[lex24]

The “can’t do spirit” that grips America today - and is on display in this forum - is way more responsible for the potency of this pandemic than anything about the virus or even our government decision makers. There is no end in sight until this changes. Therefore...

Maybe the authors of the “reset and try again” letter should have started at a much more remedial level that has nothing to do with the virus or the available approaches to getting control over its spread and attendant damage. I mean after five months of stepping on the pandemic rake, we all know what the available solutions are. They aren’t that complicated. The issue is not finding solutions. It is our ability to take the medicine and make the sacrifices necessary to implement them.

Maybe the writers should have started not by calling out those in decision making positions. Maybe they should have trained fire on the American people. Like Congresswomen Alexandria Ocasio Cortez called out those who dehumanize women, on the floor of the House of Representatives this week, maybe health experts and scientists need to call out the selfish stupidity and moral cowardice in Americans that allows decision makers in this country to make terrible decisions. Maybe we need to all be read the riot act and made to think much deeper about ourselves. Maybe we need to have a “coming to Jesus” moment about who we are and what we want to be. Maybe they should have called out the fact political partisanship and tribalism is the real problem we face that must be addressed, and the destruction wrought by SARS-CoV-2 is just a symptom of a much more debilitating disease.

I find the two statements I’ll highlight from your post  to be inconsistent. Which I’ll explain. 


First, you talk of  the “stupidity” and “moral cowardice” for which you call for a “come to Jesus” talk.  A lecture. Do you truly believe that people would respond well to being lectured by someone on their “stupidity” and “moral cowardice”. If so, who gets to decide what is “smart ” and what is “moral” 

Then you  add that we should call out the “political partisanship” and “tribalism” as a real problem we must address. I fully agree with that.  As long as we can actually discuss it without things devolving into one side calling the other “stupid” and denigrating the other sides “morals.” Indeed one of the cornerstones of our deepening political/ ideological divide is that both “sides” self-righteously believe they are not just right, but that they are morally superior. And cynical politicians exploit that. 

When in fact, when it comes to “ moral issues” (and I use air quotes because I’m uncertain of the definition to be applied) there is considerably more agreement than disagreement; and where there is disagreement, if we could actually freely and openly talk, we might at least understand that those with whom we disagree are not our “moral” inferiors. We don’t have to agree.  That’s fine. But with some exceptions (racists being the best example) we can at least try to hear the “other side” and avoid the self-righteousness that leads to our further division.

Let me give you an example. Two people embark on a European tour in early Mar 2020.  They didn’t know each other but are assigned to room together. Covid hits.  They are positive and forced to quarantine.  On day 5, they decide to branch out a bit in their discussion. They address abortion. One says: “I’m staunchly Pro-life. Abortion is murder.  The Drs that do it are are baby killers.”  The other says:  “it’s about a woman’s right to control her own body.  No one has a right to tell a woman what to do with her own body.  Pro-lifers are mysoginists.” Discussion ends.  They don’t talk much the last 9 days. They leave feeling  the other - and all who share their position are morally inferior. If not downright “evil” 

Now same situation. But the pro-lifer explains the position by setting forth the  religious (or other) reasons for the beliefs. But does so in a manner that does not attack the other sides moral values.  The pro- choicer responds. Explains the history of women dying from botched abortions, The gut wrenching decision that a woman must make in an unwanted or difficult pregnancy and the position that a woman’s body is hers. Thus the decision is hers. And does so without slamming the others beliefs.

Are either ones mind changed. Highly unlikely.  But at least at the end of the discussion and the quarantine they may have some better understanding of the others position. And simply agree to disagree.  Without reducing the other to being morally deficient . And perhaps they feel a bit less of the “us vs them” mentality that permeates our discourse.  Hey, maybe they felt empowered to discuss other difficult issues. And came away feeling better about the state of things. That there is a whole lot more we agree on than we disagree on.

I can dream, can’t I?

((Yes, I know. But I wove Covid in......). :). 

