Vikings quarterback Kirk Cousins has been awarded the Bart Starr Award. The award is sponsored by the NFL and the Christian group Athletes in Action and honors “active NFL players who demonstrate outstanding character, integrity and leadership in their football careers and personal lives.”
What an utterly absurd choice.
Source: Vikings.com
Yes indeed, Kirk Cousins is “clean-cut.” He doesn’t swear much. He stays out of jail. He goes to church, and talks about his faith a lot. Good for him. If that is all there was to “character” and “integrity,” the Bart Starr award would make perfect sense.
But Cousins has also revealed a very selfish side, and that side can’t be ignored.
First, when COVID-19 was most dangerous because no vaccine or effective treatments had yet been developed, Cousins refused to mask and isolate. “If I die, I die,” the tough guy crowed. He thought it was all about him. Protecting vulnerable people all around him wasn’t on his radar.
Then, in the face of the worst pandemic in a century, a virus that has killed 6.86 million people worldwide,enough to fill the Vikings’ stadium about 94 times, Cousins refused to get a simple, safe, and effective COVID vaccine to protect his teammates, fans, and community from the deadly disease.
About 77% of Minnesotans got the life-protecting vaccine. About 95% of Cousins’ fellow NFL players did too. Nearly 100% of “NFL personnel” got it. But not the selfish, self-righteous Cousins.
The results were predictable. Cousins ultimately got infected, needlessly endangered others around him in the process, and wasn’t there for his team when it needed him. What a “team-first,” “high-character” guy.
Source: USA Today’s For the Win
The NFL didn’t seriously punish Cousins for his dangerous self-centeredness. Instead, it gave him its highest award for “character, integrity, and leadership.”
Keep in mind, players who use cannabis, an action that hurts no one, routinely get suspended and scolded by the NFL. Players who peacefully and silently protest racism and brutality during the National Anthem, which hurts no one and brings visibility to an important issue, get punished and scolded by the NFL. But players who knowingly put their teammates, fans, and community in grave danger get showered with praise for their character.
“To the degree of how one responds to the tragedies of life and what one does to make a positive difference in the lives of others serves as a true measure of character and achievement.”
Cousins recently lived through one of the most profound “tragedies of life” any of us have encountered. He lived through nearly seven million people suffocating to death because they got infected with a highly contagious virus. Once the COVID vaccine was developed, Cousins had his chance to “make a positive difference in the lives of others.” About 95% of NFL players passed their character test. Cousins failed his.
Elections in a purple state can give you whiplash.
After red wave elections, we’re led by Republicans like Tim Pawlenty who push for low taxes, poor services, and culture wars.
After blue wave elections, we’re led by DFLers like Tim Walz who push for higher taxes, better services, and cultural tolerance.
After elections with more mixed results, legislative stalemates cause us to keep the prevailing status quo frozen in place.
That makes every election cycle extremely consequential.
The South Dakota Vision for Minnesota
In 2022, a decidedly purple Minnesota – at the time, it was the only state in the nation with one chamber of the state Legislature controlled by Democrats and the other controlled by Republicans – held a particularly high-stakes election.
If Minnesota voters had elected ultra-conservative former physician gubernatorial candidate Scott Jensen and a Republican Legislature dominated by far-right Trumpers, Minnesota would have become a conservative promised land, much like its neighbor to the west, South Dakota.
During the campaign, Jensen and other Republicans proposed a race-to-the-bottom on taxes, including eliminating the state income tax, which would have led to dramatically worse services. Republican spinmeisters prefer to say “smaller government,” but the reality is that it would have meant much worse services. The anti-vaxxer Doc Jensen also pledged a South Dakota-like war on public health and culture war initiatives to force conservatives’ thinking on gays, guns, God, and gynecology on all Minnesotans.
In other words, think Kristi Noem, with a stethoscope prop.
The Scandinavia Vision for Minnesota
Fortunately, 192,408 more Minnesotans voted for incumbent Governor Tim Walz than Jensen. More surprisingly, since it was predicted to be a historically horrible year for Democrats, Minnesotans also elected narrow DFL majorities in the state House and Senate. The all-important Senate majority is especially razor-thin at 34-33.
Walz and the DFL-controlled Legislatures are armed with a $17.5
billion budget surplus and are offering a vision that is more like a social democratic-led
Scandinavian country in the 1970s than South Dakota in the 2020s:
Paid family and medical leave;
An enormous funding increase for public schools;
A targeted child tax credit to dramatically reduce childhood poverty;
Down payment assistance for first-time home buyers, homelessness prevention, affordable housing, and rent vouchers;
A huge package to save the beleaguered childcare sector and make child care free for poor families and more affordable for middle-class families;
Large subsidies for weatherization, electric vehicle infrastructure, and solar energy expansion to combat climate change;
A range of gun violence prevention reforms, such as universal background checks, red flag laws to prevent people who could be perceived as a threat to themselves or others from getting guns, raising the legal age for obtaining military-style rifles to 21, and banning high-capacity magazines;
Enfranchising felons who have served their time; and
A capital gains tax hike for the wealthiest Minnesotans.
The list goes on. Overall, think Bernie Sanders, with a Fargo accent.
This is the most dramatic swing of state policy in my lifetime, and perhaps in the history of the state. And if somebody you may have never heard of, Judy Seeberger (DFL-Afton), had received just 322 fewer votes in her state Senate race, most of those changes would never have been possible. Without Seeberger’s handful of votes in the eastern suburbs of the Twin Cities metropolitan area, Minnesota would still be stuck in limbo between the South Dakota vision and the Scandinavia vision. 322 votes.
Minnesota GOP gubernatorial candidate Scott Jensen has one huge advantage over DFL Governor Tim Walz – rural voters. If Jensen wins in November, and he might because of frustration over crime and inflation, it will be because he successfully energized rural Minnesota. Rural areas have gotten reliably Republican, so yesterday’s FarmFest debate was the Twin Cities resident’s big opportunity to close the deal by stressing his rural development ideas.
Photo credit: Dana Ferguson, Forum News Service
But instead of using all of his time to make that case, Jensen apparently spent quite a lot of time emphasizing what he always seems to emphasize — COVID-related cray-cray.
I just don’t understand why Jensen is convinced that this is such a winning political issue for him. Early on, when little information was available, Jensen became a star on conservative news outlets like Fox News recklessly speculating about how the pandemic might turn out. But now that actual research has emerged, it’s clear that Jensen’s early guesses have turned out to be spectacularly, embarrassingly wrong.
Still, Jensen just can’t stop himself from going there:
Quite incredibly, Jensen, a physician by training, still remains unvaccinated. Keep in mind, over 95 percent of physicians are vaccinated, putting Jensen in a very small minority of extremists in his profession. Moreover, an overwhelming majority of Minnesotans made a different decision. Seven out of ten (3.946 million) of them have gotten them fully vaccinated. Among the states, Minnesota has the second best rate of residents that have been boosted.
Jensen also still expresses skepticism about vaccine effectiveness. But the facts are now in. They show that the vaccine has been highly effective in reducing hospitalizations and deaths, and have enabled Minnesota’s society and economy to return to normal. Despite all of this, Doc Jensen apparently still thinks preaching anti-vax myths to the small group of holdouts is wise political strategy.
