Governors of various states are faced with a stark choice: Lock down the economic activities of their states or watch hundreds, sometimes thousands, of their citizens die in a pandemic.
Social distancing is the term for greatly reducing human contact to avoid spreading the Covid-19 virus, the main way it is spread. Since buying and selling products and services require much personal contact, economic activities are greatly curtailed by social distancing.
This painful social distancing, including lock downs is, however, slowly decreasing the number of new Covid-19 cases.
People hurting from job and income loss are understandably impatient for their jobs and incomes to resume. We can entertain differences of opinion about how long and how strictly we enforce social distancing.
What is dangerous, as well as absurd, is using the social distancing as evidence of some wild plot.
No governor wants to use social distancing. Every governor wants a strong economy for their state. It is absurd to encourage wild calls for “taking back your government” when social distancing is reluctantly taken to protect citizens.
We don’t need to make it harder for those on the front lines to stem the pandemic. State governors are on the front lines.
This past Sunday, I listened to New York Governor Andrew Cuomo address the people of New York about the Covid-19 situation in his state.
He didn’t gloss over the horror still happening: lots of people still sickening, some dying, loved ones in mourning. But he gave hope because he was feeling what his people were going through.
How different from those who knock down governors and health experts and others fighting to heal and overcome and find the right path.
Governor Cuomo did not use the address to pander for political gain. He wanted his people safe and free from the horrible sickness.
The man in the White House could take some lessons.
The assumption that a leader cares about the people he governs is, as we have sadly learned, not a given. We have learned that concern for the population is not a requirement for being a “leader.” Unfortunately, the current leader is not entirely to blame. It’s his constituency who are to blame. Choosing to split the world into good and evil with no in-between is reassuring and helps “explain” very complex situations and issues. It’s a way of coping–not a very responsible way, to be sure–without having to make the great effort that thorough analysis requires.
Social media makes it easier to encourage wild plots and slogans instead of thoughtful reading and conversation. My own community, however, has a “civil” discussion group to encourage more thoughtful conversation about issues. I think it’s probably on the community level where the possibility exists for change—families, spiritual groups, friendships and acquaintances. It does require discipline to love and respect those with different opinions–to see the needs that those opinions spring from.