Trump, coronavirus expose a flawed definition of leadership

What is leadership?

Apparently, it’s where Donald Trump earns his highest marks from American voters in a recent AP-NORC Center poll.

According to the poll half of Americans say the term “strong leader” is a very good or moderately good description of Trump.

But Trump’s idea of a strong leader appears to be someone who does what he wants, when he wants. That’s what outright and de facto dictators like Vladimir Putin (Russia), Kim Jong Un (South Korea) and Recep Tayyip Erdoğan (Turkey) do. Trump has praised all three. Their approach appeals not only to Trump, but to supporters who hate red tape, bureaucracy and anything else that limits them from doing ... well, whatever they want to do.

This is their concept of liberty or freedom. It had absolutely nothing to do with the concept of representative democracy. This system, under which we’re supposed to operate, is designed to protect everyone’s freedom by balancing the rights of some interests against those of competing (or opposing) interests.

In a time of political polarization, however, those “opposing interests” aren’t viewed as checks and balances, they’re seen as “evil” and “the enemy.”

Freedom doesn’t mean freedom for everyone. It means, “freedom for me to do whatever I want, and to hell with everyone else.”

Silencing those who disagree

That’s where the whole system breaks down, because the minute we see the opposition in that light, we dismiss their point of view and even their right to express that point of view. That undermines one of the core values we claim to hold — it’s even in the Constitution: freedom of speech and expression.

It’s no coincidence that dictators seek to limit speech and rein in the expression. In an outright dictatorship, it’s done by arresting people, sending them to gulags, confiscating their property, and torturing them. Because our system still has some checks and balances in place, Trump does it by demeaning his opponents through name-calling and seeking to discredit the media (who, sadly, don’t really need much help).

There’s that term “checks and balances” again. Trump doesn’t like them, and neither do people who want to get things done quickly.

Damn the red tape, full speed ahead.

Of course, they’re an intrinsic part of our constitutional system, because the people who wrote that Constitution didn’t want a dictator.

The power of disinformation

He may not be able to do whatever he wants, but he tries. He issued more executive orders during the first three years of his presidency than Barack Obama, George W. Bush or Bill Clinton. But checks and balances can’t keep him from saying whatever he wants, and that can be nearly as damaging.

Trump doesn’t agree.

The number of lies he’s told since being in office has been well-documented. But the nature of those lies, at times, makes them even more dangerous, especially in times of crisis like the COVID-19 pandemic. Hydroxychloroquine can work on coronavirus. Oh, not so much? Well, try injecting bleach? Sure, that’ll do the trick.

The thing is, even though Trump can’t do everything he wants, he still thinks he’s knows more than scientists, generals, business experts ... just about anyone about just about anything.

No matter how absurd his claims might be, no matter how often he contradicts science (or even his own previous statements), it doesn’t matter. Why? Because studies have shown that “confidence, even when unjustified, leads to higher social status.” Even when it’s bullshit, people believe it.

Trump realizes this, and acts on it. In doing so, he’s tapped into the same psychology used by despots for centuries: Fake it until you make it, because even if you never make it on your merits, you’ll eventually convince people that you have. So you will. That’s how a con man operates — how someone who has repeatedly failed at business gets elected, simply because he says he’s a successful businessman.

Bias toward tyranny?

But there’s more to it than this. Apparently, we in the U.S. are particularly prone to swallowing this kind of B.S. — despite our constitutional separation of powers, and despite the fact that we broke from England because we have a distaste for tyranny.

But do we, really?

A Harvard Business Review analysis presents an alternative, and disturbing conclusion.

The analysis asks what constitutes leadership. In response, it points out that studies have shown a dichotomy, depending on where you live. Places like East Asia and Latin America value a “synchronized leader” who builds consensus, then follows through. Northern European nations and their former colonies (including the U.S.), by contrast, value “opportunistic leaders” who are “more or less individualistic” and “thrive on ambiguity.”

Sounds like a synonym for “self-serving egotists” who “like to have their cake and eat it, too.”

Not a pretty picture.

