How to Depoliticize the Coronavirus Event
Many conservative readers will probably dismiss this report without much thought merely because it is published by the Washington Post—a “liberal” source—but let’s try a thought experiment anyway. But first, hang with me for a moment. . . .
The report relates how “U.S. intelligence agencies were issuing ominous, classified warnings in January and February about the global danger posed by the coronavirus while President Trump and lawmakers played down the threat and failed to take action. . . .” Indeed, if the report is to be believed, it appears he took slight interest in it until it hit the stock market and he was advised it could be bad for his re-election.
Further, if you read the timeline of Trump’s public statements about the virus, he comes off almost as dismissive, underestimating the threat for too long.
If this sounds completely unlike the Trump-team response you believe happened, and far too much like liberal spin and propaganda, I invite you to stick with me for a minute and suspend judgment like a good Berean. Just read the list of his tweets and press comments, which while compiled by WaPo, nevertheless consists of nothing more than his own words.
Here is just a representative sample from the whole list:
(Feb. 24): “The Coronavirus is very much under control in the USA.”
(Feb. 25): “You may ask about the coronavirus, which is very well under control in our country. . . .”
(Mar. 15): “This is a very contagious virus. It’s incredible. But it’s something that we have tremendous control over.”
Then on the very next day when he was called out for saying this, he responded:
(Mar. 16): “If you’re talking about the virus, no, that’s not under control for any place in the world. ... I was talking about what we’re doing is under control, but I’m not talking about the virus.”
But it is clear from the previous several tweets and comments that it was indeed the virus he was talking about.
Similarly, I posted a montage of Fox news hosts initially downplaying and totally dismissing coronavirus reports as liberal hype and attacks designed to take down Trump. They quickly changed their tune and started supporting Trump’s response to how serious it was. There was no acknowledgment of their own error in making accusations completely without knowledge. Special mention goes to Sean Hannity, who literally called the coronavirus story a “hoax,” then only a few days later said his program had always taken the virus seriously and never once called it a “hoax.” Listen for yourself.
My post, in which the video consisted of nothing except their own words, was met with comments that suggested it was propaganda because it the compilation was from the “leftist” Washington Post. Don’t believe it! Likewise, some people rushed to defend such talking heads because they were allegedly only acting on what information was available at the time.
The Thought Experiment
Now for the thought experiment:
Perhaps when you read the report and chronology of Trump’s overly-optimistic dismissals, you respond, they (Trump, the admin, or anyone else) were acting as best they could on the information they had at the time. If so, then consider this:
Imagine that the exact same chronology of statements listed here were instead Barack Obama’s. Re-read them. Would you come away with the exact same feeling? Even close? Would you say the same thing? I wager you would not. I suspect you would without hesitance have one conclusion: “He’s a liar and a fraud.” Perhaps you would add horrible leader, failure, joke, and a long list of other things.
Now, if you have liberal leanings, and read Trump’s list of statements and think, “This guy is a joke. He’s completely inept and dishonest as a leader,” or something like that, then you go on and consider this, too:
Imagine that the exact same chronology of statements listed here were instead Barack Obama’s. Re-read them. Would you come away with the exact same feeling? Even close? Would you say the same thing? I wager you would not. I suspect you would without hesitance have one conclusion: “He’s doing the best he could under the conditions and with the information that he had.”
Both sides, when their preferred leader is in office, would likely conclude that he was demonstrating good leadership. When their mortal enemy-leader is in office, the same actions could only mean he was a joke and a failure.
I am also fairly sure that both sides could find some reason to argue with me as to why their conflicting reactions in each case are justified.
There is no end to the micro-justifications the fallen nature will produce under the adversarial environment of political polarization. Defensiveness makes most people predictable but rarely helpful reactionaries.