Beyond Jensen’s incessant vaccination nonsense, he somehow continues to recommend Minnesotans use the antiparasitic drug ivermectin. The federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has not approved ivermectin, because a number of medical studies have proven it to be ineffective and dangerous. But apparently Team Jensen is convinced that pushing this discredited quackery is going to get him elected.
And then there is public health. Jensen maintains that Walz’s public health measures to limit COVID spread were unnecessary and ineffective. But the facts are now in, and Minnesota under Walz had one of the region’s best rates of COVID deaths per capita. If Walz had adopted the conservative hands-off public health approach used in neighboring South Dakota, 5,000 more people would have died, according to an analysis done by Dane Smith. That’s roughly equivalent to the population of Minnesota towns like Circle Pines, Luverne, Redwood Falls, Lindstrom, and Morris. Still, Jensen apparently is convinced that championing the demonstrably deadly South Dakota model is the best path to victory in November.
Finally, Jensen claims that Walz protecting Minnesotans during the deadliest pandemic in a century destroyed the Minnesota economy. Again, the facts now tell us a very different tale. Minnesota currently has the lowest unemployment of any state in the nation (1.8 percent), a historic low. Minnesota’s state budget outlook is strong enough that it also recently had its bond rating upgraded to AAA for the first time in nearly 20 years. But Jensen remains convinced that Minnesotans will buy his contention that Walz’s pandemic response made the state into a dystopian economic hellscape.
Stop, Doc, just stop! Take it from fellow Republican Bill Brock: “Let me tell you about the law of holes: If you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.”
The next time Jensen gets in front of a group of farmers and rural residents, he should abandon his stale, disproven COVID kookiness. Instead, he should try focusing on things that actually impact his audience’s lives, such as drought relief, broadband expansion, education investment, paid family and medical leave, health coverage affordability, and road and bridge improvements.
Saint Paul, Minnesota — Minnesota gubernatorial candidate Scott Jensen today called on the Minnesota Legislature to give $2,000 gift cards to eligible Minnesotans who “responsibly refuse” COVID-19 vaccinations for their children. Jensen, a medical doctor and former state senator, says his proposal is the best way to help families without resorting to “sick Nazi-like forced medical experimentation of the Walz regime.”
“We’re putting out a call for patriotic families who agree to keep their children free of tracker chips and DNA mutilation, and instead serve as beautiful little herd immunity enhancers,” said Jensen surrounded by unmasked young children at a news conference held in conjunction with a protest of a community vaccination event. “As a doctor, I know we must end the so-called virus the way we did before humans went soft, by fearlessly facing it maskless and trusting in God and his gift of natural herd immunity.”
The Jensen proposal comes in the wake of a recent announcement by Governor Tim Walz that his administration will provide $200 gift cards to Minnesota families who agree to vaccinate their 12- to 17-year old children. The families of vaccinated children will also be entered into a lottery for $100,000 in tuition for a Minnesota public college of their choice.
Jensen, who is seeking the Republican endorsement for governor in party caucuses that are expected to be heavily populated by vocal Trump loyalists and vaccine opponents, announced that Minnesotans who don’t get vaccinated will get $2,000 gift cards to TrumpStore, the official retail arm of the Trump Organization.
They also will be entered into a lottery for a scholarship to Trump University. Upon questioning, Jensen clarified that the scholarships will be revert to the Trump Organization in the event that the university is unable to serve the children.
In what Jensen called a prudent move to conserve tax dollars, he also indicated that the offer would not be available to citizens in Hennepin, Ramsey, St. Louis, and Cook counties.
On his website, Former President Trump praised Jensen and his proposal as “a beautiful doctor who knows a great store and university when he sees it and is going to be a great pro-Trump governor of the corrupt election-stealing fake state of Minnesota.”
Note: This post is satire, the use of humor and exaggeration to make a point. Jensen did not make this proposal. Only the part about Walz and his proposal is true.
Truth: The non-partisan fact-checking organization Politifact cited Jensen as a major source of its 2020 “Lie of the Year 2020 about coronavirus downplaying and denial. Politifact noted Jensen’s appearances on Fox News claimed that overflowing hospitals were committing Medicare fraud by overcounting COVID-19 cases. Then-President Donald Trump repeated the unsubstantiated claims as he minimized the seriousness of the COVID pandemic while other wealthy countries around the world were implementing effective public health protections.
Experts say the number of COVID deaths are likely under-counted, not over-counted, due to false negatives on tests and a lack of testing.
In May 2021, Jensen also joined U.S. Capitol insurrectionist Simone Gold and others in suing the federal government to prevent children from receiving COVID-19 vaccines. The lawsuit claims that COVID-19 poses “zero risk” to children. The suit indicates that Jensen believes “it would be reckless to subject anyone in that age group to the experimental COVID-19 vaccine” and that he believes recommending that children get vaccinated “would violate his oath as a doctor and place him in an untenable position.”
Data from the American Academy of Pediatrics shows that more than 6 million children have tested positive for Covid since the beginning of the pandemic. While children are less likely to get hospitalized and die than adults, it does happen. Children also help spread the virus to more vulnerable people.
According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC) , 77.9% of Minnesota adults (18+) have been vaccinated.
So far, Minnesota Governor Tim Walz has largely been a responsive caretaker governor, responding to the crises du jour rather than than actively pushing a progressive agenda and building a legacy for himself.
Governor Walz’s legacy is essentially “pissed off all sides while consumed with thankless pandemic management.” I think he did a reasonably good job managing the pandemic, but he definitely had to make enemies doing it.
One partial break from caretaker mode was his poorly named “ONECare” proposal, which would give Minnesotans the option to buy into MinnesotaCare. MinnesotaCare is a longstanding program serving low-income individuals and families who can’t get employee-sponsored health insurance and don’t quality for Medicaid, which is called Medical Assistance (MA) in Minnesota.
Giving Minnesota health insurance consumers of all income levels this additional option would ensure that every Minnesotan in every county had at least one health insurance option available to them. That’s a big deal. It also would bring more competition to an individual market that sorely needs more competition. Over time, this could result in lower premiums for consumers.
Walz has not pushed his proposal particularly hard. Meanwhile, other states’ Governors are leading their states forward.
Colorado and Nevada this year passed public option plans—government-run health insurance plans—that are set to launch in 2023 and 2026, respectively. They join Washington state, which enacted its law in 2019 and went live with its public option in January.
The early results from Washington state’s experiment are disappointing. In many parts of the state, premiums for the public option plans cost more than premiums for comparable commercial plans.
Many of the state’s hospitals have refused to take part in the public option, prompting lawmakers to introduce more legislation this year to force participation if there aren’t sufficient health insurance options in a geographic area. And consumer buy-in is also meager. In its first year of operation, the state health insurance exchange sold only 1,443 public option plans, representing fewer than 1% of all exchange policies.
Michael Marchand, chief marketing officer for the Washington Health Benefit Exchange, the state’s health insurance marketplace, said it’s premature to judge the program by its first year.
During the earlier years of Obamacare, the premiums for many commercial plans were high, he pointed out. Eventually, as insurers became more knowledgeable about the markets, prices dropped, he said.
