The Great Divide

I saw an exchange during Trump’s press conference today on the Corona virus that is emblematic of the divide in politics.  I realize that if Christopher Hitchens was still alive, he’d be the first to correct me: “Politics is division by definition, if there was no disagreement there would be no politics.”  But I’m talking about a new divide—call it the great divide.

Today, during the press conference, Trump called the Corona virus “the Wuhan virus” or “the Chinese virus,” as he often does.  Now, some of the questions that have been floating around in my mind about China and the pandemic include the following:

1. How would things be different for the American economy today if the Chinese government took action immediately, instead of trying to cover up the virus?
2. Should the U.S. bring pharmaceutical production back home, given that China controls much of it and we’re dangerously reliant on its imports?
3. Would bringing back the production of even more goods from China create jobs in the U.S. that would help close the wage gap between our country’s highest and lowest earners? 
4. Would bringing back jobs be more efficient than having the government raise corporate taxes and then redistribute that money through government programs?

But a young journalist at the press conference had other things on her mind.  In a condescending tone, as if she were talking to her child and not the President of the United States, she “asked” Trump: “Why do you keep calling this the Chinese virus? Why do you keep saying this?  A lot of people say it’s racist.”

This “question”—it really wasn’t a question at all, but rather a thinly-veiled scolding or, at best, the reporter’s attempt at an argument—demonstrates the great divide in politics that I don’t think can be overcome.  In the old days of politics—which, for me, is the 80s and 90s—the parties often had the same basic objective but differed on how to achieve it.  Today, we are often divided not on how we should achieve a common objective, but on the objective itself. 

Returning to the example of our young journalist, she had no interest in getting answers to the questions I have enumerated, above.  Rather, she was concerned with the President being a racist for naming a virus after its place of origin, much like the Spanish Flu, West Nile Virus, German Measles, MERS, and even Ebola (a river in Africa) among many others.  And when we have two vastly different objectives or interests, there seems, by definition, to be little room for common ground or compromise.

More to the point, the reporter would probably view me as a monster for being concerned about matters as trivial as American labor economics when the country, as she sees it, is swimming in racism originating from the Oval Office itself.  And I view her obsession with race (or gender or any other woke obsession of the day), particularly in the midst of a national economic and health disaster, as the product of a diseased mind. 

By the by, Trump did answer her question, and it highlights another aspect of the great divide: globalism versus nationalism.  He said, in response to why he calls it the Wuhan or Chinese virus, “It’s not racist.  It comes from China.  That’s why.  As you know, China tried to say at one point that it was caused by American soldiers.  That can’t happen.  It’s not going to happen.  Not as long as I’m president.  It comes from China.”

It’s hard to pin down whether this divide is really Republican versus Democrat — once again, things were clearer in the 80s and 90s.  Rather, the divide could be between, on the one hand, the so-called liberal elites, and, on the other hand, the rest of us including the Republicans and the centrist Democrats.  I’m not sure.  However, in an effort to win political points, Democrats do seem to jump on board with the politically correct elitists. 

For example, Democrats are blasting Trump for grossly mishandling the crisis and not taking action soon enough.  Maybe they’re right.  Maybe time will show that his handling of things was sub-par or even bad (but probably not horrific).  But on the other hand, when Trump instituted a travel ban on China days after the first case of the virus was detected in the U.S., how did Democrats react?  The presumptive nominee of the party, Joe Biden, fell back on the usual refrain and name-calling: Trump’s travel ban was designed to whip-up “hysteria” and “fear mongering” and “xenophobia.”  Of course, Biden now says that Trump wasn’t aggressive enough. 

There’s actually some comfort, or at least familiarity, in that approach.  While the great divide might be a new phenomenon, having it both ways is as old as politics itself.  I guess some things never change.