Another dichotomy: Some nations prefer “straight-shooting” leaders who get straight to the point, while others prefer “diplomatic” leaders who “continually gauge audience reactions.”

The missing piece

What’s missing in all this is one key component: Facts.

The ability to quickly gather, interpret and effectively act on those facts is what makes an effective leader. Not polls, not spin, not self-aggrandizement. A leader is, very simply, someone who was out front. The first person to perceive a problem, and to grasp both its nature and scope. The person most capable of formulating a response, making sure it’s implemented, and ensuring it’s effective.

This has nothing to do with:

• Pretending to know everything about everything, when you really don’t. This can lead to catastrophic mistakes, especially during times of crisis. The Donald Trump method.

• “Continually gauging audience reactions,” which is just another term for “governing by polls.” This can lead to popular but equally flawed conclusions, because they’re based on popularity contests. The Bill Clinton method.

Either way, the facts are conveniently left out of the equation. In the first case, decisions are based not on facts but on one person’s (self-serving) opinion. In the second, decisions are based not on facts, but on public opinion. The latter is at least more democratic, but as the founders recognized, public opinion can lead to conclusions that are just as faulty as a dictator’s — which is why they wrote the Constitution.

Decisiveness is not leadership

Why does Trump get higher marks as a leader than he does for anything else?

Because we’re mistaking decisiveness for leadership. You can be decisive about anything. You can be hell-bent on jumping off a cliff into a pile of quicksand with an anvil tied around your neck. That’s decisive. But it doesn’t mean it’s a good idea. And it doesn’t make you a leader — unless your followers are a bunch of mindless lemmings.

True leadership requires much more than being decisive. It requires being decisive in the right ways (effectiveness) for the right reasons (reliable information). Trump is neither. The COVID-19 crisis has further exposed him as an ineffective leader who makes decisions based on what he wants to believe, rather than the facts. He leaves scientists to try to clean up his mess, then blames them when he’s wrecked things beyond repair.

That says something about him, and it says a lot more those of us who consider him a strong leader.

He’s anything but.  

Progressives' predicament: To vote, or not to vote?

The nomination of Joe Biden and by the Democratic Party has put progressive independents in a double-bind. They’re asking themselves:

Is a second term of a corrupt president more or less acceptable than a vote for a corrupt establishment?

If the president in question were anyone other than Donald Trump, the answer would be easy. Corruption has become so entrenched in our political system — thanks to corporate money, Gerrymandering, etc. — that voting for any candidate who enables this system seems nothing less than a vote for corruption.

Joe Biden has spent his career enabling the system, from his oversight of the Anita Hill hearings to his vote in favor of the Iraq War. And, perhaps most tellingly, his openness to weakening Social Security and his opposition to universal health care.

Now, there’s no question that Donald Trump is worse. There isn’t enough space in this article to enumerate his myriad failings. Voting for Trump is not an option for thinking progressives.

The question is whether voting for Biden is.

What ifs

A vote for Biden will further entrench a corrupt system that relies on big-money corporate donors who’ll expect something in return from whomever they support. And yes, they’ll get it.

If Trump wins, on the other hand, he’ll continue to wreak havoc with everything from healthcare to minority rights. He’ll likely get a chance to appoint one or two more Supreme Court justices. He’ll keep lining his pockets and telling lies, and his victory will affirm everything so many progressives loathe about his blustering, egocentric approach to politics.

Will the damage caused by Trump be lasting? Certainly, a Trumpist high court would be a long-term nightmare. And the longer Trumpism flourishes, the more entrenched it will become.

On the other hand, however, the longer voters actively support candidates who cater to corporate donors, rather than the voters themselves, the more entrenched that pattern will become. And, in consequence, the less anyone’s vote will matter eight, 12 or 16 years down the line.

One-dimensional Joe

It’s tempting to say, “I’ll put my checkmark by Biden’s name, but I don’t believe in him and it won’t be a vote for him. It will be a vote against Trump.”

Biden won’t care. He’s run his entire campaign, not on issues or personal character, but on the mere idea that he’s the person best positioned to beat Trump. He doesn’t care if you support him, so long as that checkmark is next to his name.