[lex24]

The “can’t do spirit” that grips America today - and is on display in this forum - is way more responsible for the potency of this pandemic than anything about the virus or even our government decision makers. There is no end in sight until this changes. Therefore...

Maybe the authors of the “reset and try again” letter should have started at a much more remedial level that has nothing to do with the virus or the available approaches to getting control over its spread and attendant damage. I mean after five months of stepping on the pandemic rake, we all know what the available solutions are. They aren’t that complicated. The issue is not finding solutions. It is our ability to take the medicine and make the sacrifices necessary to implement them.

Maybe the writers should have started not by calling out those in decision making positions. Maybe they should have trained fire on the American people. Like Congresswomen Alexandria Ocasio Cortez called out those who dehumanize women, on the floor of the House of Representatives this week, maybe health experts and scientists need to call out the selfish stupidity and moral cowardice in Americans that allows decision makers in this country to make terrible decisions. Maybe we need to all be read the riot act and made to think much deeper about ourselves. Maybe we need to have a “coming to Jesus” moment about who we are and what we want to be. Maybe they should have called out the fact political partisanship and tribalism is the real problem we face that must be addressed, and the destruction wrought by SARS-CoV-2 is just a symptom of a much more debilitating disease.

I find the two statements I’ll highlight from your post  to be inconsistent. Which I’ll explain. 


First, you talk of  the “stupidity” and “moral cowardice” for which you call for a “come to Jesus” talk.  A lecture. Do you truly believe that people would respond well to being lectured by someone on their “stupidity” and “moral cowardice”. If so, who gets to decide what is “smart ” and what is “moral” 

Then you  add that we should call out the “political partisanship” and “tribalism” as a real problem we must address. I fully agree with that.  As long as we can actually discuss it without things devolving into one side calling the other “stupid” and denigrating the other sides “morals.” Indeed one of the cornerstones of our deepening political/ ideological divide is that both “sides” self-righteously believe they are not just right, but that they are morally superior. And cynical politicians exploit that. 

When in fact, when it comes to “ moral issues” (and I use air quotes because I’m uncertain of the definition to be applied) there is considerably more agreement than disagreement; and where there is disagreement, if we could actually freely and openly talk, we might at least understand that those with whom we disagree are not our “moral” inferiors. We don’t have to agree.  That’s fine. But with some exceptions (racists being the best example) we can at least try to hear the “other side” and avoid the self-righteousness that leads to our further division.

Let me give you an example. Two people embark on a European tour in early Mar 2020.  They didn’t know each other but are assigned to room together. Covid hits.  They are positive and forced to quarantine.  On day 5, they decide to branch out a bit in their discussion. They address abortion. One says: “I’m staunchly Pro-life. Abortion is murder.  The Drs that do it are are baby killers.”  The other says:  “it’s about a woman’s right to control her own body.  No one has a right to tell a woman what to do with her own body.  Pro-lifers are mysoginists.” Discussion ends.  They don’t talk much the last 9 days. They leave feeling  the other - and all who share their position are morally inferior. If not downright “evil” 

Now same situation. But the pro-lifer explains the position by setting forth the  religious (or other) reasons for the beliefs. But does so in a manner that does not attack the other sides moral values.  The pro- choicer responds. Explains the history of women dying from botched abortions, The gut wrenching decision that a woman must make in an unwanted or difficult pregnancy and the position that a woman’s body is hers. Thus the decision is hers. And does so without slamming the others beliefs.

Are either ones mind changed. Highly unlikely.  But at least at the end of the discussion and the quarantine they may have some better understanding of the others position. And simply agree to disagree.  Without reducing the other to being morally deficient . And perhaps they feel a bit less of the “us vs them” mentality that permeates our discourse.  Hey, maybe they felt empowered to discuss other difficult issues. And came away feeling better about the state of things. That there is a whole lot more we agree on than we disagree on.

I can dream, can’t I?

((Yes, I know. But I wove Covid in......). :).