If Governor Walz would get re-engaged in this issue and actively market his plan, they could learn from the experiences of Washington and avoid it’s mistakes. For instance, in areas where there is insufficient health insurance competition, Walz could require hospitals to participate.
A MinnesotaCare buy-in option is extremely popular — only 11% oppose it, according to a Minnesota Public Radio survey. This is probably in part because it is an option. Any Minnesotan who opposes buying into MinnesotaCare — because of conservative ideology or because MinnesotaCare turns out to be expensive or poor quality — they can vote with their feet, as consumers in the state of Washington are doing.
Fighting for a MinnesotaCare buy-in option makes sense for Walz. The polls consistently show that health care is a top issue for voters, and huge majorities consistently trust Democrats over Republicans on that issue.
Moreover, in the 2022 gubernatorial general election campaign Walz may very well be running against a physician, Scott Jensen. This will ensure that health care is high profile in the race. Therefore, candidate Walz needs to be seen fighting for better health care, and this proposal gives him that platform.
If a MinnesotaCare buy-in option passes, Walz finally has a legacy beyond pandemic management. If Senate Republicans kill it, which seems likely, Walz has a great political argument to make while running for reelection and trying to retake the Senate: “I worked my ass off to give you another health insurance option and bring you some price competition, but Republicans like Scott Jensen opposed it on orders from private insurance lobbyists. If you want to more options and more price competition, vote for me and change the Senate leadership.”
Pushing a public option is a great political option for Walz. So why is he so damn cautious about it?
Many Minnesota news outlets have covered the fact that South Dakota’s Sturgis Motorcycle Rally is once again serving as a COVID-19 super-spreader event that is putting the needs of profit over people. For instance, the Star Tribune put this excellent article on it’s front page on August 4, 2021:
“Crowds of bikers are rumbling their way towards South Dakota’s Black Hills this week, raising fears that COVID-19 infections will be unleashed among the 700,000 people expected to show up at the Sturgis Motorcycle Rally.
But public health experts warned the massive gathering revved the virus far beyond those who chose to attend. One team of economists argued that the rally set off a chain reaction that resulted in 250,000 cases nationwide. However, that paper was not peer reviewed and was criticized by some top epidemiologists — as well as some bikers — for overestimating the rally’s impact.
While it’s not clear how many cases can be blamed on last year’s rally, it coincided with the start of a sharp increase across the Great Plains that ultimately crescendoed in a deadly winter.
The gathering could potentially power a fresh wave of infections like the one that is currently shattering hospitalization records in parts of the South, said Dr. Michael Osterholm, the director of the University of Minnesota’s Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy.
“I understand how people want to move on from this pandemic — God knows I want to — but the reality is you can’t ignore it,” he said. “You can’t just tell the virus you’re done with it.”
That’s responsible in-depth reporting. South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem and South Dakota business leaders should be held accountable for putting people in danger to ensure that their local businesses continue to rake in $800 million in sales.
After all, 700,000 coming to Sturgis is an awful lot of people. But you want to know what is more people? 2,046,533. That’s the number of people who attended the Minnesota State Fair in 2019, the last time it was held.
Many State Fair attendees will be coming from rural counties where vaccination rates are pathetically low, such as Clearwater County, where only 33 percent are fully vaccinated. Remember that while you visit with that nice young man in the dairy barn.
Compared to Sturgis, we aren’t hearing the same level of concern raised by the local media about the what has long been billed as the “Great Minnesota Get Together.” For example, buried in paragraph nine of the August 4 article lambasting Sturgis you will find a passing mention of “state fairs.” That’s it.
To be fair, the Star Tribune did cover this public health-oriented criticism of the Fair:
“A state agency that advocates for Minnesotans with disabilities has announced plans to boycott the Minnesota State Fair over the absence of mask mandates and other safety measures that would help contain the possible spread of the coronavirus.
In a strongly worded letter, the Minnesota Council on Disability criticized state leaders for not requiring masks, vaccines or crowd limits at this year’s fair, which begins in two weeks. As justification for boycotting the 12-day event, the organization cited a recent surge in COVID-19 infections and hospitalizations, largely driven by the highly contagious delta variant.”
But this is the exception to the rule from local news outlets. The rule is endless giddy promotion, both of the unpaid and paid variety, of the Great Minnesota Infect Together. What new foods will there be? What amazing bands should we all be traveling to see? How thrilled are Minnesotans to be attending and “back to normal?”
These State Fair promotions appear alongside national articles reporting that on the dawn of schools re-opening the level of hospitalizations of children for COVID is at a pandemic high. What’s wrong with this picture?
To be sure, Sturgis and the Minnesota State Fair aren’t equivalent. But both draw people from a large area to attend a multi-day shoulder-to-shoulder event with substantial indoor components. This is not exactly what the doctor (Fauci) ordered.
Is the under-reporting of the State Fair public health threat due to the heavy State Fair advertising in news outlets? A lack of courage to criticize Minnesota’s ultimate pop culture sacred cow? Something else?
Whatever is driving it, it’s not the Minnesota news media’s finest hour.
Two of the things that are most celebrated about our elite athlete heroes are “always puts team first” and “always respects the fans.” How often have we heard such gushing clichés in sports journalism and chatter? It seems nothing is more celebrated and revered than proving loyalty to fans and team.
Yet when it comes to COVID-19 vaccinations, a small but significant group of NFL players are refusing to say whether they’re vaccinated, which presumably means that most of them are not vaccinated.
Three of the most important members of the Minnesota Vikings fall into that category — quarterback Kirk Cousins, wide receiver Adam Thielen, and safety Harrison Smith. These are not just any players. This is the Vikings’ highest paid player, their beloved over-achieving homie, and their longest serving player who has been selected for five Pro Bowls.
Last September, when asked about COVID-19, Cousins was cavalier about a disease that has killed an estimated 3 million people worldwide. Here is what Cousins told podcaster Kyle Brandt, when Brandt asked an impressively difficult to evade question: “On a spectrum of one – masks are stupid and you’re all a bunch of lemmings – and ten is ‘I’m not leaving my master bathroom for the next 10 years. Where do you land?”
“I’m not going to call anybody stupid for the trouble it could get me in,” Cousins responded. “But I’m about a .0001.”
In the local sports news coverage and talk I’m consuming, I’m mostly hearing defense of athletes making the decision to forgo getting vaccinations, which have proven remarkably safe and effective after over 3 billion doses worldwide. I’m paraphrasing, but I’m hearing a lot of this kind of thing from fans, analysts, and journalists about unvaccinated NFL players, even from people who have vaccinated themselves:
“It’s their body, so how dare anyone question their personal decision!”
“They’re young and in prime condition, so I competely understand why they wouldn’t bother.”
“How can the NFL suits punish them for their personal or religious decision?”
Explanatory Note: The alleged “punishment” is that the NFL has some pretty basic public health restrictions for unvaccinated players. As I understand them, they can’t eat with the rest of the vaccinated team, don’t have as much freedom to be in crowds when traveling, need to wear masks in many situations, and can be fined for violating the public health protocols. Quite responsibly, the NFL is trying to limit spread from these unvaccinated players, but many players and fans view this as punishment.