He’s not running as Joe Biden. He tried that twice before and failed to win a single primary. He’s running as “the safe guy” and the “anti-Trump.” But “safe” means maintaining the status quo — which, in turn, means winking at corruption while putting your hand out to accept money from as many corporate donors as you can find.

In doing so, Biden is enabling corruption.

Trump, on the other hand, is actively engaged in it. Is one worse than the other? Sure. Should either one be acceptable? Surely not.

Blame game

So I can understand those who choose to vote for Biden on the grounds that four more years of Trump could be catastrophic. But I can also understand those who sit the election out or vote for a third-party candidate on the grounds that the corrupt system itself is a bigger problem even than the most corrupt individual ever to hold the office. There are potent arguments to be made both ways.

But whichever course an individual chooses to follow (and I can’t stress this strongly enough), there is no good argument for shaming those who disagree with you. There is no good argument for casting blame on those with whom you largely agree of the issues, who are following their consciences and exercising their right to vote. And there is no good argument for pressuring, goading or threatening them unless they act the way you think they should.

That’s not democracy.

And, apart from being rude and childish, such behavior almost never works: People who feel disparaged and dismissed tend to dig in their heels rather than even consider doing things differently — regardless of their political persuasion. (Mitt Romney’s remark about the “47 percent” and Hillary Clinton’s derision toward “deplorables” on the one hand and “Bernie Bros” on the other provoked precisely that reaction, and cost both of them at the polls.)

It’s the system, stupid

Besides, it’s not the voters who are at fault for a lost election. It’s the candidate and, to varying degrees, the system.

That’s why the current situation is so galling. The system has, as it often does, produced two candidates who are woefully lacking. No, they’re not equally bad — I’m not suggesting some false equivalency here. But whichever one wins, it will make the situation worse by reinforcing a corrupt, bought-and-paid-for system that churns out “lesser of two evils.”

At least, they appear as two evils to many of us. It can feel like a choice between Machiavelli and the Marquis de Sade.

For corporate sponsors, by contrast, the result is a win-win. They often donate to both major candidates, so that, either way, they’ve got someone in their pocket. It matters little to them whether that someone is an incompetent egomaniac or a status quo partisan hack.

Worst-case scenario

Maybe, at this point, it doesn’t matter to the future of the country, either.

Here’s a chilling thought: Trump’s scorched-earth presidency and corporate corruption may have both already done so much damage already that our democracy is beyond repair.

That bleak prospect is what keeps many people from bothering to vote. I’m not saying that’s the best response, merely that it’s understandable. You can rebuke them for their supposed apathy — and alienate them further. Or you can consider the possibility that, instead of caring too little, they actually cared too much. And that, at a certain point, people stop are bound to stop caring in self-defense if caring never makes a difference anyway.

It’s not being a sore loser. That’s not it at all. Most people don’t stop caring if they’re losing a fair fight. They stop caring if they believe the game is rigged and they never had a chance in the first place.

Criticizing them won’t help. Only one thing will: Leveling the playing field.

And barring a miracle, whichever candidate wins in November, that won’t happen.    

Coronavirus: Republicans' ally in voter suppression

Creep. Creep. Creep.

First, they legitimized white supremacists when Donald Trump referred to “very fine people on both sides” of the violence in Charlottesville, Va.

Now, they want to bring back the poll tax and the literacy test. Well, not quite. But the COVID-19 pandemic has given Republicans their most effective means of voter suppression in decades. Those taxes and tests kept citizens from voting outright. These days, Republicans are giving them a choice: Risk your life or forfeit your right to vote.

But voting isn’t a right if it’s not protected — and instead of protecting citizens from a deadly disease, most Republicans want to expose us to it.

Here’s the breakdown of a recent NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll: 67% (two-thirds) of respondents want mail-in voting this November. Fewer than half (44%) of Republicans do.

Those Republicans’ paper-thin nonargument is being made by (to no one’s surprise) the same guy who talked about white supremacists being “very fine people.”  

“People cheat,” he says. “There’s a lot of dishonesty going along with mail-in voting,” he says.

