Hi reader,
It's the one we've all been waiting for (or an excuse to take a day off from TOA) - proper corona admin, political edition.
The inevitable surprise
I mentioned a few weeks ago that one thing I'm worried about for the future is how two groups are going to come together and govern in the wake of the pandemic. And by two groups, am I referring to left and right? Of course not, I mean two groups defined by their reaction to the pandemic - let's call them The Surprised and The Inevitables.
I should clarify, of course. The Surprised will see this crisis as a shock - pandemics are once in a lifetime events! - and will push a strategy based on "let's return to normal". The Inevitables will insist otherwise - we've been warning you about pandemics our whole lives! - and will insist on a strategy that mitigates against future pandemic risk, perhaps COVID-20.
I'm sure you (inevitably) have a (surprising) prediction?
I have no insight beyond connecting the above observation to what I've learned about life. People sometimes change significantly after a first experience; for example, I started volunteering in a hospice only after I experienced it as a visitor, and my volunteering was a reflection of the way I had changed since that initial visiting experience.
The post-pandemic political landscape is going to see a version of this same transformation. The result could get really ugly, perhaps more so than any dispute from my full adult life, because the pandemic is going to inject a large dose of experience into the political positions of people who may have until now relied solely on philosophy to form their views. It's one thing to vote based on ideas drawn from books and discussions; it's a completely different ballgame when you cast your ballot while still processing a difficult experience.
On the other hand, there is no Rule Of The Universe that demands this effect align with party affiliation, so the pandemic experience may end up disrupting traditional ideological thinking. It's possible the resulting shakeup will slow, stop, or possibly reverse some of the negative consequences of partisanship that have long plagued national politics.
I don't know what will happen, and to an extent I don't care (at the moment), but I'm hopeful that in the next few years those on left, right, and center will take the opportunity to think a little more about the consequences of their political beliefs.
More on partisan politics
As noted recently on TOA, the way Republicans and Democrats reacted to the pandemic by considering policies traditionally associated with their opponent was the most interesting political development of the year so far. Is it a sure sign of the end? Fear not, partygoers, I still feel the threat of partisanship remains very much alive, if only because like most decisions about parties people consider whether their friends are going to the same one.
The way the two-party system works is like a junior high cafeteria, where on one side sit the kids who eat pepperoni pizza, hamburgers, and tater tots while on the other side the kids lunch on sausage pizza, hot dogs, and French fries. Honestly, what would you do? I guess you'd sit with your friends, which is the problem with American politics.
Politically correct, actions
A couple of months before the lockdown, I started thinking about how the most politically correct thing you can do these days is vote. If you can tape that little 'I voted' sticker on your forehead, it's even better than being correct, that's like if your answer impressed Trebek.
I was asked quite a bit about whether I'd voted in the recent Presidential primary, mostly from people wearing stickers over the breast pockets that were strangely unadorned after all our little municipal elections. I've decided to revise my thought above - the most politically correct thing you can do is vote in an election when everyone is certain they are on the same team.
Expert opinions
As I semi-alluded to above, the path to an opinion is paved by either thought or experience, but rarely a combination. There is no 'better' path, and most mountaintops have one view. But we shouldn't share or consider opinions without articulating the difference in the two paths. In some cases fresh thinking is vital while for other considerations the lessons of experience trump all analysis.
Perhaps this standard should be applied to expertise. Often, we associate expertise with The Lone Voice rather than the chorus of knowledgeable people singing the same tune. The value of the individual is often in fresh thinking but for problems that do not require clever insights a sole voice is the siren call. The current pandemic requires expertise where fresh thinking is not necessary. What we need are the right answers for public health questions, with specific emphasis on infection control, hospital operations, and personal hygiene, and those with significant experience in these fields are giving the same shared response.
The lack of a definition on what constitutes an 'expert' means the title is bestowed on any individual or group by someone who is unlikely to be an expert on expertise. Often, it seems an 'expert' is anyone who sounds (or looks) smart while stating an opinion that validates an existing political view. It might be helpful if we agree to consider why a given 'expert' holds an opinion, and how the 'expert' formed the opinion, so we can start the process of freeing 'experts' from the conscription forced on them by the warring factions on left and right.
