President Joe Biden Offers the United States a Tough Coronavirus Path

President Joe Biden’s  latest White House speech offered the United States a tough coronavirus path. Is that politically unwise? Or is it good leadership? 

Politicians love to offer easy solutions to tough problems. “A chicken for every pot,” promised President Herbert Hoover. Hoover’s foolish policies soon led the United States into the calamity of the Great Depression. President Donald Trump offered disinfectant injections and hydroxychloroquine as cheap, easy solutions to the coronavirus pandemic. Trump also said that we had only 15 cases. He even implied that the virus is a hoax and nothing to worry about. Of course, people are always eager to pretend that their problems aren’t real. People are always grateful for easy solutions. Real problems, however, rarely have easy solutions.

___________________

Read: Trump Used Medical Quackery to Divert Attention from Real Issues

Read: Trump Proposed Disinfectant Injections

__________________

Sometimes, real leadership means asking people to make tough choices. It means facing challenges and rising to meet them. 

In his September 10, 2021 speech about the coronavirus, President Joe Biden offered the United States a tough, challenging path to follow. He said that the nation faced major challenges. He warned his listeners that the solution would not be easy. That’s not the route to short-term popularity. It might, however, be the path of wise leadership. 

After listing the public health progress made so far, Biden challenged the American public to handle the coronavirus pandemic. The solutions, of course, were the time-tested methods of wearing a mask, getting vaccinated, and testing people who might be infected: 

“If we raise our vaccination rate, protect ourselves and others with masking and expanded testing, and identify people who are infected, we can and we will turn the tide on COVID-19.

“It will take a lot of hard work, and it’s going to take some time.  Many of us are frustrated with the nearly 80 million Americans who are still not vaccinated, even though the vaccine is safe, effective, and free.”

“Hard work,” Biden said, and “time:” two things that voters don’t like to hear. Biden then offered a series of public-health measures, including mandatory vaccinations or frequent testing for healthcare employees and federal workers.

Furthermore, Biden called out the obstacle that prevents the United States from overcoming the pandemic. That obstacle is not a failure of public-health specialists, but the stubborn refusal, he said, of those who declined to get vaccinated. Biden especially blamed elected officials who exploit people’s fears and ignorance for political purposes:

“We have the tools to combat COVID-19, and a distinct minority of Americans – supported by a distinct minority of elected officials – are keeping us from turning the corner.  These pandemic politics, as I refer to, are making people sick, causing unvaccinated people to die.” 

In a nation overrun by increasingly bizarre conspiracy theories, Biden focused blame on people who spread ridiculous misinformation.

In addition, however, to warning people that solutions would not be instant, that the nation can make real progress in overcoming the disease, keeping schools open, and ensuring business prosperity:

 “The measures — these are going to take time to have full impact.  But if we implement them, I believe and the scientists indicate, that in the months ahead we can reduce the number of unvaccinated Americans, decrease hospitalizations and deaths, and allow our children to go to school safely and keep our economy strong by keeping businesses open.”

This is leadership. I suspect that Biden will turn out to be right. Even if his proposals fall short, however, he is making a serious effort to lead the nation.  He proposes a course of action that might lead the United States out of this public-health disaster. States like Florida and Texas have tried easy solutions, with massive death rates the predictable result. Statistics clearly show that states which have conservative leaders are faring poorly during the pandemic. That cannot be a coincidence. States with mask and high vaccination rates are faring far better. Not only are fewer people sick in those regions, but their economies are doing better as well.

The right thing – the hard course of action – is not always popular. In the long run, however, it is not a President’s job to win elections. It is the President’s job to offer leadership. It is the President’s job to help the nation thrive and to fulfill its potential.

It is not just that President Biden gave the nation tough solutions. He also told his audience that the solutions would be difficult. In an era where few politicians are willing to make tough choices, or even buck the latest two-week opinion polls, Biden in this speech tried to move the nation forward. He proposed a challenge. He told us that it wouldn’t be easy. He told us that it would take time. Those are not pleasant things to hear – but they are probably true.

 ______________

Elaine's Post: Masks Do Not Cause Medical or Psychological Harm to Children

Read: How to Tell if a Conspiracy Theory Is Real

Read: Biden’s Delta Variant Speech Showed Leadership

Image: White House Photo

“And This Is Their New Hoax:” Donald Trump’s Six Deadly Words Still Ravage Our Nation

It’s no accident that the coronavirus pandemic has ravaged the United States worse than any other nation on earth. Even today, tens of millions of Americans refuse to get vaccinated or take minimal public health precautions. Republican leaders continue to ridicule the virus and make fun of health officials. Nurses and physicians sometimes receive death threats from their own coronavirus patients.

What is our problem? It all goes back to Donald Trump’s most influential speech, which he gave at a February 28, 2020 campaign rally in Charleston, South Carolina. When I say “influential,” I don’t mean that Trump gave a good speech. I don’t mean the public speaking textbooks will talk about this speech. I mean that this awful speech had massive public impact. This speech’s six deadly words have spread through the conservative movement’s collective soul.

The virus is a contagion of microbes. The idea that the virus is a hoax has spread like a contagion through right-wing media and social groups.