Wanted: Taxes, not votes

Never mind that the government accepts our taxes by mail. It allows us to register for Selective Service, for driver licenses, for car licenses by mail. It runs a postal service that guarantees delivery. Never mind any of that. The mail is good enough for the IRS, but not for a federal election? Give. Me. A. Break.

Oh, and never mind, either, that Trump’s own handpicked task force found zero evidence of voter fraud. It’s routine for him to contradict his own appointees — and himself. And he makes assertions without evidence as a matter of course.

For example: People who took a drug Trump suggested for treating COVID-19 died at higher rates than those who didn’t take it. He’s not a doctor, nor did he even play one on TV. (He played a successful businessman, but he wasn’t that, either.) Still, he insists on practicing medicine without a license — and with a megaphone.

People died because of it.

Read that again: PEOPLE DIED BECAUSE OF IT.

Liberty or death?

Now, it’s possible that people will die exercising their right to vote, too. And once again, it will be because Donald Trump and his cronies are making a statement, without evidence, for the sole purpose of staying in power: “Mail-in voting invites fraud.” They don’t really believe that. They’re just using it a pretext to suppress voter turnout — something they’ve been doing for a very long time.

Don’t take my word for it. Just ask them:

“Traditionally, it’s always been Republicans suppressing votes in places.” — Justin Clark, senior political advisor to Donald Trump’s re-election campaign

What if mail-in voting were allowed nationwide?

“This will be extremely devastating to Republicans and conservatives. ... (It will) certainly drive up turnout.” — David Ralston, Georgia State House Speaker

It would spark “levels of voting that, if you’d ever agree to it, you’d never have a Republican elected in this country again.” — Trump

This, of course, is nothing more than hyperbole. Gerrymandering has locked in conservative districts as “safe” for years or decades to come. At worst (or, in my view, at best) Republicans would be forced to moderate positions that don’t jibe with those of the vast majority of Americans. Then, maybe reasonable-minded voters would once again have two viable options when they go to the ballot box.

Minority rule

But Republicans don’t want to change. They have no interest in wooing the majority, and they haven’t for a while. They want minority government, the same concept that sustained regimes like, oh, I don’t know, apartheid in South Africa. Gee, wasn’t that a white-supremacist government? Trump would probably argue that there were some “very fine people” in P.W. Botha’s government.

Republicans’ thirst for power is why they won’t reform the Electoral College to create a true system of one person, one vote. It’s why they consistently push voter I.D. laws. It’s why they tenaciously oppose things like motor-voter, election holidays and mail-in ballots. It’s fine to require earners to pay taxes and young men to sign up for Selective Service, but automatically registering them to vote? Oh, no! That would never do!

And it’s much better to expose them to a deadly virus than let them vote by mail!

That’s what Republicans did in Wisconsin, when they refused to delay that state’s primary election April 7. As a result, at least 19 people are sick with coronavirus. If any of them die, the Republicans will have blood on their hands

“Wait a minute,” you might say. “This doesn’t look like voter suppression not look like voter suppression to me. After all, the Republicans insisted on holding the election.”

But a closer look reveals the truth: A delay in the election would have given residents more time and opportunity to vote by mail, which would likely have driven up turnout. (Even without a pandemic, voting in person requires more planning, effort and access to transportation — something poorer people may not have.) So, yes, Republicans wanted to limit voter turnout in Wisconsin. And they used the threat of catching the virus to do so.

Health and welfare

Despite the Republicans’ best efforts, forcing people to choose between their health and their voting rights didn’t change the outcome in Wisconsin. But that doesn’t mean it had no effect: The victorious liberal Supreme Court candidate did 10 percentage points better in mail-in voting than at the polls. If more people had voted by mail, the margin could have been even bigger.

Which has led Republicans to cry foul. It’s unfair that mail-in voting works against them, they say. But if that’s true, it’s also “unfair” that votes by blacks, women and metropolitan-area voters work against them. Why not limit those votes, too? And, indeed, that’s exactly what conservatives have tried to do, systematically, for years.