Processing the perception
If, like me, your natural inclination is to highlight and dissect how poorly the other side has reasoned and acted up until now, then you will also have one of two natural inclinations when it comes to remedies for the problem. First will be finger-pointing and expecting the usual offenders over there to clean up their act and get with the program. This usually means agree with our side or shut up. The second inclination will be to presume the other side is beyond redemption and will produce nothing worthy of praise that is not tainted by the stink of their side and that the only acceptable course of action is to deprive that side of power as quickly as possible. This means, almost always, replacing them and taking the power for your side.
It is difficult enough as it is to accept how this process proceeds exactly the same way on both sides—liberal or conservative. It is greatly intensified when you have more of a third-party or libertarian mindset, and the “other side” is composed of the overwhelming bulk of the mainstream, both Dems and Reps, and your side is composed of about maybe 3 percent of voters. This is where many of us find ourselves. Maintaining a façade of right in this us-vs-them game is difficult to do without succumbing to a mentality very close to self-righteousness if not running all the way into utter narcissism. There are many in such debates on all sides who are only there because they are self-righteous or narcissistic to begin with.
There is always some way to criticize and denigrate the other side in order to aggrandize your own. It is more difficult to realize, let alone accept (which is another matter yet), that the people on the other side think exactly the same way you do from both angles. They breathe-in the same sense of their own righteous justification and breath out the fire of the same burning indignation against your malicious nonsense. All sides, all people, will do this unless there is first some accountability and self-control in place in their own hearts.
The only way to de-politicize the coronavirus event, however you wish to look at it, is to depoliticize people’s hearts. You are duty bound to start by depoliticizing your own heart. By that, I hardly mean to pretend politics is not important or relevant, even in this event. I simply mean to help stop the polarized, public blame game that serves no good purpose whatsoever and has never persuaded or progressed a single issue, certainly not this one.
I mean hold yourself to the same standards by which you judge others—not just “others” as an abstraction, but the other side, indeed, your most formidable enemies. Do not give yourself or your side one inch of slack that you are not willing to give the other side. Do not interpret others to have deceptive and malicious motives unless you are willing to accept the same evaluation upon your favorite talkers and politicians.
Understanding Power Religion
I have been around a little bit, and I have seen the charades behind a few curtains. What we are discussing here is a real human problem. It is deeply and widely imbedded in human institutions because it is a human problem. It is a problem of true leadership.
What we are witnessing in all of this is at least one aspect of humanistic and power-religion leadership techniques. It is what I like to remind people is the “way of Cain” spoken of in Jude 11. It is a façade that among other things projects power and righteousness, might and fortresses, and victory and self. It does these things because deep down inside it fears being weak and being perceived and rejected as weak. Altogether, it will never, ever admit to error or weakness—never apologizes—unless such things are pretexts for gaining some objective of power or advantage.
As we see with Cain himself, as well as his children, these traits affect the individual, but replicate themselves in the societies built by such individuals. They affect marriages and interpersonal relationships (just look at Lamech—Gen. 4:19–24). As you can see from Lamech, also, the external expressions of these problems compound over time, such that society coarsens generationally under the influence of power.
Leadership in these terms is what the children of Israel expected when they rejected God’s way and instead begged for a “king like all the nations” (1 Sam. 8:5). Despite being told in explicit terms that this decision would lead them—without regard to whether they were Democrat Israelites or Republican Israelites—into oppressive taxation, military drafts, militarism, compulsory national service, and more, i.e., nationalized slavery, they decided they wanted it anyway. They wanted national greatness and power, and when Saul appeared with his awesome command presence, despite being a coward, the nation cheered him. But what they cheered was a rejection of God and putting their faith in power. The sin and slavery that manifested in their government was nothing more than the way of Cain that already lurked, unchecked, in their hearts.
Saul was just the kind of guy who would disobey God directly, but fear being rejected and losing status and face. So, he begged Saul, behind the scenes of course, to lead a façade of approval before all the people, so he could continue pretending he had nothing to apologize for (see 1 Sam 15).
