What's Scarier Than A Pandemic In An Election Year? I'm Too Afraid to ask...

I have to tell you, being an Australian living in the US during a pandemic in an election year and wanting to post even a question on social media, is taking your life into your own hands. I’m getting push back from friends, colleagues, strangers and to a lesser degree my American wife who doesn’t want the stress as she tells me not to respond and put the phone down, which I of course do immediately. There is no doubt that we are living through an extraordinary moment in our history and what I am learning is that when people are afraid to this degree, none are immune from its effects.

Good people are getting angry, whether it’s because you question the narrative or don’t question the narrative enough. Assertions of stupidity and gullibility are common place. I’m writing this article not to express a view of whether the management of the pandemic by world leaders has been responsible or whether the threat of the pandemic is real or just an overreaction. I’m writing in the hope that we can deescalate the toxic angry rhetoric that keeps us from being “indivisible”, jeopardizing our ability to hold civil discourse and think critically.

The truth is we do not really know the truth. My recent experience has found that by asking questions, sharing other’s opinions and research to give one pause to consider the evidence, you enter the dangerous realm of the social media arena. One may be accused of seeing themselves as a “Truth Crusader” or worse, labelled as a “Conspiracy Theorist” as I was by a colleague and friend. But whatever you do, don’t ask the most dangerous question of all, “Why?”. We can fact check, but when you check the fact checkers, well that’s another story all together.

I was told by several people I had no business in this discussion because I am a well-known international advocate for the global Kindness Movement. Should I pose a question which may be seen to challenge the narrative of mainstream media, then I’m actually fueling the fire, spreading fear and potentially doing harm to both my personal brand and the brand of the World Kindness Movement (even though it’s on my own Facebook page). Ironically our constitution of the World Kindness Movement has Article 28 (A Kindness Clause) which says, and I’m paraphrasing:

“We will Not protect our brand over and above the well-being of people”. So here is my dilemma, what is the kinder option?

Do I remain silent, not participate, and comply? Or do I participate in the discussion hoping people will pause and think critically?

I certainly understand that there are so many op-eds that do spread fear however, it does not take too much discernment to distinguish an agenda driven or biased media article. If I post about voter suppression during the Democratic primary and media blackout of the last remaining minority female democratic presidential candidate, people think I’m a Democrat, or worse, “a progressive”. If I post about the negativity in press coverage of the President regarding his comments about the initial results of Hydroxychloroquine by CNN, people assume I must be a Republican or worse Trump supporter. It may surprise people to know that I’m neither? It may be easier for me as an Australian in lockdown in D.C. with no attachment to Democrats or Republicans, to be impartial and just enjoy the show, but sifting through a quagmire of the 24/7 media cycle is truly exhausting.

I find some independent sources to be more factual, however they seem to be discredited simply because they are not mainstream or are often critical of one party or both. It’s no wonder people want to ask questions but many don’t outside their own living room. I don’t think it’s because they just go along with the nightly feed, I think its because they are afraid to be judged and labelled. Social media is an arena at the best of times but now it’s a slaughterhouse as cabin fever takes hold and people’s levels of anxiety rise like never before.

Labeling someone as a “Conspiracy Theorist” actually originated during the Kennedy assassination. It has become a popular term to immediately discredit anyone foolish enough to challenge the narrative that is being presented by the guardians of the status quo. The internet has been flooded with wild and extreme conspiracy theories for many reasons, sometimes the more ludicrous they are, the more likely we will discount others that may be credible such as the Pentagon Papers, Operation Paperclip and Operation Mockingbird which are now not theories but part of US history. “The best place to hide a tree is in a forest” and some theories are so far-fetched, so horrific they are beyond our comprehension, and we can never imagine them to be true. Whether its JFK, Alien Abductions, Pizzagate, 9/11, Climate Change or Weapons of Mass Destruction, its sadly only ever in hindsight when the damage has been done, that the truth will eventually reveal itself as was the case with Epstein operating a pedophile network in plain sight.

