TRUMP AND ‘DISINFECTANTS’: CASTING BLAME ON TRUMP VOTERS

President Trump’s recent suggestion that Americans might inject themselves with

disinfectants as a way of treating Covid-19 sparked an intense debate among the three of us about who’s to blame for the presence in office of such a president. Rob throws everyone who voted for him under the bus, arguing that “respectable” people who voted for Trump in 2016 now

bear responsibility for his dangerous conduct. Henry and Woodson take a more restrained position, concluding that not everyone who voted for Trump foresaw the extremes to which he has gone. They say those who sat out the 2016 election bear responsibility too. Below, we hash out the disagreement.

DO ONLY TRUMP VOTERS OWN THIS?

After Trump made his outrageous suggestion that injections of disinfectants like bleach or

isopropyl alcohol inside the human body

might combat the virus, many in the medical and scientific community and manufacturers of disinfectant products reacted with horror. They had good reasons. Americans desiring Covid-19 cures flooded health hotlines and emergency management agencies countrywide with calls about such treatments. The product manufacturers warned of organ damage that could result from injecting or ingesting disinfectants. Doctors were aghast and shouted to whoever would listen, “No, don’t do it!”

As industry leaders, doctors, and public health officials scrambled to warn people against the president’s advice, Rob thinks it significant that some of them must have voted for him. He observes, “Surely, some of the doctors, nurses, public health officials, and industry executives who loudly condemned Trump for his potentially disastrous suggestion, voted for him.” Neither Henry nor Woodson find that particularly revelatory.

What Did Voters Know and When Did They Know it?

The three of us agree it’s now widely understood Trump doesn’t care much for science. The Union of Concerned Scientists, for example, has published a 100 item list of Trump administration attacks on science. That’s bad enough, but we did receive advance warning. Before the 2016 election, we got at least the following indications of Trump’s scientific illiteracy or hypocrisy and his affinity for off-the-wall theories:

1.  Windmills cause cancer and kill birds.

Trump started pushing this falsehood before the election in making clear he wouldn’t promote wind power as a fossil fuels alternative; 

 

2.  Climate change is a hoax. Despite the scientific community consensus that human activity causes

global warming, Trump insisted before the election, and still does, his political enemies made up the climate crisis and the science isn’t real;

3.  In a rating by Scientific American magazine of the general election candidates, including third party entrants, Trump came in last on his understanding of scientific endeavors.

These facts have significant consequences.

They demonstrate a dangerous proclivity for buying into conspiracy theories that float through the culture, particularly on the internet, without scientific basis and that could hurt individuals or nations.

Even these facts, Henry and Woodson argue, didn’t necessarily predict Trump would suggest a wild idea like injecting disinfectants. Rob says, “That sounds like a degree v. kind argument. Nobody would have thought Trump would take his craziness to the degree he has. I prefer thinking anyone capable of believing the kinds of things Trump said before the election, if given an exigent situation and a big enough microphone, might say anything.”

                                                 

Woodson and Henry note that Trump never held public office before, so he had no policy record voters could easily examine.

Unlike the three of us, the average American doesn’t spend hours each week considering the nuances of candidate records and public policy. They believe Rob holds the electorate to too high a standard.

         

How Does a Country Get Such a Leader?

As Rob thought about the dangers inherent in Trump’s injection suggestion, he decided condemning him alone isn’t enough. “True,

the electorate put him in the White House, fair and square. But, don’t the people who voted for him bear some of the responsibility for having someone like him in office, given what we knew beforehand?  Now that his conduct directly threatens lives, can we excuse those votes, especially by people who should know better – people like those in health care now crying out that Americans shouldn’t follow his reckless ramblings?”

Rob continues, “I don’t have survey data, but the reasons doctors and other medical people might have voted for Trump aren’t hard to fathom - probably the same reasons others did - tax cuts, limits on immigration,

fears of disfavored ethnic groups, appointment of anti-choice judges, reigning in the Environmental Protection Agency, and other federal regulatory bodies, unrestrained Hillary Clinton phobia. I assume there are others. Were any of those reasons worth this?

“I understand the harshness of the view I’ve expressed. I have thrown otherwise good

people under the bus before. Elections have consequences. I can’t give Trump voters a pass, especially not after this latest demonstration of insanity.”

While Henry and Woodson share Rob’s view that Trump has demonstrated his unfitness for office, they won’t say everyone who voted for him could have foreseen this. Who could have known the election would produce a president seemingly committed only to his own selfish political quest, devoid

 

of logic, humanitarian consideration, or enlightened principles? Nor are they willing to single out doctors and other medical professionals for special condemnation. They believe many who stayed home or voted for Trump in 2016 will vote for Joe Biden in 2020 because Joe Biden is no Hillary Clinton. Many former Trump voters will no longer have reason for seeing Trump as the answer to the country’s problems.         