Team First?
But hold on, what about that all-important “always puts team first” standard that we constantly spotlight when it comes to our pedestaled athletes?
To be clear, putting yourself at risk of getting sick or quarantined means putting yourself at risk of not being there for your team. Would we be forgiving if an athlete insisted on engaging in other types o risky behaviors that threatens their ability to be present for their teammates at practices or game day, such as bull-riding, motor cross racing, free solo climbing, or chronic binge-drinking?
And remember, this is an infectious disease that often spreads asymptomatically, unbeknownst to the spreader. So when tough talkin’ Kirk “If I Die, I Die” Cousins risks infection, remember that means that he also is selfishly putting unvaccinated teammates at significant risk. If any of those players miss a game or games, or get harmed, it will very likely hurt their team. If all three of them miss games, the problem for the team could quickly become catastrophic.
So much for “team first.”
Respecting The Fans?
And then what about that “always respects the fans” standard. Even if the athlete is ignorant enough to feel safe being unvaccinated, what about the tens of thousands of adoring fans per week with whom they are sharing the buildings? You know, the elated fans, many with their risk-regulating amygdala pickled, desperate to get as close to them as possible? You know, the people who make your extravagant salary and lifestyle possible? Is knowingly putting them at risk of being maimed or killed by the deadliest virus in a century really “respecting the fans?”
“Yeah, but players shouldn’t be forced to be vaccinated,” say the athlete worshipping journalists, analysts, and fans. I hear this one a lot. That goes without saying. It’s a “straw man,” an extreme argument that virtually no one is making, but is trotted out because it’s easy and popular to knock down.
But I’m not talking about mandating vaccinations, and neither is anybody at the NFL or Centers for Disease Control (CDC). I’m just talking about doing the right thing for yourself, your loved ones, your community, your team, and your fans.
I don’t care how well they play this year, I don’t want to hear any more of the cliches about these unvaccinated athletes always putting their team and fans first. Because right now, we’re seeing what they’re really made of. Their selfish actions are speaking much more loudly than their sports cliché words.
Currently, COVID-19 vaccine demand exceeds supply, so the challenges public health officials face are mainly logistical in nature. They’re doing an admirable job with those tasks, with the rate of vaccination doubling since Biden’s inauguration.
But the nature of their challenge is about to quickly change. But before long, vaccine supply will start to exceed demand. Then the public health leaders’ challenges will be more about persuasion than logistics.
Here’s hoping public health officials are prepared for that very different kind of challenge. Very soon, they must make a swift and dramatic pivot.
The people who are getting vaccinated now are obviously the “low-hanging
fruit.” They’re motivated. They’re much
more likely to try to cut in line than avoid the line. Little to no persuasion was necessary for
them.
But persuading the “high-hanging fruit,” those skeptical about the vaccines, will be necessary to get to the 70% to 90% vaccination rate that experts tell us will give society the holy grail, “herd immunity.” That won’t be easy.
Up until now, public health officials like Dr. Anthony Fauci have only needed to communicate public health facts. For most of us, that worked.
But by now, the fence-sitters have repeatedly heard the Fauci facts and they have stayed on the fence. At this stage, it’s illogical to think that a new surge of epidemiological fact-sharing is going to suddenly convince holdouts to buck up and get their Fauci Ouchy.
Public health officials should look to what has been successful in other public health campaigns. I’m talking about bite-sized, unvarnished, and visually-driven ads. These are TV, radio, online, social media, and outdoor ads that make appeals to emotions, including fear. In terms of messaging, vaccination holdouts need shaking, not hugging. They need a scare, not a seminar.
After all, smoking rates didn’t decrease dramatically because of inspirational Surgeon General fact sheets. They finally decreased as smokers and their loved ones saw raw emotional ads that portrayed the living hell associated with tobacco-related illnesses.
Similarly, our parents didn’t all start wearing seat belts after pouring over safety studies or having a spontaneous fit of conscience. Instead, many finally started to buckle up because they couldn’t stop daydreaming about difficult-to-watch ads like this.
Finally, the incidence of drunk driving didn’t decrease because we all were moved by well-crafted CDC spreadsheets. Many of us changed our ways because of searing images of victims’ and perpetrators’ lives being destroyed in the blink of an eye.
These campaigns offered brutal testimonials and images that cut through the information clutter of modern life and stuck in our memories in a way the epidemiological sermons couldn’t.
And they worked. They changed individual behaviors, and, just as importantly, they fueled passage of laws and policies that further changed behaviors.
In my career, I’ve sat through many focus groups reviewing these kinds of ads. I can assure you, almost everyone hates seeing these ads, because they make us feel horrible. Focus group participants will inevitably tell you that such ads are completely ineffective for them.
Yet whenever and wherever these kinds of ads run, behaviors change.
Facing the worst pandemic in a century, we can’t treat this final crucial stage of pandemic management like a popularity contest. We have to do what works, not what is popular.
By late summer and early fall, we will need public health messaging campaigns that show vaccine fence-sitters what it feels like to slowly suffocate to death from COVID. They need to feel what it would be like to live with chronic COVID long-hauler conditions. They need to feel what it would be like to inadvertently infect and kill someone.
We need to see ads that make us feel these things in our guts, because adding another data point in our brains isn’t going to be sufficient.
These are the kinds of jarring emotional images that will push at least some vaccination fence-sitters out of the comfort zone that is preventing them acting. These are the kinds of portrayals that will show them that the downsides of vaccinations – scheduling hassles, needles, sore arms, short-term aches and fevers – pale in comparison to the downsides of failing to vaccinate.
Surprisingly, the use of jarring imagery is still a matter of debate in public health circles. To their credit, public health decision makers tend to be nurturers and fact-driven. Therefore, many still make the mistake of assuming that everyone is like them, and therefore can be persuaded by messages that inspire, reassure, and educate. They’re right about many people, but not all people.
The impressive achievements from the tobacco control, seatbelt, and drunk driving campaigns, among many others, tell the tale. For the group of Americans who still aren’t sure about whether they want a miraculous life-saving vaccine, facts and inspirational messages alone just aren’t going to cut it. For people who are still holding out in late summer, it’s time to get real.
It’s painfully obvious that former President Trump badly screwed up the parts of the Covid-19 vaccine initiative that he actually controlled. While he obviously wasn’t equipped to be in the lab developing vaccines quickly, he was in a position to order the right number of doses, develop a plan for getting the vaccine to at least 70 percent of us, and marshal resources to implement the plan.
He botched that assignment, and that has put a very dark cloud over President Biden, who needs a relatively swift end to the pandemic in order to have any hope of having a successful presidency.
But maybe there is a bit of a silver lining in that dark cloud–highly visible consumer demand created by the shortage.
As all good Adam Smith fanboys know, the law of supply and demand tells us that low supply will create high demand for a product. In a nation with a sizable slice of vaccine doubters, creating more demand for the Covid-19 vaccine will be critically important.