Trump’s Six Deadly Words

Trump’s Charleston speech rambled incoherently for almost an hour and 20 minutes. It was, however, just one six-word sentence that ignited the deadly fires of coronavirus ignorance. Just six words launched the conspiracy theories and rampant stupidity that prevents the United States from controlling the coronavirus 18 months later. For, Trump said:

“And this is their new hoax.”

Cable news talk show hosts, right-wing radio pundits, and Russian trolls have spread and amplified Trump’s simple message that the coronavirus is a hoax ever since. Although Trump’s speech is long forgotten, his message resonates through America’s public health life.

With those six words, Trump convinced his millions of followers not to worry about the coronavirus. On the contrary: Trump convinced them to reject any thought that the coronavirus endangers them. And, my goodness, was Trump clever when he talked about the “hoax.” In context, he didn’t literally say that the virus wasn’t real; he accused his opponents of manipulating and exaggerating information about the virus. He meant that all the talk about the coronavirus was political and malicious. This was, as we will see, a dog whistle that his supporters could understand perfectly well. To his supporters, the important point was not whether the virus was literally real. Instead, the point was whether they could trust anyone who talked about it. That’s a lot of complexity from one 6-word sentence, isn’t it?

A String of Hoaxes?

How did a mere six words from Trump, the master salesperson, cause so much damage? Well, one thing that Trump excels at is twisting words. Let’s back up a bit and look earlier in the speech, when he complained about the “impeachment hoax:”

“They tried the impeachment hoax.… They tried anything. They tried it over and over. They’d been doing it since you got in. It’s all turning. They lost. It’s all turning. Think of it. Think of it. And this is their new hoax.”

So, Trump complained about impeachment, which he called a hoax. He then grumbled about other unnamed hoaxes: “It’s all turning.” I don’t know what Trump meant, exactly, but it sounds as if hoaxes are turning around everywhere. Within that context, Trump could imply that the coronavirus was just one more hoax from a long list. These supposed hoaxes, starting with the “impeachment hoax,” had one goal: to remove Trump from office.

Let us not overlook Trump’s next point, when he said that the coronavirus was not affecting the United States. He claimed that there were only 15 cases at the time and boasted of “early” steps to control the disease:

“We have 15 people in this massive country and because of the fact that we went early. We went early, we could have had a lot more than that. We’re doing great.”

What did Trump do that was early? He didn’t say. He was long past talking about facts. The only thing that mattered was that he had said: “And this is their new hoax.”


Conspiracies Rule the Earth?

A hoax, new or old, would be spread by conspiracies. Trump’s tactic worked because his audience was already adapted to – and ready to receive – bizarre conspiracy theories. People who thought that Obama forged his birth certificate and instituted death panels were ready to believe that the coronavirus was just one more hoax. Once the audience believed – as his rally crowd obviously did – that the Democrats were using endless dirty tricks to remove Trump from office, it was a simple step to think that the coronavirus was merely one more tiresome hoax.

Reality soon attacked the hoax hypothesis, didn’t it? The 15 coronavirus cases that Trump cited in February 2020 have, by late summer 2021, multiplied into tens of millions of cases and more than 600,000 documented pandemic deaths.

Given that massive spread, can people still believe that the coronavirus is a hoax? Probably not. But people can still believe in a toned-down hoax hypothesis – maybe the coronavirus is just the flu, or the coronavirus only kills old people, or the coronavirus only affects cities, or it’s all coming from immigrants. Whatever. Once people decide that a hoax is involved, they no longer care about the details. And, of course, no conspiracy theorist needs to believe consistent things. Conspiracy theorists are eager to flip and flop their opinions from one ridiculous claim to another. The only thing they need to feel consistent about is that mysterious, powerful, wicked forces are out to get them.


Tricky Wording, Tricky Hoax?

Also note how cleverly Trump phrased his point to evade fact-checkers. His statement implied that the coronavirus itself was a hoax. But what he actually said – read literally and in context – was that his political opponents were drumming the coronavirus out of proportion. The only reason for his opponents to talk about “their new hoax,” Trump implied, was to make him look bad.

So, now, more than a year later, millions of Americans still think that the coronavirus is just the flu, or that the public or authorities want them to wear masks and take vaccines for the purpose of controlling them, or that the only reason to engage in social distancing or business restrictions is to harm Trump’s supporters.

One of the most remarkable features of Trump’s “And this is our new hoax” is that it passed fact checkers! Some Democrats accused Trump of calling the virus a hoax. The Democrats, not Trump, failed with the fact checkers! But Trump was actually saying that reporting about the coronavirus was a hoax. I’m not sure that matters in real life – if it is a hoax for reporters to say that the coronavirus is bad, I don’t see a practical difference. All the same, Democratic leaders plopped right into Trump’s trap. For example, when Kamala Harris accused Trump of calling the virus a hoax, PolitiFact.com rated her statement False. And, yes, you guessed it, PolitiFact concluded that Trump was only calling the publicity about the coronavirus a hoax, not the virus itself. The oldest fact-checking website, FactCheck.org, waffled a little bit, concluding “But that’s not what Trump said he meant.” Hmm.


