Marching Off to War
The federal government is watering down/withdrawing its guidance on when it might be safe for governors to “open up” states for business, and many states now refrain from releasing state-level COVID-19 death toll numbers. These aren’t unrelated actions, and I think they provide important information about America’s future.
To begin: we should be angry that states are withholding information that inhibits our ability to make decisions about our safety. One avenue of resistance might be the ACLU. Is there a legal basis for withholding information that’s not related to national defense? Perhaps the courts are a means of redress.
But what’s more important, is that actions like these are part of the Republican attempt to construct a narrative. President Trump commented the other day that Americans were “soldiers” who needed to get into action. What’s implied is that we should fight for the capitalism rather than against the virus. If that’s our goal, then information about the spread of the disease isn’t important, because the real fight is for the economy.
The Pentagon, many weeks ago, stopped reporting infection rates in the military. There’s actually a reason for this: if it becomes evident that our ranks are being depleted by the virus, our “adversaries” might feel emboldened to take some action against our interests. An admiral said as much when he assured the world that the U.S. military remains ready, despite the virus, to deter all enemies. Not releasing personnel strength is, in this context, part of OPSEC, or Operational Security, and it’s nothing new.
So, if we’re soldiers fighting for capitalism, death rates related to the virus, or plans for the phased reopening of the economy, aren’t important. In fact, such information may reduce effectiveness and give ammunition to the “enemy” — in this case, those who are cautious about returning to work.
It’s this narrative that we must fight against, not just the decision by states to withhold information (although that fight is important).
What’s our counter-narrative? If we push back against the notion that we must sacrifice ourselves for the economy (and we should), how do we do that in an emotionally appealing way that is also based on fact (what rhetoric do we use)? What options do we offer the “foot soldiers” who might want to resist, but are compelled to return to work to put food on the table? How do we change the calculations of politicians who are crafting legislation and aid packages so that it becomes politically risky for them to push the “we’re soldiers for capitalism” narrative?
This is where the study of history become relevant because there have been other times when grand narratives were constructed for deadly ends but were successfully resisted. We can turn to them (as Dr. Richardson does) to find ways of constructing a new narrative that is life affirming rather than life destroying. FDR’s Four Freedoms speech might be useful, as are any number of MLK’s speeches. The Poor People’s Campaign, led by Rev. Barber, also contains useful visions and rhetoric. Bernie Sanders is good with rhetoric. George Lakoff’s ideas will help. We simply must exert the effort to craft and deploy the narrative.