Once upon a time, they tried to suppress voting by charging people a fee to vote — a poll tax, which was declared unconstitutional in 1966. Alternatively, they sought to keep people from voting by forcing them to take literacy tests, a measure outlawed by the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Such tactics were aimed largely at black voters, who overwhelmingly vote for Democrats.

And guess what? Black Americans are at greater risk of dying from coronavirus than the general population. How convenient for Republicans. They don’t need illegal taxes and tests to keep black voters away from the polls. All they have to do is scare them with statistics — statistics largely driven by the fact that blacks have less-stable jobs, worse medical insurance and less access to health care.

All of which would be remedied by universal health care — something Republicans (of course) oppose.

Trump’s disdain for health care has long been apparent. He has tried repeatedly, via legislation and the courts, to dismantle the Affordable Care Act. He fed the current crisis even before it began by largely disbanding the White House’s pandemic response team in 2018, and he made things worse with his inept response to COVID-19.

How the virus helps Republicans

Republicans don’t want people of color, people without health insurance and people facing economic hardship to vote, because those people tend not to support the GOP.  The coronavirus gives them an ally in the fight: If people in these categories stay home from the polls, Republicans win. If they contract coronavirus and are too sick to turn out for the next election, Republicans win. And yes, if they die from the virus, Republicans win.

This is not to say that Republicans who oppose mail-in voting want these people dead. They simply care more about staying in power than they do about voters’ health or welfare.

Or their right to vote.

Now, they get to pursue their goals without poll taxes or literacy tests. Without goons or mobs keeping blacks away from the polls, the way they did in the middle of the 20th century. They don’t need them with COVID-19 on the loose. It’s their most effective 21st century weapon in their fight against democracy.

And it’s deadly.

Featured photo: https://www.vperemen.com / CC BY-SA 4.0

Trump vs. Biden: 10 things it says about the U.S.A. in 2020

1. Hope is dead

Remember when Barack Obama ran on the theme of hope? It seems like a million years ago. Joe Biden isn’t running on the idea that we can actually make progress. In fact, he’s not offering anything substantially new. Instead, he’s promising to return us to a mythical “golden age” (the Obama years, ironically), in which everything was somehow great and wonderful. I’ve even got a slogan for him: “Make America Great Again.” Oops. I guess that’s already taken. Trump’s nomination was the shot across our bow, and Biden’s coronation is the answering volley. Together, they signal that both parties have abandoned their ideals and sacrificed hope for the future at the altar of yearning for a past that never was – except maybe in the era of snake oil and sweatshops.

2. Fear reigns supreme

This isn’t new. In fact, it’s the rule, not the exception. Politicians know this, and they play on it. Fear of nuclear war in 1964. Fear of terrorism in 2004. Fear of immigrants in 2016. Fear of Trump in 2020. Occasionally, hope rears its head, but it’s an anomaly. Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren and a few others who have dared to suggest looking to the future instead of the past have been sidelined by fear that their ideas were too “radical” — even ideas, such as universal health care, that are standard operating procedure for the rest of the civilized world. But hey, that’s not how we do it here in Merica, where one candidate wants destroy the inadequate safety net we have and the other has vowed to destroy a better one if anybody even tries to build it.

3. Winning is everything…

Or, rather, the only thing. Biden’s rallying cry throughout the primaries hasn’t been a platform or a policy proposal. It’s been this: “I can beat Donald Trump.” Again, this sounds a lot like someone else we know: Trump is, famously, obsessed with winning. It doesn’t matter what. It doesn’t matter how. It only matters that you win. In the words of Hillary Clinton: “I don’t care who the nominee is. I don’t care. As long as it’s somebody who can win...” Treating politics as a team sport isn’t new: The two-party system encourages it. The difference is that now, it’s no longer merely an undercurrent that drives the process; it’s a mission statement. And suddenly, nothing else really matters. Not policies. Not people. As Al Davis said, “Just win, baby.”