Dog-Whistle Rhetoric

However, despite all the waffling, Trump’s supporters knew perfectly well what he meant. Conservatives have long used dog-whistle communication. That is, they say things that literally mean one thing, but they know the hidden meaning. For example, when right-wing demonstrators refuse to say “Black lives matter,” insisting instead that “All lives matter,” we know perfectly well that they are fudging over whether Black lives matter at all. At the same time, because of how “All lives matter” is phrased, they can absolutely deny any such evil motive. In the 1960s, the John Birch Society said to “Support Your Local Police,” when what they meant was “Oppose civil rights.” The idea of dog-whistle communication is to say things that your listeners will understand, but whose hidden meaning you can deny with your last breath.

So, when Trump said, “And this is our new hoax,” he could squirm around to say that he wasn’t really calling the virus a hoax. Conservative audiences understood perfectly well, however, what he wanted them to think. To this day, Trump’s supporters still underestimate the coronavirus and refuse to take the most basic public health precautions. For example, a Nevada woman who lost her husband to the disease said that she had believed that the virus was a “political game.” In Trump-supporting Clarion County, Pennsylvania, people this week are saying things like: “I don’t think COVID’s that serious, anyways. I don’t see it as anything more than a cold.” As if the coronavirus is a semi-hoax. Fred Lowry, a local Florida Republican politician, said on May 30, 2021 that “We did not have a pandemic, folks. We were lied to.” At this writing, three months later, he lies in a hospital bed, desperately ill with a coronavirus infection.

Yet, Trump’s “And this is our new hoax” eventually caught Trump himself. A few weeks ago, Trump told rally attendees that he had been vaccinated against coronavirus. He told them that the vaccine was good. He said that they should take it themselves. The result? The crowd booed!

After all, why should you get vaccinated against a hoax?


Conclusion

Trump sneaked six simple words into an otherwise unremarkable speech: “And this is their new hoax.” Once that idea became implanted in conservative ideology, it spread and morphed into a complex web of coronavirus denial.

Just think, if Trump had simply said, “The virus is bad, and let’s beat it,” how much better off we would all be today—Trump, himself, included.

_________________    

Read: Trump Said to Take a Vaccine, and the Crowd Booed! 

Read: Trump's Tweets Were (Sort of) Deniable Dog Whistles

Elaine's Post: We Need Mask Mandates in Schools
_________________ 

Research note: Communication scholars use the term “multivocal communication” when they talk about dog-whistle politics. What that means is that certain statements carry more than one meaning. In addition to a literal meaning, multivocal statements carry a hidden meaning that true believers understand perfectly well. Interested readers might look at an article by Bethany Albertson. She explains that: “Multivocal communication occurs when the same words have distinct meanings to different audiences.” You can read her paper, published in the academic journal Political Behavior.

The idea that information about risks can spread through formal and informal social networks is called Contagion Theory. In this case, it’s not just that American conservatives rely on partisan news sources. Also, people tend to share their ideas about risks through their social networks. Social groups, both in-person (like families) and on-line networks develop to exchange information about what people perceive to be the risks of the coronavirus. In this case, Trump started the contagion, but his idea has spread throughout a massive social ecosystem. Clifford W. Scherer and Hichang Cho explain the basics of Contagion Theory in this excellent peer-reviewed article.
_________________ 

Here is the entire “new hoax” passage from Trump’s speech:

“One of my people came up to me and said, ‘Mr. President, they tried to beat you on Russia, Russia, Russia.’ That didn’t work out too well. They couldn’t do it. They tried the impeachment hoax. That was on a perfect conversation. They tried anything. They tried it over and over. They’d been doing it since you got in. It’s all turning. They lost. It’s all turning. Think of it. Think of it. And this is their new hoax. But we did something that’s been pretty amazing. We have 15 people in this massive country and because of the fact that we went early. We went early, we could have had a lot more than that. We’re doing great. Our country is doing so great. We are so unified. We are so unified.”
_________________ 

Once again, I am grateful for the good people at Rev.com, who published a verbatim transcript of Trump’s speech. They operate a transcription service, but they also publish important speeches as a public benefit.

Image credits: CDC image; Trump’s official White House photo 

Governor DeSantis Twisted the Evidence and Put Florida’s Children in Danger

Teddy Says, Wear a Mask

Public officials have pleaded with us to follow the science as we fight the coronavirus pandemic. This seems to irritate conservatives, who sometimes pretend that science is on their side. Florida’s Governor Ron DeSantis issued an executive order (Florida Executive Order 21-175) forbidding Florida schools from requiring students to wear masks. As he issued that order, coronavirus has been spiking throughout his state, while Florida’s pediatric wards are filling up with young coronavirus patients. Disaster is inevitable. DeSantis offered powerful but empty arguments.

This post discusses how DeSantis distorted scientific evidence about mask-wearing. He twisted the science to support a pre-conceived political opinion.


Twisting the Science

Mask-wearing has become a flag issue for conservatives. Avoiding masks symbolizes their independence from what they consider obnoxious, pompous, and insulting advice from public health officials. DeSantis turned the table on scientists by citing scientific studies to support his policy. Although better scientific research (which we’ll look at in a minute) contradicts DeSantis’ interpretation, that, unfortunately, does not diminish the persuasive power of his line of argument.

So, let's look at one of DeSantis’ faulty arguments:

“WHEREAS, despite recent Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) ‘guidance,’ forcing students to wear masks lacks a well-grounded scientific justification; indeed, a Brown University study analyzed COVID-19 data for schools in Florida and found no correlation with mask mandates.”

