regime destroys Ukrainian archives. Russia has also passed "memory laws" that criminalize honest discussion of the Soviet past, including Stalin's crimes.

Putin invokes the Stalin period to inaccurately paint Russia as a perpetual defender against Nazism. This narrative is then used to frame modern-day Ukraine as a neo-Nazi threat, despite its Jewish president, Volodymyr Zelensky.

Trump was correct that something is out of control. However, it is not our institutions of higher learning or our museums that cultivate America’s fullest understanding of itself. It is the threat of domestic authoritarianism on the one hand and a return to failed nativist foreign policies on the other.

Trump’s America First is doing more than reshaping the narrative of American history. Demanding a “patriotic civics education” that emphasizes fictional American exceptionalism would be bad enough. However, the Trump administration is also seeking to whitewash the President’s own sordid history as the twice impeached instigator of the January 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol, who became a convicted felon while out of office.

America First will prevent young students from developing a truthful understanding of the past and its complexities. Before MAGA is done, the damage will only intensify.