Enough Already: It’s Not You, It’s Not Me, It’s US

Raise your hand if you think divisiveness in our country has helped us become better or solved more issues than it has created.  Anyone? Extremists on both sides that exist because of such divisiveness, please put your hands down.  Any of the rest of us?

Of course, divisiveness has only made us worse and solved fewer issues rather than more.

So why do we continue to accept it?

Why do we focus on what we believe (or wish) the facts to be, rather than what they are? Why do we gravitate toward all or nothing, polarized solutions, and villainize anyone who does not fully support those solutions, rather than discussing those views and trying to find common ground?  

The answer is simple:  We start with our preferred solution, and bend the facts and reality to support that solution.  We focus on what’s in our own individual interest, not what’s best for all of us.

Our nation was founded on the concept that it’s not about you, it’s not about me, it’s about us.  We are the United States of America, not the Autonomous Individuals of America.  In fact, the first three words of our Constitution are “We the People,” followed by “in order to form a more perfect union.”

Three things in the news this week demonstrate the danger of our current “me” focus.

First, President Trump, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis and others tried to deflect from the facts about the current coronavirus pandemic, claiming, in defiance of those facts, logic and basic math, that the only reason some states have more reported coronavirus cases is because they are testing more.  We’ll get to why such a statement is baseless in a minute, but let’s start with why they would make this statement.  They made this statement to deflect from criticism about how they have handled the current crisis and to support their personal political objectives.  In President Trump’s case, this was to justify holding indoor rallies of --in his own words, “a million people”--in a state with an undeniable spike in coronavirus cases.  That position wasn’t about our common good, it was about their own political ambitions and goals.    

That position was also illogical.  Taken to its logical extreme, it would mean there would be no coronavirus cases if only we stopped stop testing for them.  Really?  It’s like a toddler not wanting to accept something a parent says by covering his or her eyes and ears.  If I don’t see something or don’t hear something, it doesn’t exist.  

Conversely, increasing the number of tests performed will never, of itself, cause the actual number of cases to increase.  The actual number of cases are out there regardless of whether they are tested and confirmed.  If anything, increased testing may help reduce future actual cases if such testing results in identifying people who are asymptomatic and causes them to isolate or quarantine themselves to avoid infecting any more people.

To understand this, let’s make sure we understand the difference between confirmed cases and actual cases.  A confirmed case is a case of coronavirus that has been confirmed by testing.  An actual case is a symptomatic or asymptomatic case that may or may not be known or confirmed. Most symptomatic, actual cases will result in confirmed cases, since symptomatic individuals will seek a test or be given one if they seek treatment. Not all of those with asymptomatic cases, i.e. people who indeed have the coronavirus and are unknowingly spreading it, will be tested.  But learning of these cases is very important to learning how many actual cases there really are so we can avoid the virus’ spread. 

While a decreasing number of confirmed cases may demonstrate decreasing spread of the virus, an increase in the number of confirmed cases, by itself, doesn’t tell you whether the virus’ spread is or is not increasing.  That’s why the positivity rate, i.e. the percentage of people tested who are positive, is a better indicator of the virus’ spread, especially when the number of tests performed is increasing. Indeed, we know this based on the White House’s own “Opening Up America” guidelines, which are based on either a decrease in the number of new confirmed cases, or a decrease in the positivity rate.  In some states, like Illinois, both are decreasing.  In Florida, both are increasing, dramatically.  Thus, in Florida it is much more likely that there are more, not fewer, actual cases and the spread of the virus is increasing, not decreasing.

These facts and this inescapable logic may or may not align with our individual political beliefs or objectives, but these facts and this logic, certainly will help all of us, by helping prevent future cases of COVID-19.  

Second, President Trump stated that masks and those who wear masks “signal disapproval of him.”  President Trump, with all due respect, really?  So, any healthcare worker that wears a mask is signaling their disapproval of you?  If someone wears a mask to help giving the virus to someone vulnerable to COVID-19, are they disapproving of you?  Your daughter, Ivanka, has been seen wearing a mask as have many others in your administration.  Do all of them disapprove of you? 

More important is his reason for making such a false statement, especially just days before his “million-person” rally in Oklahoma.   Combined with his prior statements mocking those who wear masks and his refusal to wear a mask in public, the reason is clear:   it is an attempt to create clear, visible divisions between us.  If we wear a mask, we will be labeled as anti-Trump, if we don’t we will be labeled pro-Trump.  I strongly suspect most of us don’t even think about President Trump and our positions about him when we decide (or decide not) to wear a mask.  We, unlike the president, are not thinking about only ourselves, we are thinking about others.  

And the potential result?  Since he made this statement so close to the time of his Oklahoma rally, how many of the attendees do you think will be wearing a mask?  Will they fear that if they wear a mask, they will be scorned as anti-Trumpers?  How about individuals not attending the rally that your supporters will interact with?  Will your supporters shame or denounce those who wear masks?  

Regardless of his motives, it is clear that his statement (similar to the one he made about two U.S. Supreme Court decisions this week, questioning whether the Supreme Court ruled against positions he advocated in those cases because they “disliked” him personally, not because they disagreed with the legality of those positions) will only create more divisiveness.  And, if his supporters refuse to wear masks, it will only create more coronavirus cases, not fewer.  If President Trump truly believed that his indoor, mask-less rally will not create more coronavirus cases, then why is he requiring attendees to sign waivers to absolve him and his campaign of legal liability if they contract the virus?

Third, John Bolton’s book, The Room Where It Happened.  While partisan politicians have lined up their own politically-based arguments to criticize him and his book, we haven’t focused on the most troubling aspect of the book:  The credibility of the facts revealed in the book is compromised because Bolton chose to reveal them in a for-profit, tell-all book, rather than as part of a public process, however flawed, that would have tested their credibility.  Instead, now Bolton and the process by which he revealed those facts, are the focus. Unlike the brave public servants who came forward with the facts they had during that process, and who did so, not for their own financial benefit, but to their career and financial detriment, they fulfilled their duties as public servants and citizens.  Bolton abandoned those duties for his own personal benefit.  As a result, even if the facts in the book are true, they will forever be questioned, and as such, will have little effect other than to allow Bolton to have enriched himself and allow partisan politicians to use his book to further polarize us as we approach the presidential election.  That is truly unfortunate for us, while it appears to be very fortunate for him.

Our country and its future aren’t about me or about you and what’s in it for any one of us.  It’s about all of us and our common good.  When we focus on what serves our individual political and other interests, and not our common good, we create more divisiveness, not less. When we create our own fictions to support those individual interests instead of recognizing the facts and reality, unifying solutions to our most pressing national issues will continue to elude us.