Quotation marks around “guidance?” That was DeSantis’ snub against experts.

DeSantis did not, of course, cite his source. Who would ever expect a politician to cite sources? But I tracked it down. The study does, indeed, exist, but it was published on a website, not a scientific journal. The website warned: “This article is a preprint and has not been peer-reviewed.… It reports new medical research that has yet to be evaluated and so should not be used to guide clinical practice.” So, although the preliminary study may turn out to be right, let’s not use it to justify endangering children’s health.


But What About Other Studies? Do They Support Masks in Schools?

I did, however, find a 2021 study, published in the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. That article’s data showed that mask mandates, when combined with other public health methods, help control the virus’s spread. The authors explained that schools that “implemented multicomponent measures [which included mask mandates] to reduce spread reported lower in-school transmission unless lapses in these measures occurred.” 

The study wasn’t performed in Florida, however, so I guess DeSantis could decide to ignore it. I suppose he could also ignore a Georgia study which discovered that: “Adjusting for county-level incidence, COVID-19 incidence was 37% lower in schools that required teachers and staff members to use masks, and 39% lower in schools that improved ventilation, compared with schools that did not use these prevention strategies.” That, of course, shows a dramatic improvement from mask-wearing.

One of the best general scientific articles about mask-wearing was published this year in an excellent peer-reviewed scientific journal, Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology. The authors found that mask mandates do, indeed, help a lot. They explained that “Several studies have demonstrated that face masks decrease the spread of SARS-CoV-2 virus. “They concluded that “Mask mandates that include minimal exceptions will lead to a reduction in community COVID-19 rates, decrease hospitalizations, and save lives.”

However, can ordinary face masks slow down the virus? A 2021 review of research, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, a highly-rated scientific journal, concluded that widespread mask-wearing could reduce community spread. This should, the article explains, be combined with other public health measures. The researchers said that, “places and time periods where mask usage is required or widespread have shown substantially lower community transmission.”

The point? DeSantis picked and chose his science – actually, he mentioned only one study, and not necessarily the best one – while ignoring better evidence that contradicted his opinion. Scientific studies don’t always reach the same conclusion, which is why scientists like to repeat studies over and over in different situations. That way, they can be sure they have the truth. One study, by itself, is never conclusive.

Was DeSantis Learning about Masks? Or Trying to Prove a Pre-Determined Opinion?

DeSantis wasn’t looking for truth; he was just scoring political points. As communication scholar George Ziegelmueller pointed out in his 1993 argumentation and debate textbook, there is a difference between inquiry and advocacy. We are doing inquiry when we want to learn something. We engage in advocacy when we want to prove something we’ve already decided. In other words, are we willing to learn from science? Or will we just cherry-pick science to prove a cynical agenda? 

DeSantis’ Executive Order engaged in advocacy, not inquiry. Politics obviously drove his decision. He then fished around for the best evidence he could find. That evidence wasn’t especially good, while better evidence contradicted his decision. So, unwilling to deal with truth, he did the best he could to promote a dangerous, unwise policy. He was following public opinion, while making little effort to lead.

 
That is outrageous.

If you want your children to live, ignore the governor of Florida and put facemasks on the precious little ones until this pandemic is over.

____________________

Biden's Delta Variant Speech: Showing Leadership During the Pandemic

Trump and the Maskless Crowd: A Flag Issue for Conservatives

On Elaine's Blog: Should Children Wear Masks All Day in School?

____________________

P.S. I knew the late Professor Ziegelmueller quite well. He was a great guy, and I assure my readers that he had no patience with sloppy arguments like the ones that DeSantis offered in his Executive Order.

Photo: Elaine Clanton Harpine

Tucker Carlson Used a Textbook Fallacy to Question the Coronavirus Vaccines

Coronavirus, CDC image

In a recent commentary, Tucker Carlson said: “To say it in unison – and they’re all saying it – that this is a pandemic of the unvaccinated is simply untrue, that’s a lie.” Strong words! However, public health authorities’ point is that the vaccines are highly effective. Carlson’s rebuttal was that the vaccines are not completely effective. Carlson’s point is a classic example of the false dilemma fallacy. That is, Carlson implied that the vaccine is either effective or it is not – all or nothing. That is a fallacy because no vaccine works all the time.

People commit the false dilemma fallacy when they tell us that we only have two choices when, in fact, we have many. A vaccine might be perfect. A vaccine might be imperfect. Those are not, however, the only two choices. As Kathy Katella of Yale Medicine points out, the current vaccines used in the United States are 86%-98% effective in preventing severe coronavirus infections. Although that is an excellent result, it’s not perfect.  In Texas, for example, 99.5% of coronavirus deaths were among persons who were not vaccinated. Similarly, North Carolina health officials report that 94% of new coronavirus cases are among unvaccinated patients.

Still, if a tiny percentage of the serious illnesses occur among vaccinated people, does that prove that the vaccines do not work? Or does it merely prove that they are slightly imperfect?

To perpetuate his false dilemma fallacy, Carlson first cited British public health authority Sir Patrick Vallance, who said that 40% of British coronavirus hospital patients have been fully vaccinated. Carlson’s conclusion: “it makes you wonder how effective are these drugs anyway.”