It’s no secret that shortages, or perceptions of shortages, are powerful tools for marketers. For instance, the makers of Teddy Ruxpin and Nintendo Wii produced too few products, perhaps intentionally, and that generated tremendous consumer demand. As a result of the shortage, those companies benefited from months of millions of dollars worth of free new media coverage of consumers waiting in line. Sales ultimately surged, as consumers apparently thought to themselves, “I mean, if all of them want it so badly, I must want it too!”
This happens all the time in capitalistic economies. Shortages increases consumer demand. That’s also why so many internet marketers go to great lengths to tell us how few of their products remain available. It’s why the Starbuck’s Unicorn Cappuccino and McDonalds’ McRib sandwich are only available for “a limited time only.”
Based on those examples and many others, all of this news and social media coverage about Americans fretting about vaccine shortages and bragging about getting their vaccine before the rest of us may help convince some number of Americans that they want this product as well.
“I mean, if all of them want it so badly, I must want it too?”
And indeed, newer surveys are showing that more early skeptics are getting interested in getting vaccinated. In September 2020, when Trump was still in charge, and wildly exaggerating everything about his Covid response, the number of Americans saying they would definitely get vaccinated was only about 51%. This posed a huge challenge, because epidemiologists tell us we need about 70% to get the Fauchi Ouchy in order to achieve the necessary herd immunity.
By December, with Biden starting to take the reins and positive test results rolling in, the number had grown to 61%. That’s important progress.
But how do we get from 61% to 70%? The news media and social media obsession with the vaccine shortage, and Americans doing victory dances on their social media feeds after getting vaccinated, may do for Fauci what the Wii shortage did for Nintendo.
To be clear, there will be lethal implications of Trump’s bumbling of the vaccination distribution plan. A delay of a month or two will mean many Americans will needlessly get sick and die. That’s tragic and inexcusable.
But as we continue to mop up Trump-generated calamities, we have to take the good news wherever we can find it. And maybe this current vaccine shortage will help convince enough of the remaining vaccine fence-sitters to join the herd.
Trying to pick your least favorite type of Trump supporter is not easy. The competition is stiff, and there are strong arguments for all of them.
Trumpist Typology
Greed Trumpists. There’s the Greed Trumpists, who will put up with any Trump outrage – kids torn from mothers and put in cages, white supremacy encouragement, coordinating with foreign enemies interfering in our democracy — to get a tax cut, even a tax cut that represents relative crumbs compared to the mountains of loaves lavished on billionaires.
Personality Cult Trumpists. There are the Personality Cult Trumpists, many of whom watched far too many episodes of The Apprentice with an uncritical eye. They find Trump entertaining and embrace the myth of Trump’s deal-making skills and “only I can fix it” hucksterism, despite his pandemic response debacle and tax returns that expose Trump as a bumbler of epic proportions.
Bible-Thumpin’ Trumpists. Then there’s the Bible-Thumpin’ Trumpists. They ignore of the dozens of Trump’s extreme anti-Christian actions—serial sexual abuse and infidelity and cutting food subsidies for the poor to name just a couple — that make a mockery of the Golden Rule and the Beatitudes in order to hoard as many Fallwell-endorsed judges as possible.
Tribal Trumpists. Who can forget the Tribal Trumpists, who will let Trump take their loved one’s Affordable Care Act (ACA) health protections and Social Security benefits just to be able to say that their Red Tribe of “real Americans” stuck it to the Blue Tribe of “libtard snowflakes.” Go team!
Changeophobe Trumpists. Changeophobe Trumpists are fearful of our fast-changing world and ever-nostalgic about the glories of what they view as the good old days of their childhoods. They are particularly susceptible to Trump’s promise to “Make America Great Again” by keeping coal dirty, light bulbs inefficient, America white, global competition at bay, and bigotry unchallenged.
Racist Trumpists. The Racist Trumpists are obviously a very strong contender for least favorite. They insist that Trump’s villifying of immigrants and people of color is a “refreshing rejection of political correctness,” instead of a wink and a nod to the full spectrum of racists, from those of us who are sometimes lousy at recognizing systemic racism to full-blown white supremacist activists like the Proud Boys, Aryan Nations, Volksfront, American Freedom Party, Ku Klux Klan, and White Aryan Resistance.
Thug Trumpists. And then there are Thug Trumpists, who can’t recognize the difference between bullying and actual strength, and gravitate towards authoritarian personalities to serve as a binky to make them feel more secure in the face of their overblown fears of our changing and more diverse nation.
False Equivalence Trumpists
But the last month of the election is when we unfortunately have to be hearing a lot from perhaps my least favorite type of Trump supporters — the False Equivalence Trumpists. They continually declare that “both sides do it” to make their vote for the most bigoted, incompetent, and corrupt President in U.S. history seem somehow defensible.
Since last night’s presidential debate, the False Equivalence Trumpists were out in full force, complaining about “both candidates” being equally bad and lamenting that they “once again have to choose the lesser of two evils.”
Though they carry an air of intellectual superiority in their assertions, False Equivalence Trumpists are among the most intellectually lazy of all of the Trumpists types.
Obviously, both candidates have sold out to a special interest, lied, supported an unwise policy, or made a big mistake. Same as it ever was. But from that truth, False Equivalence Trumpists quickly jump to the safety of “both sides do it equally,” instead of digging into the facts to determine which candidate does it more. In a democracy, doing that kind of qualitative differentiation is a voter’s duty, and they consistently shrink from it.
Because False Equivalence Trumpists find it distasteful to be held accountable for supporting an imperfect candidate, they stubbornly cling to the truth of “both sides do it,” but not the whole truth. The whole truth is that any fair-minded analysis comparing Trump and Biden will show that Trump is much more incompetent, much more bigoted, much more dishonest, and much more corrupt.
But this group of Americans lacks either the judgement to see that truth, or the courage to speak it.
The False Equivalence Trumpists are top-of-mind right now because, we are entering the final month of the presidential campaign with about 6 percent of the voters somehow still undecided. Tragically, these pathologically indecisive Americans could be decisive on November 3rd. The fact that the fate of the nation, and maybe even the planet, falls to this group of Americans is crazy making and terrifying.
For good reason, there was a lot of national discussion about the 6,200 Trump supporters who gathered at an indoor rally in Tulsa, Oklahoma. Americans were understandably concerned that Trump’s selfish rally would be a “super spreader event” that would needlessly cause a spike in COVID 19 infections and role model reckless behavior.
While all of that national discussion was taking place, South Dakota’s ultra-conservative Governor Kristi Noem looked at that Tulsa scene and effectively said “hold my beer, Mr. President.”
In the midwest, you don’t have to be reminded when the ten-day Sturgis Bike Rally begins. Even in my community, which is 600 miles from the Black Hills of South Dakota, and even in the two weeks before and after the ten-day August Rally, motorcycles and trailers towing motorcycles are everywhere on our roads and highways.
The Sturgis Rally is massive. Last year, 490,000 people traveled from around the nation to the Black Hills. That’s equivalent to about 80 Tulsa Trump Rallies. Oh and by the way, unlike the Tulsa event, the Sturgis Rally lasts for weeks, not hours.