We could multiply examples: Cain, Lamech, Ham, Canaan, Nimrod, Babel, the Canaanites, Haman, Pharisees, etc., etc. For those of you who would be quick to add an Obama, or Trump, to the list, there is hardly a modern political candidate who would not fit. If you are presently trying to think of your favorite guy or gal and how they are an exception, you are still part of the problem (ok, maybe, maybe Ron Paul). Notorious as all of these are, and as real as they were, they are really nothing more than literary records that reveal the capacity of our own hearts. They work hard, feverishly, to find and publicize the faults their opponents have, and they work hard, feverishly, to deny their own and to prevent anyone from ever seeing them, at least in any way they can prove.
I have witnessed these problems many times over in both individuals and relationships, but they also beset large portions of families and offspring, churches, church hierarchies, and church officers, as well as all levels and varieties of state power. We see it most readily in state power, for that is what the media incessantly parades, and we watch too much of it. It occurs just as often in church politics (all types and systems) as well as family relationships. It is especially deadly at its initial font: the human heart. States may murder millions, but that same evil at the heart level slays every single human who ever lived.
Recovering from Power Religion
The proper alternative to power religion is ethical religion. This looks to God’s law written on the heart, and in relationship and love through the Holy Spirit, seeks to serve God and man through sacrificial good works. This does not seek power. It flees from such power religion. It seeks to submit to the power of God and his way.
I am part of the Reformed Christian tradition. We love our Westminster Standards. We are sometimes fond of quoting that amazing passage from the Larger Catechism about the strictness of what is forbidden by the Ninth Commandment (hold on to your hat):
The sins forbidden in the ninth commandment are, all prejudicing the truth, and the good name of our neighbors, as well as our own, especially in public judicature; giving false evidence, suborning false witnesses, wittingly appearing and pleading for an evil cause, outfacing and overbearing the truth; passing unjust sentence, calling evil good, and good evil; rewarding the wicked according to the work of the righteous, and the righteous according to the work of the wicked; forgery, concealing the truth, undue silence in a just cause, and holding our peace when iniquity calleth for either a reproof from ourselves, or complaint to others; speaking the truth unseasonably, or maliciously to a wrong end, or perverting it to a wrong meaning, or in doubtful or equivocal expressions, to the prejudice of the truth or justice; speaking untruth, lying, slandering, backbiting, detracting, talebearing, whispering, scoffing, reviling, rash, harsh, and partial censuring; misconstructing intentions, words, and actions; flattering, vainglorious boasting, thinking or speaking too highly or too meanly of ourselves or others; denying the gifts and graces of God; aggravating smaller faults; hiding, excusing, or extenuating of sins, when called to a free confession; unnecessary discovering of infirmities; raising false rumors, receiving and countenancing evil reports, and stopping our ears against just defense; evil suspicion; envying or grieving at the deserved credit of any; endeavoring or desiring to impair it, rejoicing in their disgrace and infamy; scornful contempt, fond admiration; breach of lawful promises; neglecting such things as are of good report, and practicing, or not avoiding ourselves, or not hindering what we can in others, such things as procure an ill name.
In our context today, “especially public judicature,” I am afraid that very few of us would get past the first line before we need to be on our knees in repentance. The rest is just devastating to the ego. Would we all not be brought up on charges every day, all the time, if we took this standard seriously?
I have seen this passage quoted more than once—that is, used against that other guy who has “slandered” us. I dare say every conservative would love to sift an Obama or Pelosi through this sieve (without benefit of a jury, ha!) and watch his dust blow away in the wind. Likewise, would every liberal wish to destroy Trump the same way with it. Consequently, both sides would defend their guy and probably say such a standard is too strict for politics—I mean, only when their guy is in office, of course!