Carlson contrasted this figure against what he said were promises made by American officials: “In the U.S., they’re telling us that no one who’s been fully vaccinated is fine. The only people getting dangerously sick or dying from COVID are the people who refused to get the vaccine.” In part, of course, Carlson was working with ambiguous or overstated comments by American officials, such as President Joe Biden’s comment that “The only pandemic we have is among the unvaccinated and they’re killing people.” (Biden could, of course, have phrased his point more precisely.)

Did you notice Carlson’s rhetorical trick? “They’re telling us that no one who’s been fully vaccinated is fine.” I assume he meant to say “everyone,” not “no one.” In either case, “everyone” and “no one” are absolutes. The false dilemma fallacy requires us to think in absolutes, in all-or-nothing terms. Carlson was leading his audience astray, for public health doesn’t deal in absolutes.

Carlson next slipped in one additional step: he sarcastically said that we are being told that “the only people getting sick are the ones who for political reasons have refused to get the vaccines. How many times have you heard that in the past month? As they continue to politicize medicine – almost at an irrecoverable point.” Again, notice the trick: “the only people.” Not most people, not almost everyone, but the only people. Another absolute.

Carlson's next target was CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, who said that “This is becoming a pandemic of the unvaccinated. We are seeing outbreaks of cases in parts of the country that have low vaccination coverage because unvaccinated people are at risk.” She continued that: “communities that are fully vaccinated are generally faring well.” She then pointed out that people who are unvaccinated were very much at risk.

Walensky worded her statement pretty carefully. Carlson, however, exaggerated her point just a little bit to get to his fallacious conclusion. What Carlson said is this:

“Our CDC director, Rochelle Walensky, has said the same thing. If you’re vaccinated, Rochelle Walensky has assured us, you’re safe. You’re not just protected from infection – you're protected from serious illness or hospitalization, and even the lurking menace known as the Delta variant.”

There, Carlson didn't refute Walensky’s claim that the vaccines are protective – which they obviously are. Instead, he said that public health authorities are falsely telling us that, if you’re vaccinated, “you’re safe.” All or nothing.

So, if a few people get sick after being vaccinated, does that prove that the vaccines don’t work? Of course not. It does, however, let Carlson introduce a seed of doubt.

Now, I will agree that the public health authorities, who seek for us to avoid illness, sometimes overstate their case a little bit. Wise managers know that it’s smart to under-promise and over-deliver. I certainly understand that public health authorities want to encourage us to get vaccinated and to keep ourselves safe. At the same time, no public health authority can phrase a point so carefully that someone as unscrupulous as Tucker Carlson can’t twist and squirm. 

Conspiracy theories work with fallacies by their nature. A fallacy is, by definition, a flawed argument that can be made to seem reasonable. We hear that a few people got sick after taking the vaccine, and assume that the vaccine is useless. That is a fallacy because the majority of people who take the vaccine are highly protected and safe. In our current atmosphere of political mistrust, illogical arguments find fertile ground in the minds of people who are suspicious and uninformed. Knowing this, Tucker Carlson took full advantage to spread his bizarre conspiracy theory.

I think all of us like to think in absolutes. If I never run a red light, I think I will never be hit at an intersection. If I never drink alcohol, I think I’ll never get liver disease. Unfortunately, the real world gives us few absolutes. The real world faces us with gray areas, probabilities, and risk factors. When we start to think in all-or-nothing terms, we oversimplify our problems and make bad decisions. 

• Donald Trump Committed Straw Man Fallacies

• Tucker Carlson Got Tricky with His Evidence About Climate Change

Research Note: The best source about fallacies is still Howard Kahane, Logic and Contemporary Rhetoric. 

Trump Said the Coronavirus Is "Not My Fault" in his Second 2020 Debate against Joe Biden

Coronavirus, CDC Image

During his last presidential debate against Joe Biden, President Donald Trump said that the coronavirus epidemic is “not my fault.” He did not, however, mean what his critics think he meant. Trump didn't just reject policy; he rejected analytical argument. 

As I write this post, there have been, according to the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, 42,343,866 cases of the 2019 coronavirus, of which 8,508,467 have been in the United States of America. That’s more than 20% of the worldwide total. Of 1,146,221 global deaths from the disease, 224,188 have been in the United States, far more than any other nation. That’s more than 19% of the worldwide total. Yet, the United States has only 4.23% of the world’s population. Coronavirus has hit us harder than any other nation. 

In the debate, Trump denied that the pandemic was his fault:

“I take full responsibility. It's not my fault that it came here. It's China's fault. You know what, it's not Joe's fault that it came here either. It's China's fault. They kept it from going into the rest of China, for the most part, but they didn't keep it from coming out to the world including Europe and ourselves.” 

“It’s not my fault” has become Trump’s mantra. Someone who takes “full responsibility” does not say “it’s not my fault” in the next sentence. This statement, which Trump made in the first 12 minutes of the debate, was his crucial argument. As always with Trump, however, there’s more than meets the eye. 