That’s a lot of cash for a remote, sparsely populated state like South Dakota. It’s also a lot COVID-19 exposure. Make a list of major COVID-19 exposure risks, and you’ve described the Sturgis Bike Rally: Inability to distance in small indoor spaces? Check. Unwillingness to distance due to libertarian “live free or die” attitudes? Check. Too few masks? Check. Obesity and related comorbidities? Check. Advanced age and related comorbidities? Check. Binge drinking and the associated increase in risk-taking? Check. No small amount of casual sex? Check. Lengthy exposures over multiple days? Check. A merger of exposure pools from around the nation, and lengthy cross-country travel in all directions. Check and check.
Granted, bikers at the Rally are outside a fair amount, riding and camping. But indoor bars, restaurants, hotels, stores, and tourist attractions within a several hundred mile radius of Sturgis also are traditionally packed with strangers in close proximity with each other. When it’s loud in those indoor spaces, visitors are forced to shout at, and expectorate on, each other.
If a super villain were to design a super-spreader event to try to harm their worst enemies, they perhaps couldn’t do much better than the Sturgis Rally.
Without a doubt, Governor Noem out-Trumped Trump by refusing to cancel the Sturgis Bike Rally this August 7-16. From the beginning of the pandemic, Noem has supported basically no public health protections for her citizens. She wants to show corporations that South Dakota is pro-business, tax visitors so she doesn’t have to tax her conservative base, and show her conservative fan base that she is “protecting freedom.” She apparently isn’t interested in protecting the citizens of her state, a state that is disproportionately elderly and therefore particularly vulnerable to COVID-19 deaths.
So, if you’re thinking about summer travel this year, my advice would be to take a lot of masks and sanitizer, and to take an extremely wide berth around Kristi Noem’s COVID-19 mushroom cloud in South Dakota.
I like bars as much as the next guy. Okay, maybe more so, depending on who the next guy is. But the most significant error Governor Tim Walz has made in his mostly wise mid-pandemic “reopening” plans was announcing that bars could return to serving customers indoors if they agreed to operate at 50% capacity to allow for adequate spacing.
Under pressure from Republican legislators and bar owners, Walz seemed to be making the decision in haste. He announced on June 6th that indoor bar reopening would begin on June 10. The announcement was made at a time when COVID-19 cases in Minnesota had only plateaued, not decreased.
While Walz has stressed allegiance to experts, national public health officials disagree with his bar opening timing. In April, the Trump Administration recommended that states only begin a gradual reopening process after they experience a “downward trajectory” of reported cases, or a falling share of positive tests. At the time bars opened their indoor spaces, Minnesota had not met that criteria.
In fact, according to covidexitstrategy.com, Minnesota is still not meeting federal guidelines today, because the number of cases has been increasing for the past two weeks and ICU capacity is rated as “low.”
Contrary to popular belief, bars are not essential services, so this is not something we “just have to live with.”
Moreover, bars obviously pose a difficult social distancing challenge. Many, particularly young adults, go to bars specifically to connect with friends and strangers, the precise thing we need to prevent during a pandemic. Even those who arrive at the bar cautious and responsible get more open to a variety of different types of unsafe encounters as alcohol flows and inhibitions subsequently decrease.
Bars are uniquely challenging. They work very hard to become social “hot spots,” which makes them especially susceptible to being pandemic hot spots.
So it’s no surprise that COVID19 spread at bars is swiftly emerging as a major public health problem in Minnesota, as the Star Tribune recently reported:
Outbreaks centered on four bars in Minneapolis and Mankato have contributed to a surge in COVID-19 cases in young adults, which state health officials warned could undermine months of planning and recent progress in managing the pandemic.
Roughly 100 people suffered COVID-19 infections related to crowding over the June 12-14 weekend at Rounders Sports Bar & Grill and the 507 in Mankato, while more than 30 cases have been identified among people who went to Cowboy Jack’s near Target Field and the Kollege Klub in Dinkytown between June 14 and June 21.
While growth of COVID-19 is inevitable until a vaccine is found for the novel coronavirus that causes it, preventable clusters could cause an escalation that could exhaust the state’s medical resources and leave vulnerable people at risk, said Kris Ehresmann, state infectious disease director.
“When you have 56 cases associated with one location from one weekend, that is not managing the rate of growth,” said Ehresmann, imploring businesses and individuals to take precautions “so that even as we open up, we are not putting ourselves in a position to overwhelm the system we worked so hard to strengthen.”
A young person familiar with the situation at Cowboy Jacks told me that the 50% capacity rules seemed to be followed, but customers eventually left their tables and bunched together tightly in one relatively small part of the bar.
Well of course they did. That scene is almost certainly playing out to varying extents in most of Minnesota’s bars.
I have a lot of sympathy for the bar owners. Most want to do whatever it takes to follow the rules so they can stay open. But forcing drunk people to stay 6 feet apart is not merely “difficult.” Unless you use unacceptably heavy-handed enforcement tactics, it’s pretty much impossible. Even for the most responsible owners with the best plans, getting patrons to stay at their tables after the booze has been flowing for hours is just not feasible.
That’s why the Governor needs to shut down bars until Minnesota truly is meeting federal guidelines on a sustainable basis.
From a public health standpoint, these bars are creating a serious public health threat. While young people are at relatively low-risk of dying, they’re at high risk of spreading COVID19, and most are in contact with networks of at-risk people.
I wish there was another way, but I can’t think of one. I understand this would be really hard on bars, so elected officials should find a way to keep them afloat during the pandemic.
But legal mandates are the only way when individual choices significantly endanger innocent victims. That’s why we have enacted legal mandates banning drunk driving, child abuse, driving at unsafe speeds, dumping toxins into water supplies, running red lights, smoking indoors, and many other things that individuals choose to do that inadvertently victimize innocent people.
This may be the least enthusiastic post I have ever written, but the public health logic of it is pretty undeniable. There’s no getting around this fact: In the midst of the worst pandemic in a century, Minnesotans partying inside even half empty bars are significantly endangering innocent people, and there isn’t a way to manage around it.
This won’t be fun for anyone. Taking hooch from people who’ve been quarantined for months will be like taking candy from babies–big, boisterous, beer-bellied babies. But if Governor Walz is truly prioritizing public health over public popularity, and following the public health science, he’ll admit his error and go back to limiting bars to outdoors only.
When it comes to handling the coronavirus pandemic crisis, Minnesota Governor Tim Walz, who issued a stay at home order on March 25, has earned 82% approval ratings, compared to 34% for President Trump, according to a Survey USA/KSTP-TV survey. Up until this point, stay at home orders seem to have actually been a political benefit to leaders courageous and wise enough to invoke them, not a burden. For instance as of early May, only about 20% of Minnesotans wanted the Governor’s stay at home order lifted.
But that is almost sure to change over time. In part because of President’s Trump’s constant call to ease restrictions, and calls for the public to resist them, we’re already seeing Americans getting more antsy, as evidenced by a recent Gallup poll that shows the number of people avoiding small gatherings decreasing by four points among Democrats, 10 points among Independents, and 16 points among Republicans.
Also a Unacast report card measuring social distancing activity, which earlier gave Minnesota an “A” grade, has downgraded Minnesota to a “D-” grade, a crushing blow to the earnest promoters of Minnesota exceptionalism.