POVERTY IN AMERICA: WHERE DO WE START AND WHO SHOULD ADDRESS IT?

We’ve been talking among ourselves and with others about income inequality and poverty in America. Many 2020 Democratic presidential candidates indicate they plan on making income inequality a major part of their campaigns and we see poverty as part of that. We will discuss these issues often in this space in the months ahead.

We begin by laying out some dimensions of the problem and by considering who bears responsibility for attacking it. As we’ve talked about the poverty part of the issue, we’ve realized we must consider the wide divergence in how Americans see what we should do about poverty and who should do it.

Poverty: What is it?

The U.S. Census Bureau’s 2017 estimate put the poverty rate at 12.3 per cent of the population (39.7 million Americans) with the poverty threshold set at an income of $17,330 for a family of two adults and one child. The statistics show the dimensions of a problem affecting all races and ethnic groups . Over 17,000,000 white people, nine

million black people, and nearly 11 million Hispanic people live in poverty. That doesn’t count those living in “near poverty.” Including that metric, some students of the subject say, puts the poverty number at nearly 100 million people, almost one-third of the U.S. population.  

Poverty particularly affects people of color and children. An Annie E. Casey Foundation study reported 33 per cent of African American children, 33 per cent of Native American children, and 26 per cent of Hispanic Children live in poverty. Eleven per cent of white children suffer the same fate. Few would argue this issue does not require attention. But who should address it?  We hear different answers to that question.

A Chorus of Solutions

Deciding who bears the greatest responsibility for reducing or eliminating poverty depends on one’s experience, political orientation, and social outlook.  Consider:

*The religiously focused – Many religious leaders and their faith community followers assign responsibility to individuals and institutions that attack poverty through charitable giving, community outreach, and group action. This philosophy emphasizes making and collecting donations of money, food, clothing, and household goods for distribution through churches, food banks, and private social service organizations. Such organizations deliver goods and services directly to impoverished people. Both liberals and conservatives endorse and support this approach, though many liberals view it as only a partial solution that cannot substitute for governmental action on tough, systemic problems.

*The politically driven – Such individuals, usually, but not

always, progressive in their political orientation, believe we can only reduce poverty through public policy. They favor expansion of entitlement programs like Medicaid and Medicare and believe in a higher government-mandated minimum wage. They argue for a more progressive tax system that puts a greater burden on the rich and reduces in on middle and lower income taxpayers. Better enforcement of civil rights laws and more emphasis on combatting race discrimination attracts significant support among advocates of these approaches.

*The individualists – Often politically conservative, people in this category believe first and foremost that individuals bear responsibility for their own economic circumstances. They advocate limited government intervention in the economy and often resist entitlement programs that directly support low income citizens. Advocacy of income and wealth management training at an early age and a rugged individualism approach to life often characterize the views of many in this group.

No One Best Way

As we’ve contemplated and discussed America’s income inequality and poverty issues, it appears these approaches are not mutually exclusive. We think it unlikely any one of the above orientations – or others—used alone will solve the problem.  For one thing, the problem is too big and involves too many parts of the American economy.

No matter how much charitable giving increases, the structural concerns that go with many elements of America’s poverty problem will eventually overwhelm the contributions. Charitable giving does not, for example, eliminate systemic and institutional racism that condemns people of color to generational poverty and prevents accumulation of wealth.

President Roosevelt signing New Deal

Public policy based solutions also go only so far.Beginning with The New Deal in  the 1930s and continuing through the War on Poverty in the 1960s, we’ve tried government programs as a way of eradicating poverty, yet poverty remains with us. Lots of reasons account for this. Some argue the country

scrapped these programs too soon and they should have been refined, not eliminated. Additionally, other government policies have widened the income and wealth gaps. We also recognize government is a blunt instrument that ill serves people in need of things government isn’t very good at supplying and developing, like individual incentive and work ethic.

Individualists don’t have a monopoly on wisdom on this set of issues either. Learning wealth management, for example, does not address a lack of job skills, or the problems of a family saddled with a mountain of debt and facing poverty because of an illness insurance didn’t cover.

America’s income inequality and poverty problems remain complex issues with no magic bullet solutions.  We’re happy the 2020 candidates talk about them now.  We hope they will make intelligent comments and proposals, rather than just produce noise and platitudes.  A candidate who does that would deserve all our votes.