Responding, Biden distinguished – as he should have – between the virus arriving in the United States and what actions the government took after it arrived: 

“The fact is, when we knew it was coming, when it hit — What happened? What did the President say? He said don't worry, it's going to go away, it’s going to be gone by Easter. Don't worry, the warm weather. Don't worry, maybe inject bleach — he said he was kidding when he said that, but a lot of people thought it was serious. A whole range of things the President said. And even today, he thinks we are in control. We're about to lose 200,000 more people.”

Biden's more analytical response appealed to his own voting base, but Trump's supporters are unlikely to see his point.  

To understand what Trump said, to comprehend why so many of his supporters think he’s done a great job with the coronavirus, we need to see that Trump's supporters do not, by and large, think the same way as Trump’s opponents. They live in a different mental and social universe. Critical thinking is not part of their bargain. When Trump said “It's not my fault that it came here. It's China's fault,” his base voters did not hear weakness. Instead, they quickly understood that he was defending them from a Chinese conspiracy. 

Two different arguments!

So, we have two distinct lines of argument: conspiracy argument and analytical argument.  Conspiracy argument focuses on how the virus started.  Analytical argument discusses what we can do to stop the virus. Trump’s main line of attack – just like his mainline argument in his recent 60 Minutes interview – was to say that it wasn’t his fault. President Trump is obviously not responsible for what happened in China. He is, however, responsible for his actions after the pandemic spread to the United States. We have passed the point where Trump can say that the virus will go away without hurting anyone. He sidestepped whether his subsequent policies, like inadequate testing, failing to provide medical equipment, or not encouraging masks, were his fault. 

Earlier Post: Trump Denied that the Virus Was His Fault in His 60 Minutes Interview

Why would that persuade his supporters? To understand this, we need to understand two different kinds of audiences. One kind of audience analyzes facts and figures and studies cause and effect. If we have a problem, let’s figure out what caused it, and find a way to remove the cause. That, by the way, is how high school and college debaters are trained to think. In high school and college debate, the idea is to find a problem, identify a cause, remove the cause, and prove that the solution doesn’t cause more problems than it solves. In an article that I published about what debaters call the stock issues, I explain how this kind of  analytical thinking arises from theories of ethics and morals. Public policy should bring widespread benefit to the public without causing unnecessary harm.

Analytical argument

Here's an example of the analytical approach. An August 2020 article in Counter Punch listed five failures of Trump’s policy that spread the pandemic across the land: for example, he delayed taking decisive action, failed to encourage mask-wearing, and delayed the production of necessary medical equipment. Trump’s policy failures, they say, aggravated the crisis. 

Similarly, an article on the liberal website Vox faulted Trump for downplaying the crisis and dismantling the nation's pandemic plan. That is, they argue that he could have done more to deal with the pandemic. That, also, is an analytical approach. Biden's own response, quote above, was analytical.
 

Conspiracy argument

Many people, however, do not think that way. Many people think instead that the world is controlled by vast, impersonal forces that wish them harm. Many conservatives today fear something called “the New World Order.” They think that mysterious, malicious forces control public policy. It is only natural for them to assume that the far-away Chinese government would conspire against them.  Pew Research found that “about a third (34%) of Republicans and independents who lean to the GOP say the theory that powerful people intentionally planned the COVID-19 outbreak is probably or definitely true, compared with 18% of Democrats and Democratic leaners.” 

For example, about 50% of Trump’s supporters see merit in the bizarre QAnon conspiracy theory. Or consider megachurch pastor and enthusiastic Trump supporter Rodney Howard-Browne, who told his congregation last March to ignore coronavirus restrictions because the coronavirus was really just a scare tactic of people who seek world domination: “Because the climate change narrative for global governance failed, they are using the World Health Organization to then come in and take over the control of nations and then they are going to bring in vaccines.” Howard-Browne is not an outlier: if readers wonder why white evangelical Christians support Trump so enthusiastically, Howard-Browne’s reasoning could explain that.  Trump is, they think, protecting them from conspiracies. The coronavirus is, to them, just one part of that imaginary global menace.  

Conclusion

So, whose fault is it that our nation is ravaged by a virus? Many people, including most university professors and mainstream media writers, will take an analytical approach. By an analytical approach, yes, it’s pretty much Trump’s fault.  For example, a recent study published in Nature Medicine found that universal mask-wearing could prevent more than 100,000 coronavirus deaths in the next few months. Yet Trump still fails to encourage masks. 

But if we think that the virus is only one part of a massive conspiracy created by China and other mysterious international forces, then, no, it’s not Trump’s fault. By that line of thinking, the United States does not need masks, social distancing, or quarantines. Instead, we need someone who will fight the global conspiracy.

If we think (as I do) that the pandemic’s cause is a virus spread by nature, we want to take public health measures. If we think that an enemy did it to us – China, for example – we want someone to protect us from our enemy. That protection is what Trump offers his supporters. And, to all appearances, they feel a need for nothing else.

In the meantime, reality always wins. Always. Our nation is needlessly ravaged by disease. Please, dear reader, wear a mask when you go out in public. It’s not that hard.

Technical note: If you'd like to see my publications about stock issues in debate, click the link to “William D. Harpine's Publications” above. 

The First Trump-Biden Debate: Do Coronavirus Masks Show Weakness?

