TALLYING THE COST: FRUSTRATIONS FROM THE PANDEMIC

We should soon start seeing publication of

books about the coronavirus pandemic of 2020. Dozens of personal narratives, political analyses, medical histories, and novels will appear, documenting the tragedies,

heroic actions, deepest thoughts, and inner feelings of a nation during a very difficult time. People still write books about Vietnam, the Second World War, even the pandemic of 1918, so we’ll have the coronavirus books before long.

We’ll get a head start. The three of us now reveal some of the frustrations we’ve endured as we lived through this. What drove us crazy? What made us angry? What left us feeling down? Where did we find hope? We each have a story:

Woodson: Frustrations with Family

Frustration with my fellow Evangelical Christians over their response to advice on

taking safety precautions against the virus sits at the top of my list of frustrations I’ve dealt with during the pandemic.  I say fellow Evangelicals because I count myself among them.  I am, however, of the William Barber Evangelical variety.  I believe Jesus died for my sins. I also find intrinsic to the gospel a demand that Christians fight for social justice for all.

I am distressed when I hear the thing some of my Evangelical friends say in response to the call that they exercise safety measures on behalf of themselves and others. I have

been admonished with words like, “I’m not going to worry about the pandemic. You’re not going to go before your time!”  Have they not read Luke 2:52 and the boast that the Lord was wise? It says there, “And Jesus increased in wisdom and

stature, and in favor with God and man.” Then there’s Proverbs 1:7, which says, “… fools despise wisdom and

instruction.” Or maybe they should remember Proverbs 4:5 and, “Get wisdom, get understanding: forget it not …” Translation: God honors knowledge!

My Evangelical brothers and sisters behave as if they find knowledge and science and Christianity antithetical. The God who encourages their faith is the same God who

placed inside the skull of every human a brain weighing, on average, 3.3 pounds. I sometimes wonder if the people denying the need for protective measures against the virus really mean what they say. Do they simply seek showing the rest of us what great men and women of faith they are? 

Somebody out there, tell me what’s going on!         

Rob: All Work Makes … and that Business

When asked how I’m getting along, I invariably answer, “Fine,” or “Quite well, thank you.” My partner, Karyl, and I have

remained healthy and gotten through the days, stepping on each other’s toes only rarely. We’ve played the hand the virus dealt us. Pressed for details in phone conferences and e-mail

exchanges, I’ve confided that the lockdown the virus caused has been something of a blessing. I’ve used the last two and a half months of virtual isolation for intense work on the books I’m trying to finish, as well as my legal work.

I haven’t talked about the frustration I’ve suffered without my favorite relief valves for

the stress writing and law practice generate. Pushing through drafting and editing manuscripts and legal motions,  reading books and essays, and doing internet research, I’ve had no baseball games, golf tournaments, or

tennis matches for down time. I’ve substituted DVDs of old movies and TV shows, and they’ve helped a bit. ESPN’s ten-part documentary The Last Dance offered some relief.

As I’ve shared in this space before, I have dedicated myself to writing as a career

change. As I move out of law practice, though I remain committed to giving my clients the best service possible, I realize my future lies in writing novels and non-fiction books and essays about historical and current events. But, no matter how much we love something, most of us need a break from time to time. For me, the best break has been live or televised sports. I’ll really be glad when that’s back. I hope I’m not becoming that proverbial very dull boy.

Henry: Sadness and Hope

 

I write this watching and listening to the countdown for launch of NASA’s SpaceX Demo 2 mission. It’s the first launch of astronauts to the International Space Station using the SpaceX Crew Dragon spacecraft and the Falcon 9 rocket. While the spacecraft represents a technological advancement, the hope it creates for gaining knowledge and understanding about the universe offers much more than any direct benefit.                 

During the pandemic, I’ve spent my time enjoying the company of my wife and older son, reading, writing, watching television, listening to radio programs from fifty years past, participating in Zoom conferences with friends and family, and completing long-neglected projects. I

miss the personal contact with my other children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren, and friends. I have played golf twice but endured perhaps the longest period I’ve gone without tennis in forty years.

I am most saddened and frustrated by the

amount of suffering and loss of life I’ve seen. I’m particularly distressed we haven’t used all we have learned inhabiting this earth in minimizing that suffering and loss of life. This has not been our finest hour. We could have done so much better.

I mentioned the SpaceX launch because the

effort evidences mankind’s hope for pushing ourselves to the limits of achievement. Reaching for the stars is a hopeful endeavor. Perhaps finding a speck of knowledge through the mission will enhance our journey on this small pebble. I hope and pray for blessings to all and that our efforts are rewarded.

LET THE DEBATE BEGIN: HOW MUCH ‘‘SOCIALISM’’ IN AMERICA?