4. …And so is instant gratification

Long-term goals are ignored or dismissed for the sake of short-term election wins. Instead of addressing the major flaws in our democratic system, politicians exploit them. The list is too long to list here, but includes unlimited corporate funding; a process that rewards campaigning instead of governing; the Electoral College; gerrymandering; superdelegates; irrelevant primaries (most  of them, after South Carolina) voter suppression... Politicians like Trump and Biden don’t bring up the tilted playing field, because it benefits them. And while they might give lip service to long-term challenges like lifting people out of poverty, dealing with climate change, or reducing health care costs, their real pitch is merely: “I can beat the other guy.” The only long-term priority either side really cares about is the makeup of the Supreme Court, which, once again, is just about winning.

5. The opposition is the enemy

For years, it was assumed that both parties wanted what was best for the country; they just had different ideas about how to get there. That’s no longer the case. The other side is no longer “the loyal opposition” but an evil enemy out do destroy the country. Politicians have figured out that the key to winning is fear, and there’s no better way to instill fear in people than to demonize and dehumanize the other side. It works in war, where it leads to atrocities. The Vietnamese weren’t women or children, they were subhuman “Gooks.” And it works in politics, too. (Is Trump’s use of belittling nicknames any different?) So now we’re in a civil war between red and blue, and when individual citizens are wounded in the crossfire, it doesn’t matter. They’re not people. They’re just collateral damage.

6. It’s about loyalty, not values

Trump demands personal loyalty above all else. But are Democrats any better? After Hillary Clinton lost in 2016, those who didn’t vote for her were excoriated online as though they were Judas Iscariot, Benedict Arnold, and Brutus all rolled into one. They’ll likely use the same treatment on anyone who doesn’t vote for Biden in 2020. And it’s not just enough to vote for the person, you have to offer unflinching, undying loyalty. Clinton said as much when she all but accused Bernie Sanders of costing her the election even though he endorsed and campaigned for her. John F. Kennedy’s plea has been warped to become: “Ask not what your candidate can do for your country, ask what you can do for your candidate.” Whether or not you voted for him in the primary (and it’s still nearly always “him.”)

7. Independents are screwed

The two-party system doesn’t naturally lend itself to independent thinking. If there are only two options, you tend to gravitate toward one or the other. But the “winning is everything” mentality has made things worse. Today’s partisan climate rewards tribalists, conformists and dittoheads. People who might be conservative on one issue but liberal on another are excluded because they can’t be trusted. Never Trumpers are ridiculed as RINOs by the right, and those who don’t support the Democratic standard-bearer are blamed for election losses by the left (rather than blaming the candidate for failing to make a compelling case). Independent thought isn’t just inconvenient, it’s anathema, and free speech isn’t protected, it’s shamed as blasphemy.

8. Compromise is dead

The old skill set of “working across the aisle,” touted as recently (though somewhat disingenuously) as the George W. Bush administration, has fallen by the wayside. When the other side is seen as the enemy, any civility or attempt to actually work together is viewed as complicity. Or treason — one of Trump’s favorite words. Politicians talk a lot about unity, but they don’t mean they intend to compromise. What they mean is, “I’ll tell you want to believe and how to act, then you fall into line like a good little puppy.” Compromise has, in fact, become a dirty word. Instead of give and take, or meeting in the middle, it’s more often viewed as contamination: “The integrity of our message has been compromised” by those who dare to think for themselves.

9. Corporations run the show

No matter who wins in November, the next president will be a pawn of corporate donors. Trump boldly declared in 2016 that he’d be using his own money to run for president. No lobbyists. No donors. Yet, this year, to date, he’s raised $164 million of not his own money. Bernie Sanders raised more than that from thousands upon thousands of small donors, and there was talk that his success in doing so might shift the balance of power back to actual voters. But it didn’t. Joe Biden, who relied instead on corporate donors, won the nomination. So, guess who’s going to be running the country the next four years. That’s right: corporations.

10. We’ve lost our way

George Washington warned against “the baneful effects of the spirit of party,” and his successor, John Adams, opined: “There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader.” Alexander Hamilton’s take: “Nothing could be more ill-judged than that intolerant spirit which has, at all times, characterized political parties.” And James Madison remarked on humans’ propensity to fall into animosity “when no substantial occasion presents itself.” Indeed, the remarked, “the most frivolous and fanciful distinctions have been sufficient to kindle their unfriendly actions and excite their most violent conflicts.” Yet, here we are. Donald Trump is no George Washington, and Joe Biden is no James Madison. But far worse: The system we have is not the system our founders envisioned. It’s a bad counterfeit and a perverse caricature of the democratic republic they believed they’d established. They’re not just rolling over in their graves. With any luck, their ghosts will be coming back to haunt us. It wouldn’t be half as scary as what we’re dealing with right now, and besides, we might learn something from it all.