The reason both sides act like this is in large part because we do not put ourselves through that test first. I mean, sure, we would love to be so pious. We all believe in being sacrificial in principle. It is just that in practice, we are always beset by an enemy, that damned other side, who is unscrupulous and malicious. If we were to act sacrificially and in charity and honesty, they would take advantage of us. They would manipulate us and use our confessions as proof they were right and we were wrong all along, thereby solidifying our slavery for good. So, the best defense is a good offense. We must project power to outdo their attempts at power. Our façade must be better than their façade; we must convince more people than they convince. Our big tower must be bigger than their big tower—tweet to tweet, horse to horse, tank to tank, bomb to bomb, bank to bank, etc.
Sure such things are mostly or wholly evil thorns of statism, but since this is what we are up against, we can only prevail by meeting it on its own terms. So we act, anyway. We’re just like those rebellious Israelites: we want a power like all the nations. In fact, if we do not project this power, we will be overrun by the other side. I would be so pious as we all know we should, but the circumstances demand we compromise or else die.
And thus does the doctrine of the lesser of two evils destroy us all, every one.
Jesus warned us that his way, the way in which we are to prosper in his kingdom, is not only different, but absolutely the opposite. We are specifically not to engage in power-relations:
Jesus called them together and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be your slave—just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many (Matt. 20:25–28).
Likewise, he said that if we wish to follow him, we must take up our cross like he did his (Matt. 10:38).
But I do not see many crosses today—save the ones we fasten for our enemies. And to the extent that that is true—that there are no more crosses—to that extent there are no more true Christians, either.
If you find yourself politicizing the coronavirus news, or fighting against someone else’s politicizing of it with your own brand of contra-politicizing, you may be in need of revisiting this lesson. God does not need another Saul. He calls us to be sacrificial givers, faithful workers, honest speakers, and full of both mercy and integrity. The path to depoliticizing the Rona news is the path to depoliticizing the rest of it, which is all badly needed.
Here are a few things you can do to follow this path:
Take a few days off from political or apologetic comments on Facebooks. Read only. Don’t correct anyone.
Review that passage from the Westminster Standards above. Make a list of the areas in which you fail it. If it is many, prioritize them from greatest to lesser. (If you come up with none, try again. You can start the list with the fact that you found none, for it was untrue.)
Acknowledge to yourself, that this was a violation of the ninth commandment. You may consider speaking with a close counselor about it: wife, pastor, elder, friend, etc.
If any of the more significant things on your list involve other people you may have offended in those ways, write them down.
From the personal side, ask yourself: Is this the person I wish to be before God? Confess. Pray for repentance.
Where cases affect others, take each case individually. Consider how that person may have been impacted by your failure. Put yourself in their shoes (i.e., as one being dismissed, slandered, misrepresented, etc.). How would you feel if you someone did the same thing to you?
Consider how you would have them to confess and reconcile with you if they had been the offender.
Now, do that thing for them.
Does that person still think you’re a jerk? OK. You can only control yourself. Show them the mercy and grace you wish they would have given you.
Start to redeem the time. However much time you used to spend in the endeavors which led to the creation of the list you are working on, start budgeting that same amount of time for useful kingdom work. This could be a redeemed message and approach in discussions, or it could be a whole new thing altogether: like a charity, community work, or helpful hobby that is actually sacrificial and actually helps people.
This is a small start on depoliticizing your heart—depoliticizing from the evil, power politics which cause all of the problems we wish to solve, but which we end up trying to solve using the same trappings of power. Start replacing that with a new method based rigorously on selfless, sacrificial giving and helping. When we start doing that, we will be on the road to having a larger social impact. Worrying about how to depoliticize things like this pandemic will then not really be so much of an issue; they will start to follow naturally. It will not really even be a question at that point.
And I truly long for the day when our leaders and elected officials, during something like a health crisis, don’t have to field skewed questions designed only to damage them politically. And I long for the day when those politicians don’t carry out their jobs and press conferences punctuated with bald faced lies about facts that are clearly the opposite from only a few days prior. And I long for the day when the Christians of our country are so honest that they care equally about both of those last two sentences and not just one or the other.