Some conservatives have complained

about the measures Congress enacted aimed at helping Americans get through the coronavirus dislocation. They label the measures “socialist,” “un-American”,

and at odds with capitalism.  They say

we must get business as usual going or risk having these adjustments become permanent.

The country faces questions about the

appropriate level of government involvement in the economy and other aspects of life. Cries of “socialism” are not new when the government tries helping non-corporate middle America and the poor.

The 1936 Republican presidential nominee, Kansas Governor Alf Landon, attacked Social  Security as “socialism” (Franklin Roosevelt won the Electoral College, 523-8).

New York Governor Al Smith, the 1928 Democratic presidential nominee, wrote that year, “The cry of socialism has been patented by the powerful interests that desire to put a damper on progressive legislation. Is this cry of socialism anything new?... I have heard it raised by reactionary elements and the Republican Party … for over a quarter-century.”   

Many Americans who never thought

they’d seek or accept government assistance found themselves doing just that under the unprecedented circumstances the pandemic wrought. The pandemic exposed flaws in our healthcare and food supply systems. What happens when the

pandemic ends? Is the kind of government assistance provided in connection with the pandemic an outlier or are significant policy changes on the horizon?

Will the nation remedy these weaknesses in our health care system

with new measures addressing some of the systemic shortcomings that made the coronavirus situation worse? Or, will the “socialism” objections prevail and keep the status quo in place?

Harry Truman’s 1945 health care

proposal was defeated in large measure by the American Medical Association’s labeling of the legislation as “socialized medicine.”  Things have changed. A recent Reuters/Ipsos poll showed over 70 percent of respondents favoring universal health care.

                     

That Old Definitional Issue

When opponents leveled charges that Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal programs

were “socialism,” he said in his 1936 State of the Union Address that the proper role of government was “the adjustment of burdens, the help of the needy, and the protection of the people’s property.”

This year, Democratic presidential candidates Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren presented safety net programs aimed at assuring more Americans better access to health care,

child care, and other services. They proposed Medicare-for-All, a federal guarantee of health insurance mandated for everyone that would replace private health insurance. Other candidates, including presumptive Democratic nominee Joe Biden, also proposed expanded health insurance plans, though not Medicare-for-All.

In light of the virus experience, must we adopt measures that seem like “socialism?” The pandemic exposed three particular shortcomings in the health care system. First, many Americans don’t have insurance

coverage, meaning they couldn’t get adequate treatment if infected. Second, the lack of health care puts some groups at greater risk. Louisiana, for example, became an

early coronavirus “hot spot” because so many of its low-income citizens, most of the people of color, had limited access to health care before the virus hit. They suffered from medical conditions – hypertension, diabetes, obesity - that made death more likely upon contracting the virus. Finally,

health care workers faced massive shortages of equipment and supplies.

Theodore Roosevelt, the 26^th president, responding to charges he was a capitalism obstructionist and opponent of individualism, wrote, “Ruin faces us ... if we permit ourselves to be misled into refusing to exert the common power of the community where only collectively action can do what individualism has left undone or can remedy the wrongs done by an unrestricted and ill-regulated individualism.”

What Will Americans Accept? What do they Want?

Post pandemic life in America probably will look different than life before March

2020.  Until we get a coronavirus vaccine, limits on large gatherings and close personal contact will likely remain necessary. Many won’t like that (sports fans?), but they’ll probably accept it in exchange for re-starting the economy. But what about political changes?  How much government will Americans accept or desire?

Democrats flipped the House of Representatives in 2018, relying on health care as a way of attracting suburban women and people of color. The pandemic assures the push for improved health coverage will play a central role in the 2020 campaign and in the next session of Congress. Once the emergency ends, will Republican resistance to expanded health insurance fade? We don’t know.

                   

Many Democrats will seek a larger

federal investment in the health care system. That means lots of money for assembling and maintaining government stockpiles of medical equipment. Will anybody suggest rolling back the Trump tax cuts for financing such investment? Is doing such a thing “socialism?” 

                                        

What about unemployment insurance?  That’s mostly funded by taxes on employers. In light of the record number of unemployment claims, will

political and business leaders agree on a different way of funding that system? Would using general revenue and assessing higher taxes for that purpose make sense? Debating the issue seems reasonable now.

The Most Vulnerable

Many of these questions center on what America does about issues faced for the first time by middle-class people. How much “socialism” will they accept or want? That’s a political question on

which the spotlight will fall in the months ahead. Another issue, however, lurks beneath the surface. America has a population for whom the issues raised by the pandemic were not new. They live with them every day and have for a long time.

For this group, health insurance often doesn’t exist. Visits to doctors don’t happen except in the direst emergencies. Trips to food banks occur regularly, something middle-class people recently experienced for the first time. These most at-risk Americans need a voice in the political debate about “socialism.” Over the next few months, in this space, we intend to give it to them.