The big coronavirus lie: "We're all in this together"

“We’re all in this together.”

Of all the insulting, disturbing pieces of propaganda to emerge from the coronavirus pandemic, this has to rank near the top.

It’s become a mantra of sorts, parroted alongside the ever popular “this virus doesn’t discriminate.”

“We’re all in this together” isn’t a rallying cry. It’s a means of control disguised as a soothing balm. It’s false reassurance that urges us to follow bad advice, like not wearing masks, and distracts us from the harsh reality: This pandemic is making the health and economic gaps between us grow wider, not narrower.

The person who says, with a plastered-on smile, “We’re all in this together” doesn’t give you a choice. He’s not pressuring or shaming you into conformity, he’s outright assuming it. You’re already “in this.” You can’t decide you don’t want any part of it because, we’re told, the virus doesn’t discriminate, and we’re all in the same boat.

But, in fact, the opposite is true. The virus does discriminate. And, worse, so do we.

The virus discriminates by affecting people with chronic health conditions more than those without them. It discriminates by hitting the elderly far harder than the young. Some geographic regions are harder hit. There’s even research that suggests people with certain blood types are more susceptible. Long story short: We are most certainly not in this together, even from the virus’ perspective.

And we make things worse by discriminating ourselves, as a society. Some people are being forced to choose between their health and their livelihoods, while others are not. The laid-off blue-collar worker who struggles to keep the heat on while self-isolating in a studio apartment is not “in this together” with the independently wealthy jet-setter who doesn’t have to work and can hole up in a six-bedroom, 3.5-bath McMansion.

“We’re all in this together” creates a false sense of buy-in, urging us to ignore the fact that this pandemic affects individuals very differently. In fact, the pandemic has become an excuse to spew propaganda aimed at brushing other forms of suffering under the rug. If “we’re all in this together,” suddenly no one has a right to complain if they can’t afford the rent or can’t find the money to feed their family, because the virus becomes the only valid concern.

“Be thankful you don’t have the virus,” is the unspoken (and sometimes spoken) rejoinder. “If celebrities and politicians are getting it, you’re the lucky one. What do you have to gripe about?”

Yes, some celebrities have gotten sick. Some have died. But these deaths get reported. Meanwhile, thousands of non-celebrities die in anonymity and are left as faceless statistics, except to the few who know and love them. The news reports celebrity deaths, with faces and biographies. Everyone else is just a number. Clinical and impersonal. So it seems like celebrities are being hit as hard (or harder) than everyone else, when in fact, the opposite is true.

Here’s the thing: People at the lower end of the economic spectrum — those non-celebrities whose names are never mentioned — are 10 percent likelier to suffer from a chronic health condition than anyone else. And they’re less likely to seek treatment for it, because they can’t afford it. Without that care, chronic health problems get worse. And remember: People with chronic health problems are being hit harder by COVID-19.

Some workers have paid sick leave, others — generally those in low-paying jobs — don’t. NBA players earning millions a year got tested for the virus quickly, even if they showed no symptoms, while ordinary factory workers, schoolteachers and truck drivers who were obviously sick had to wait.

If you think “we’re all in this together,” think again. We’re not. In the midst of the virus, no one’s talking about the wealth gap or the individual cost of health care anymore, but that doesn’t mean those problems have gone away. The virus has actually made them worse. We’re even less “in this together” than we were before. Far from being the great equalizer, the pandemic has widened the chasm between the haves and have nots that had been growing on its own for decades, and now that same pandemic has become an excuse to ignore it.

Under the false premise that “we’re all in this together.”