I guess President Donald Trump showed that he is a tough guy, participating in a televised debate while seriously ill. I also guess that he also showed that he is foolish and irresponsible enough to participate while he was contagious. Trump ended up in the hospital yesterday. It turns out that he and his staff have known for 3 days that he had the coronavirus. He has had symptoms even longer.

During their first (and, given his illness, probably only) 2020 debate, Trump mocked former Vice President Joe Biden for routinely wearing masks to protect against coronavirus transmission. Well, let us all hope that Trump recovers. Let us also hope that this terrible pandemic quickly gets under control. Center for Disease Control Director Robert Redfield said just last month that a mask prevents coronavirus transmission even better than a potential vaccine. Yet, Trump rarely wears one. It has become a badge of pride among Republicans to go around maskless. And yet, the White House repeatedly ignores basic public health measures. Recent reports show that the White House staff members have not been wearing masks, screening visitors, or practicing social distance. The Atlantic’s White House reporter Peter Nicholas documents that this carelessness continues even as the President rests in his hospital bed. 

Earlier Post: Trump Interrupted Biden during Their Debate to Keep Him from Making His Points 

Project Strength, Not Wisdom?

George Lakoff, a top linguist, says that conservative voters want leaders who are strong and powerful. Strong leaders make them feel safer. He calls this the “strong father” metaphor. In contrast, liberal voters more often prefer nurturing leaders. Lakoff calls this the “nurturing mother” metaphor. Let us, just for the moment, overlook his gender stereotypes and think about what this means for last Tuesday’s Trump-Biden debate. Press commentary focused on Trump’s extremely aggressive behavior and repeated interruptions, which I blogged about earlier. (This does not, as has been pointed out to me, mean that Biden was a model of good manners.)

Earlier Post: Let the Pushiest Candidate Win the Debate? Is That Any Way to Pick a President?  

Masks Show Weakness? Really?

So, yes, Trump interrupted and overwhelmed Biden to show that he was tough. The most important thing he did, however, was to mock Biden for mask-wearing. Let’s look at this exchange when moderator Chris Wallace asked Trump about masks:   

WALLACE

Gentlemen, we’re going to go on to another subject. You have begun to increasingly question the effectiveness of masks as a disease preventer, and in fact recently you have cited the, the issue of waiters touching their masks and touching plates. Are you questioning the effectiveness of masks? 

TRUMP

No, you have to understand -- if you look, I mean, I have a mask right here. [The mask rested in Trump’s pocket, where it didn’t do much good.] I put the mask on it, you know what I think I need it. As an example, everybody’s had a test, and you’ve had social distancing and all of the things that you have to, but I wear a mask, when needed -- when needed, I wear masks. I don’t—I don’t wear masks like him. Every time you see him, he’s got a mask. He could be speaking 200 feet away from me, and he shows up with the biggest mask I’ve ever seen. 

Note Trump’s key point, making Biden seem fearful: “I don’t—I don’t wear masks like him. Every time you see him, he’s got a mask. He could be speaking 200 feet away from me, and he shows up with the biggest mask I’ve ever seen.”  The idea was that Trump was tough and Biden wasn’t.

 

When Wallace later asked Biden about masks, Trump retorted that not everyone agreed about them:

 

WALLACE

I was asking, sir, about masks. 

BIDEN

Oh. Masks -- masks make a big difference. His own head of the CDC said if we just wore masks between now -- if everybody wore masks and social distancing between now and January, we’d probably save up to 100,000 lives. It matters, 

TRUMP

And they’ve also said the opposite. They’ve also said the --

BIDEN

No serious person has said the opposite --

TRUMP

What about Dr. Fauci? Dr. Fauci said the opposite. 

BIDEN

He did not say the opposite. 

 

And so forth. Trump interrupted repeatedly; again, his purpose was to cast doubt on masks

 

Now, although there was some disagreement about masks early in the pandemic, that controversy has ended except for the shouting and the conspiracy theories. The CDC's current guidance says: 

"Masks are recommended as a simple barrier to help prevent respiratory droplets from traveling into the air and onto other people when the person wearing the mask coughs, sneezes, talks, or raises their voice. This is called source control."

However, debating while he was (as we have since learned) already ill from coronavirus, Trump continued to rant that masks showed weakness. 

 

Final Thought: Can’t We Be Wise and Strong?

 

One White House employee and Republican politician after another is being diagnosed with coronavirus. As of this writing, the most recent are North Carolina Senator Thom Tillis and former New Jersey Governor Chris Christie. Social media bots are now telling us that the Republicans are getting sick because Democratic operatives and Chinese spies are spreading the disease to them. A more likely explanation is that the Republicans foolishly refused to wear masks.

 

Republican politicians and conservative media pundits have ridiculed mask-wearers as weak and fearful. Trump continued that pattern during Tuesday’s debate when he made fun of Biden for wearing a big mask. And yet, Trump is now ill. Reality invades Republicans’ specious rhetoric as they catch the coronavirus. It seems that wearing a mask shows intelligence and good judgment. The false bravado of not wearing a mask merely spreads disease. Yes, a leader must be strong. But one can be compassionate and wise at the same time. It’s not either/or.

 

 

P.S.: I contributed a chapter, “It Was Not About the Issues: Ethos in the 2004 Presidential Debates,” to Ed Hinck’s volumes about presidential debating. George W. Bush’s thesis was that a president must be “resolute.” John Kerry, in contrast, responded that a president needs to be “smart.” Neither noticed that a president must be both. As the Bible says, there is nothing new under the sun. Click on “William D. Harpine’s Publications” above for more information. 