Picking up on that sentiment, and following their President’s call to “LIBERATE Minnesota” from pandemic protections, Minnesota House Republicans are increasingly criticizing Walz’s stay at home order, and using a bonding bill as ransom to get it lifted. I’m not convinced “we’re fighting to stimulate the economy by blocking job-creating bonding projects” is the most persuasive argument, but that’s what they’re going with.
So, should Governor Walz further loosen distancing rules? As of May 6, the experts at the Harvard Global Health Institute say that only nine states have done enough to warrant loosening restrictions — Alaska, Utah, Hawaii, North Dakota, Oregon, Montana, West Virgina, and Wyoming. The Harvard analysts find that Minnesota is not one of them, another blow to Minnesota exceptionalism. Specifically, experts find that Minnesota needs to be doing more testing and seeing lower rates of infection from the tests.
There might be some modest steps Walz can take to ease the political pressure and help Minnesotans feel like they’re making progress. I’m not remotely qualified to identify them, but for what little it’s worth here is some wholly uninformed food-for-thought anyway:
For those with low risk factors — people who are young and healthy and are not essential workers — maybe the good Governor could allow masked and socially distanced haircuts. (Can you tell my new Donny Osmond look is starting to get to me?)
For the same group, maybe Walz could allow masked and distanced visits with members of the immediate family — offspring, siblings, and parents. (Can you tell I miss my daughter?)
Those two things seem to be particularly stressful to people. While far from risk-free, they aren’t recklessly risky. These kinds of small adjustments might help people (i.e. me) become more patient and compliant when it comes to more consequential rules.
Overall, Walz should listen to experts and largely keep stay at home orders in place until the experts’ guidelines are met. A new spike in infections and deaths will seriously harm consumer confidence and the economy, and that shouldn’t be risked. At this stage, most Minnesotans are not likely to flock back to bars, restaurants, malls and large entertainment venues anyway, regardless of what Walz allows.
When it comes to the COVID-19 pandemic, a loud minority of Americans are over it. They’re moving on, man. They’re shrugging off the 56,752 COVID-19 deaths American have experienced over the past 9 weeks.
After all, they’re not dying. And as a meme shared by a conservative friend recently cheerfully noted, the “Current Survival Rate for COVID19 in the US is 98.54%. Let’s share this story. Positive vs. Panic.”
Come on, man, we want to do stuff! Sports watching! Road tripping! Beer drinking! Freedom, mofos! I mean, the fucking glass is 98.54% full! LIBERATE!
Think about that. Really think about it.
This COVID-19 pandemic, which is still very much raging, has already killed the equivalent of the much-mourned 9-11 attacks (3,000 deaths). That is, if the 9-11 attacks occurred again and again and again, for 19 days in a row. Is that really something we should shrug off?
The nine-week old pandemic has already killed as many Americans we lost in the Afghanistan War (2,440), which is in its 19th year. Twenty-three times as many, to be precise. No big deal?
In just nine weeks, COVID-19 has quickly killed far more Americans than are lost in a typical year to opioid overdoses (46,000), traffic deaths (36,500), and gun violence (40,000).
In the next day or so, the pandemic will have killed more Americans than we lost in the decade-long Vietnam (58,220), by a far the bloodiest war of my generation. And that’s a big “meh” too?
Oh and by the way, COVID-19 seems to be just warming up. Many states still haven’t hit their peaks. Most experts believe a second deadly spike is coming next fall, sooner if more states go all Georgia or South Dakota on social distancing roll-backs. COVID-19 still has a lot of room to spread in rural America and much of the rest of the world. And most believe a vaccine is likely more than a year away.
What a perfect time to go back to the bar!
As this excellent one-minute ad brought you by prominent Republicans involved in The Lincoln Project notes, during the pandemic we are seeing “two types of Americans — those who sacrifice and those who demand:”
“Two types of Americans have emerged during this pandemic — those who sacrifice and those who demand.
Those who sacrifice, they’re the leaders working tirelessly to save American lives. The millions of Americans who have chosen to stay home, despite the hardships. The first responders, the nurses, the doctors. People who put themselves in harms way to help others, no matter the cost to themselves.
Those who demand, they protest. Threaten. Scream, with words of selfish entitlement. They fight, but only for themselves, for their interest, their desires. Putting their wants ahead of what’s right, no matter the cost to anyone else.
Yes, there are two kinds of Americans. We already know which kind of American Trump is. The same one he’s always been. The important question is, which one are you?”
The question of whether to end most social distancing protocols at this stage is not a close call. Beyond lives, research is even showing that social distancing is saving the nation money.
“A new study by researchers at the University of Wyoming finds that the essential shutdown of the US economy to slow the spread of the novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 can be justified economically.
A team led by economics professor Linda Thunstrom crunched some numbers and found the lives saved through social distancing and shelter-in-place orders around the country far outweigh the expected cost to the economy, dollar-to-dollar.
‘Our benefit-cost analysis shows that the extensive social distancing measures being adopted in the US likely do not constitute an overreaction,’ Thunstrom says. ‘Social distancing saves lives but comes at large costs to society due to reduced economic activity. Still, based on our benchmark assumptions, the economic benefits of lives saved substantially outweigh the value of the projected losses to the US economy.’
‘Our analysis suggests that the aggressive social distancing policies currently promoted in the US probably are justified, given that no good contingency plans were in place for an epidemic of this magnitude,’ the University of Wyoming researchers wrote.”
Still, many of the same people who can’t seem to stop sharing flag-waving memes about how they’re honoring the sacrifice of American soldiers, first responders, and health care providers can’t be bothered to sacrifice any more time away from bars, restaurants, and stadia to save their neighbors and front-line workers from arguably the worst clear and present danger of their lifetimes. But actions speak louder than memes.
It’s not an exaggeration to say our election system is seriously ill. Hurdle after hurdle exist on the path to voting, and millions regularly choose to sit out the chaos. Layered on top of all of that, we now have a lethal pandemic that Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), predicts will make an encore appearance in the fall, precisely when we’re holding one of the most consequential elections in our history.
All in all, it’s not great a look for the self-proclaimed “greatest democracy on earth.”
But suppose someone told us they had developed a magical elixir for our election problems. I’m talking even better than Trump Water™ and hydroxychloroquine. Something to eliminate the most significant hurdles, such as the significant time and timing issues. Something to end waiting in long lines. Something to allow the “new normal” Stay At Home sensibilities to safely coexist with Election Day.
People with an even passing familiarity with this issue understand that we have that magical elixir right under our noses – vote-by-mail, or vote-at-home. Under such a model, voters are sent their ballots in the mail. They don’t have to go to polling places to obtain them. Then, they can return them in person or via mail.
That’s it. No traveling to polling places. No lines. No work schedule conflicts. No child care barriers. No discriminating election judges. No tight time constraints. No requirement to enter a potentially dangerous COVID hot spot. It’s not a panacea, but it would be a significant improvement.
Yeah But
Untested, you say? We have already been doing vote-by-mail successfully for decades. We’ve offered vote-by-mail to millions of soldiers, absentee voters in all 50 states, many voters in California, and all voters in Oregon, Colorado, Utah, and Hawaii.