That’s like saying plantation owners and slaves were “all in this together” because both were part of the same cruel and dysfunctional economic system in the antebellum South. Or saying the worker who earns minimum wage and company executives who earn millions are “all in this together” because the same firm supports them both. Yet the worker can get laid off at the drop of a hat, while the fired executive gets a cushy buyout and, probably, another gig when some headhunter comes calling.

Yes, the virus discriminates, and yes, so do we. We can stop both kinds of discrimination by focusing on protecting our most vulnerable — to the disease and to economic hardship. In many cases, they’re the same people. But if we continue to turn a blind eye because we believe the false narrative that everyone’s in the same boat, more and more life rafts will keep sinking. And all the while, the privileged few keep will keep sailing blithely along in their luxury yachts, oblivious to the storm that’s wrecking everything around them.

Coronavirus coverage: Fake TV smiles just make things worse

The fake smile. It’s painful enough when someone’s trying to sell you something, but it’s downright rude when it’s offered during a time of crisis, frustration or grief.

I first noticed this phenomenon on the local news maybe 30 years ago. We were about to go through our 20th day of 100-degree temperatures in a month (or something like that). Everyone was miserable. Yet there was Mr. Smiley Weather Dude, acting like he’d just won a million bucks in the lottery. I turned the TV off.

I haven’t watched the local news in decades, mainly because I got tired of shallow, smirking heads delivering news of car crashes, apartment fires and government scandals between tasteless smiles and vapid banter.

Oh, the incongruity!

They might as well start singing, “It’s the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.”

No one likes bad news, but when it comes from smiling, laughing messengers, it’s that much harder to take. It gives the impression that, “You poor saps have to go through this, but we don’t care. We’re just fine here!”

It’s like a punch to the gut. Rubbing salt in the wound. Adding insult to injury. Pick your well-worn cliché. Maybe you should take fiddling lessons so you can practice in case Rome burns again, Smiley Anchor.

Default-happy seems to be demeanor of choice for TV journalists delivering the news. And others, too. Videos show flight attendants with plastered-on smiles demonstrating how to evacuate a jumbo jet in the event of a crash: as though it would be some big party. Commercials for the latest obscenely priced designer medication show carefree families frocking in the park; meanwhile, in the background, an announcer calmly ticks off potential side effects: “May cause irritable bowel, sweating, constipation, fever, heartburn, psychosomatic anxiety, brain hemorrhage, alien abduction or, in extreme cases, even death.”

(The very idea of drugs companies paying millions to advertise already-overpriced drugs to people who can’t afford them sickens me. But that’s another story.)

At least pretend to care

This brings us to the coronavirus tragedy. And yes, it’s not just a “crisis,” it’s a tragedy. People are angry. They’re angry about being put out of work. They’re angry about being stuck at home. And they’re scared about not being able to pay their bills or that they — or their loved ones — might contract the disease. And they’re hurting because people they know are stuck in a COVID-19 quarantine. Or dead.

Yes, safety measures are necessary, but telling us we have to stay away from our loved ones or stay home from work with a smile on your face makes it seem like you don’t give a rat’s ass. You might say we’re “all in this together,” but if you still have a job and you haven’t been infected that comes off as disingenuous and cruel. Especially if you don’t wipe that insipid smile off your face. At least try to pretend you care.

If you’re a journalist, it’s easy to numb yourself to the tragedies you’re reporting. And if you’re a government official, you probably have no clue what people outside of Washington or City Hall are going through. You’re more concerned with your own re-election than anything else. Oh, it’s not entirely your fault: You’re conditioned that way. Still, if you’re in politics, you probably have such a big ego there’s not much room in that self-centered brain of yours to care about “the little people” you were elected to serve.

But at least for a moment, pretend you care more about people than votes or Nielsen ratings. Pretend you understand what it might be like to be bored to death, stuck at home, with nothing to think about but the mounting bills you can’t pay or the possibility that you might get sick at Walmart. Think about that for a minute and wipe that automated, teeth-whitened smile off your face just long enough to think about the ramifications of that bad news you’re delivering.

People are dying. People are out of work. People are suffering. If you realize the implications of that and you’re still smiling, there’s something very, very wrong with you.