Thanks to the Tennessean for promptly posting an excellent debate transcript. 

Image: CDC

WHO's Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus Spoke for Public Health in a Positive Way During His Coronavirus Briefing

Coronavirus, CDC image

Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, Director-General of the World Health Organization briefed the press on August 27, 2020 about the COVID-19 (novel coronavirus) crisis. In his opening remarks, Ghebreyesus tried to reframe the touchy issue into a pure public health problem. 

We all know that the COVID-19 response has become highly politicized, to the extent that public health officials who offer basic scientific information have received death threats. Ghebreyesus reset the debate by placing the COVID-19 pandemic into the context of public health successes. Although the briefing’s topic was COVID-19, Ghebreyesus did not mention the pandemic until the latter portion of the speech.

Instead, he began by talking about polio! Here are his first three paragraphs:

“Good morning, good afternoon and good evening.

“Tuesday was a great day in global health – the certification of the eradication of wild poliovirus in Africa.

“This remarkable effort was started by Rotary International in the 1980s, and advanced by Nelson Mandela in 1996, with the launch of a campaign to 'Kick Polio Out of Africa'. At the time, polio paralyzed 75,000 children every year.”  

“Good morning, good afternoon and good evening” reminded everyone that the World Health Organization protects everyone in every time zone. That is, his first briefing item included (1) “Tuesday was a great day in global health,” and, (2) “the certification of the eradication of wild poliovirus in Africa.” That accomplished two purposes: he (1) announced a public health success, while he (2) showed that global public health efforts can, indeed, eradicate disease. But he had said nothing so far about the coronavirus.

Ghebreyesus talked for several minutes about the international cooperation that helped the world to knock polio out of Africa. This led him to the theme of solidarity:

“The end of wild poliovirus in Africa is a momentous achievement that demonstrates what’s possible when we come together in a spirit of solidarity.”

After reminding his audience that polio continued to afflict Afghanistan and Pakistan, did Ghebreyesus then move directly to talk about the coronavirus? No, he did not. Instead, he talked about victories over sleeping sickness, a terrible disease that afflicts large part of equatorial Africa:

“Polio is not the only disease against which we are making progress.

“Yesterday we also celebrated the end of sleeping sickness in Togo as a public health problem.

“I would like to use this opportunity to congratulate the people and government of Togo and their partners on this achievement.”

He continued to note that several other countries are planning to document that they have also eliminated sleeping sickness. Once again, the speaker showed that public health efforts can bring tremendous benefits to the public and the cooperation and partnership are necessary to achieve those benefits:

“This is incredible progress against the disease which was considered impossible to eliminate just 20 years ago.”

So, he started his COVID-19 briefing by talking about two unrelated public health issues. Then, and only then, Ghebreyesus turned to the coronavirus. He called for the world to adopt the same sense of partnership that had helped to bring polio and sleeping sickness under control:

“Globally, we need the same spirit of solidarity and partnership that are helping to end polio and sleeping sickness to end the COVID-19 pandemic.

“As societies open up, many are starting to see a resurgence of transmission.”  

After noting that certain kinds of gatherings often spread the coronavirus, he mentioned, on an encouraging note, that the Hajj pilgrimage had continued with social distancing, and that people were organizing sporting events and festivals. He said that this could be done safely under certain conditions:

“There are ways these events can be held safely, with a risk-based approach that takes the measures necessary to keep people safe.

“These measures should be communicated clearly and regularly.

“We humans are social beings. It’s natural and normal that we want to come together for all sorts of reasons.

“There are many ways we can be physically apart, but remain socially connected.”

 

Earlier Post: Shaktikanta Das Gave a Central Bankers' Perspective on the Coronavirus

The speaker pointed out that social separation during the pandemic caused emotional stress, which led him to discuss the mental health as a public health issue. Concluding, he announced that he was forming a group to evaluate the world-wide response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Without saying so outright, Ghebreyesus addressed the scattered, uncooperative response of many countries – including, we all know, the United States of America – as a result of which COVID-19 is causing problems far beyond what was originally forecast. His tone, however, was relentlessly positive. Instead of criticizing uncooperative nations, he praised nations that had pursued public health. He pointed out that cooperative nations working together had made great public health strides. He assured the audience that nations could reopen essential activities safely if they followed public health guidelines. He preempted the criticism of people who think the public health experts prevent them from worshiping or attending sporting events.

Uncooperative nations, especially those that have so-called populist governments, have not responded to being criticized. If anything, they and their supporters dig in their heels and become more stubborn. Instead of scolding those nations and their leaders, the Director-General emphasized the positive, hoping to inspire rather than attack. I don’t know if he will succeed – his speech was not well-publicized in the United States – but he took an interesting persuasive approach.

Let’s wish him good fortune. Our lives may depend on it.


Theoretical note: I, and several much more prominent researchers, have written that epideictic speech – speech that praises and blames – can be persuasive. Click on “William D. Harpine’s Publications” above to see my academic publications on the topic.

Earlier Post: An Epideictic Speech by Sean Patrick O'Rourke