Vote-by-mail is old news. It is tried-and-true. In places where vote-by-mail is used, there is no great movement to go back to a polling place-centric model, because vote-by-mail works better.
Expensive, you say? Without the need for expensive polling place staffing, machines, and infrastructure, vote-by-mail saves between $2-$5 per voter, according to research out of Colorado. Cost considerations shouldn’t be the primary reason we implement vote-by-mail, but they also shouldn’t be a reason that we don’t.
Fraudulent, you say? In the wide swath of America that is already voting by mail, there is no evidence of fraud, and bar code and automated record-matching technology continue to make it more secure than ever. The non-partisan Politifact finds that Trump’s frequent claims of fraud are, well, fraudulent.
This lack of widespread fraud shouldn’t surprise anyone. After all, who wants to risk a $25,000 fine, as they have in Oregon, over gaining a single vote, or a few votes, in a pool of millions? As it turns out, almost no one.
Democratic plot, you say? The non-partisan do-gooders at Vote At Home explain this one well:
Utah, the 4th full Vote at Home state, is decidedly “red.” Republicans also dominate Montana and Arizona, where 70% of voters automatically are mailed their ballots as “permanent absentee” voters. Nebraska and North Dakota, also Republican dominated states, have also expanded the use of vote at home options. While Oregon and Washington, the first two states where VAH initially took hold, are today more “blue than red,” both states have elected Secretaries of State who are Republicans – and big fans of this system.
On a more tactical level, the Republican party, whose base is disproportionately elderly, should probably reevaluate this issue in the pandemic era. If I were a Republican turnout strategist, I would worry about depending on their huge block of frightened elderly Americans being willing to bring their over-flowing basket of comorbidities into crowded polling venues during a pandemic.
But you know what? As a Democrat, I want those elderly MAGA-hat wearing seniors to have easy, safe access to voting. I want as many people voting as possible. If my party can’t win a majority of the votes in an election where everyone has an equal opportunity to safely and fairly participate, then my party needs to get it’s ass back to the drawing board to come up with better policy ideas.
Other questions, you say? Read this well-sourced document produced by Vote At Home. Spoiler alert: None of the other excuses hold up to reason or research either.
Don’t Get Your Hopes Up, Yet
The reasons to adopt universal vote-by-mail are patently obvious, and an overwhelming majority of Americans of all political stripes agree. A recent Reuters/Ipsos survey found that nearly three-fourths (72%) of Americans, including about two-thirds (65%) of Republicans, support mail-in ballots to protect voters from respiratory disease.
The experts at the Centers for Disease Control agree:
Encourage voters to use voting methods that minimize direct contact with other people and reduce crowd size at polling stations. * Encourage mail-in methods of voting if allowed in the jurisdiction.
But as with so many issues with overwhelming majority support – such as expanding access to Medicare, higher taxes for the wealthiest 1% and corporations, background checks for gun purchasers, marijuana prohibition, helping Dreamers become citizens, cutting Social Security and Medicare, higher minimum wage, paid maternity leave, and more – Trump, McConnell and their supporting cast in the U.S. Senate are the barrier. Cue David Byrne: “Same as it ever was.”
None of those things will happen until Trump and the GOP-controlled Senate Majority are removed in the fall. None. In Minnesota, Senate Republicans are similarly promising to block a wise vote-by-mail proposal recently floated by Secretary of State Steve Simon.
So while many people around the world are required to put their lives at risk in armed conflicts to establish or preserve their democracy, millions of Americans in 2020 likewise could be required by Republicans to put their lives at risk in deadly germ-infested schools, churches, community centers, and fire stations to preserve their democracy.
Give me democracy, or give me death? In a vast sea of Trump-McConnell era outrages, forcing Americans into this life-and-death choice on November 3rd may be the most outrageous development of all.
Sometimes, even the great Washington Post buries the lede. Disguised in a terrific story with a bland headline that only a supply chain manager could love (“Desperate for medical equipment, states encounter a beleaguered national stockpile”) was this disturbing and fascinating pandemic response story: “Florida Is Only State to Receive Everything It Asked For”
That’s the salient nugget Political Wire chose to highlight from the Post story, even though it was buried in paragraph twelve of the Post’s 2,500 word tome. Political wire got the headline prioritization right.
While the Post’s headline and lede didn’t promote the most ethically troubling part of its reporting, the three reporters who worked on the article, Amy Goldstein, Lena H. Sen, and Beth Reinhard, certainly did great reporting about the differences in how various states say they are being treated by Team Trump during the pandemic response.
Beyond the widely publicized problems that hotspot states like New York and Washington have been having with the Trump Administration’s response, the Post piece documented how other states also are struggling due to lack of adequate federal help:
Democratic-leaning Massachusetts, which has had a serious outbreak in Boston, has received 17 percent of the protective gear it requested, according to state leaders. Maine requested a half-million N95 specialized protective masks and received 25,558 — about 5 percent of what it sought. The shipment delivered to Colorado — 49,000 N95 masks, 115,000 surgical masks and other supplies — would be “enough for only one full day of statewide operations,” Rep. Scott R. Tipton (R-Colo.) told the White House in a letter several days ago.
Florida has been an exception in its dealings with the stockpile: The state submitted a request on March 11 for 430,000 surgical masks, 180,000 N95 respirators, 82,000 face shields and 238,000 gloves, among other supplies — and received a shipment with everything three days later, according to figures from the state’s Division of Emergency Management. It received an identical shipment on March 23, according to the division, and is awaiting a third.
“The governor has spoken to the president daily, and the entire congressional delegation has been working as one for the betterment of the state of Florida,” said Jared Moskowitz, the emergency management division’s director.”
“Florida has been an exception.” While my jaw dropped when I got to that part of the article, the Post shrugged it off: “Anecdotally, there are wide differences, and they do not appear to follow discernible political or geographic lines.”
How about this for a potential “political line?” Unlike the underserved New York, Washington, Massachusetts, Colorado, and Maine, the fully served Florida is one of the six states widely considered a “battleground state” that will determine the outcome of Trump’s 2020 reelection bid.
“Those will be the six most critical states (Arizona, Florida, Michigan, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin),” Paul Maslin, a longtime Democratic pollster who worked on the presidential campaigns of Jimmy Carter and Howard Dean, told Newsweek.
“There will be others that’ll be important in varying degrees,” he said, “but those will be ones we’ll ultimately look back on and say, ‘How many of them did Democrats win back and were they able to win enough to win the presidency?'”
Given Florida’s undeniable status as a crucial swing state in Trump’s 2020 Electoral College calculus, it’s critically important for any news publication to pose this very legitimate question: Is lifesaving equipment being distributed based on patients’ needs or political needs?
I’m open to the possibility that there is an epidemiologically sound explanation for why Florida has been at the head of Team Trump’s pandemic response line, while bright blue hot-spot cities like Boston and New York City are not. Skeptical, but open. But to ignore the obvious political angle, not pose that legitimate question to Trump officials, and bury the Florida exception in paragraph twelve is baffling.
What’s even more puzzling to me is why people like Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders, Chuck Schumer, and Nancy Pelosi apparently aren’t raising the same legitimate question. Because the reckless game Trump seems to be playing here is not just ethically untenable, it’s also politically perilous.
