Some of you will remember, and I hope others have learned about, the civil rights struggle of the late 50s and through the 60s. (Of course at important levels, it’s never ended.) At that time, the line of us angels was to support federal intervention and condemn southern states’ claims of “states’ rights” to have their own discriminatory laws and enforcement without federal “interference.” (One of the many sad tendencies since then has been for conservatives in legislative or judicial power to undermine legal achievements of that time, however insufficient, of those days.)

Over the decades since then, this polarity has gradually reversed. Today, what people like to call red states (which include many southern states), often with governors who support trump and his approach to whatever reality he perceives or chooses to encourage about anything, are generally in favor of federal management of controversial social matters. At the moment, they often prescribe various levels of laxity in response to the COVID-19 crisis, while the rest of us (including the many residents of those “red” states who don’t trust what trump says and are helpless to avoid the consequences) are insisting on “states’ rights.”

This is human psychology, this is politics: fear change, grope around for the argument (even “philosophy”) that will further your case, and have no reference to history other than to cite precedents that seem to support your viewpoint. In short, critical thinking gets in the way of what we emotionally want to think and so is not the first line of defense for many people (probably to a great extent because it’s not well taught or valued in large parts of our education system).

The truth, of course, is that at any given moment those in power will seek to exercise their will and rationalize it in ways that too many people will gratefully embrace—and all too often, opponents act similarly.

I don’t know what to do about this except call it out and side with the angels (in this case, the people and governing folk who are trusting the bulk of what medical science is recommending). Can those angels make mistakes? Of course, but would we rather take our chances on them than on people who are acting from and trusting the authenticity of their gut with no “facts”?*

As it’s always done, this problem is going to keep coming up in dealing with social justice. It will do so even when we get rid of trumpite rulers. But right now, it is especially important as we face who knows how long a pandemic, likely future pandemics, and the possibility that the current Washington regime will take steps to stay in power indefinitely. (Imagine the wartime election cry of “Don’t change horses in midstream,” for example. Or an executive coup d’état.)

Is it possible on a vast scale for us collectively to learn to bypass cliché appeals and examine issues on their separate merits? Individually, of course that’s already happening on a significant scale, but is it likely to occur collectively enough to make a difference? Jaded as I am by nearly eight decades of living, I doubt it. Nonetheless, I will keep paying attention to what I deem to be the minds most likely to be accurately assessing problems and proposing solutions. And I will keep validating those who do the same while attempting to put forth information that doubters might pay attention to.

I repeat a point I often make in public posts—that this exact conundrum will continue to exist in tackling the even more deadly threat of the climate crisis. My frail hope is that our current experience in hunkering down against a dire threat (and, for those who survive, re-building a functional economy—though it is likely just to recapture or worsen what previously existed) will change at least some thinking about what can and should be listened to and done.

_______________

*I put “facts” in quote because especially in controversial matters, such frameworks typically have their own problems of exactitude and general agreement.