Regardless of this, do I have a right to question and keep an open mind to alternate possibilities when a lone victim or whistle-blower comes forward or there is a leak of emails and official documentation or numerous discrepancies in exit polls and if so, do I betray my cause for a kinder world by doing so? Or do I wait until after our justice system hands down a verdict on the final appeal or we discover we are at war based on false intelligence i.e. Syria and Iraq? Too often protecting our brand through silence or by suppressing a witness or a victim’s accounts of the assault can work against us. I cite the Catholic Church, or more recently, Hollywood during the “#Metoo” movement as two examples. So can a trial by media where we are encouraged to join an angry lynch mob. It’s actually become more difficult to ask questions especially when the perception the public has of you, is only one dimensional. It is also difficult during a period of hyper-partisanship and identity politics where we are more inclined to shoot the messenger, even if the messenger is telling the truth or as in my case, just asking a legitimate question because my "spidey senses" are tingling telling me that something does not add up. Our reaction to the truth is often subject to our interpretation based on our bias, beliefs and affiliations. We don’t like to be wrong or consider an alternative view which could be more frightening than the narrative if it means we have been duped by those we trust. The proverbial “head in the sand” seems to be the preferred option.

Claims that our leaders did not respond fast enough to CV-19 are abound by their opponents and I was no exception. In fact, I commented that the Australian Government was dragging the chain to close schools saying, “it’s best to err on the side of caution”. It seems with the vision of hindsight I was wrong, as Australia only has, at the time of writing this, 63 deaths compared to the US 22,700. The population density in Australia’s major capital cities is similar to US (with the exception to NYC), however with a population of 327 million compared to Australia's 25 million, there is a significant discrepancy on percentages with it being 13 times greater, why then is the US death rate 362 times greater than Australia's even though Australia leads the world in cases of Asthma? It could be reasonably argued health is a factor taking into account the level of diabetes, hypertension and smoking within the US is well above that of Australia’s . In addition, due to the social and financial inequality of African Americans, making them 4 times more likely to contract CV-19 and die compounded by their limited access to healthcare. Or is the CDC changing its guidelines allowing for reporting deaths of CV-19 without testing and providing a financial incentive to hospitals for deaths by CV-19 a factor? And why are many US hospitals placing pressure on the elderly to sign Do Not Resuscitate forms? The truth is, I don’t know but many concerned US doctors are being very vocal and asking why? Same as I don’t understand why they didn’t split the aide bill into 3 parts to ensure the most vulnerable could have access to the funds sooner rather than wait 2-3 weeks why politicians horse traded and pork barreled.

The US government, i.e. “Trump” was being criticized for initially closing its borders and now it’s being criticized for  not closing sooner, go figure. Let’s face it, due to the trust deficit governments are damned by public opinion driven by the media narrative, if they do or if they don’t. What do you think the narrative of the mainstream media would have been had the government imposed a mandatory lockdown prior to Super Tuesday?

For those trying to work out my political leanings as you read this, then I rest my case. It should not matter, in times like this we have a small window of opportunity to be united so let’s not squander it on judgements and labels and give those unfortunate enough to be in public office a break from the chorus “innocent blood on their hands” or “you have stolen our freedom”. Few of us have been a head of state and even less entered the office with the experience of being a head of state, let alone managing a pandemic. When this is over, with the vision of hindsight, will we know if our leaders did their very best or used it for political and or financial gain. All we know for sure today is, whether we did our very best during a time of crisis. Whether the danger is real, engineered or just made worse by opportunists, the way we treat each other will be our legacy for us to look back on asking if we were the best we could be, when we needed our best most of all in our darkest hours. So lets at least feel safe enough to ask questions by creating a safe space even if it leads to an outcome you may not like or agree with. #couragetobekind #conversationsinkindness .