The Idolatry Of Political Tribes — Outlaw Sports

In my last post, I criticized the authoritarian power grabs currently happening in the midst of the Coronavirus. Reactions to the post ranged from simple likes, to calling me a fascist and hoping that I die from Covid-19. However, this is bigger than just people who read that post and reacted in an intellectuality devoid and ad hominem manner. The looking down your nose and wishing harm on your ideological opponents seems to extend all the way to the upper echelons of American society.

Late night host, Jimmy Kimmel and Stephen Colbert, used their shows to demonize and insult everyone who has the temerity to think differently them.

I’m starting to think these characters who support Trump might be suicidal,” Kimmel said. “They seem to fight hardest for the things that will kill them. They want freedom to gather in large groups during an epidemic, they want guns, they want pollution. I figured it out, they want to die and they’re taking us down with them. It’s like if the Titanic was headed towards the iceberg, and half of the passengers were like, ‘Can you please speed this thing up?’

That social distancing and closing up businesses isn’t just to keep individuals safe but to prevent the spread of the virus, especially to older relatives. Noting one woman’s glib sign, “I Need a Haircut,” Colbert cracked, “It should read, ‘I want to endanger the lives of your grandparents in exchange for frosted tips.

To be clear, according to our moral arbiters, Kimmel and Colbert, if you see any sort of problem with the U.S.’s lockdown strategy, it’s because you hate other people-especially the elderly- and wish death upon the entire human race. Obviously, imputing bad motives to people with you whom disagree, is the how you prove the correctness of your argument.

Here’s a suggestion, if you want people to go along with your policy prescriptions, perhaps putting forward an evidence based coherent argument might work better. I think it’s safe to assume that anyone with a functioning prefrontal cortex can understand the logic of locking down. For those who don’t, it’s basically amounts to the less contact that infected people have with healthy people, the less chance of the virus spreading, and therefore, less deaths. It’s a great strategy in a vacuum, but we don’t live in a vacuum. Instead, the reality is this-there are real and actual consequences to simply shutting down society and staying at home. Not everyone is lucky enough to be worth millions of dollars like Colbert and Kimmel; some people have to actually work outside their homes and/or rely on others leaving their homes and patronizing their businesses in order to survive.

The assumption that this will all be okay if we just surrender our autonomy to the Government seems odd to me. I find it particularly strange that the people making this argument seem to largely be the people who hate President Trump. Make no mistake, this is not a defense of the President, but if you’re asking us relinquish our rights and freedom because the Government will take care of our problems; while simultaneously claiming that the most powerful person in the Government is a racist, corrupt, a Russian puppet, and aspiring dictator-you’re going to need to show your work.

Presumably, what they really mean is if we would just trust [insert politicians name here] then everything would be okay. We go lockdown inside our homes until this passes, and the side effects associated with that strategy would just disappear. They would have us believe that if any one of their preferred leaders were in charge, the laws of economics would simply cease to exist. Businesses could stay open and people would continue to collect paychecks indefinitely, despite not exchanging goods and services. If that’s what they want us to believe, then forgo the recess insults and explain exactly how the plan would work. Provide evidence that if your preferred leader was in charge, how things would be drastically different than they are now because from here, that seems like a non-disprovable thesis. Furthermore, explain how the current preferred leaders, objectively arrived at the distinction between essential and nonessential because it is confusing to the rubes. We have a hard time understanding how it’s perfectly safe to stand nose to back of the head in lines wrapped around Costco, but it’s a jail-able offense to attend church in a parking lot, inside of a car-with the widows rolled up.

In addition, please explain how contrary the whole of human history, these Government leaders will not become tyrannical, should we exchange our freedom for their security. After all, the same Government they claim will save us, is the same Government who once made people personal property and instituted Jim Crow laws. How exactly did they become suddenly so virtuous and trustworthy?

Thus far, we have seen the Michigan Governor threaten to extend the lockdown if people protest, and we’ve seen the Mayor of LA say he’d criminalize businesses he deemed nonessential:

Those that remain open face misdemeanor penalties, citations, fines and the possibility of the city Department of Water and Power shutting off utility service, Garcetti said. Garcetti said most nonessential businesses in the city have complied with orders to close, but a few have not. “You know who you are,” Garcetti said. “You need to stop it. This is your chance to step up and to shut it down, because if you don’t, we will shut you down.”

These sound an awful lot like statements that dictators make.

Either you believe that the Constitution is a document that recognizes every person is born with inherent rights that predate government, or, that your rights are merely given to you by the government. If the latter is true, it follows that those rights are fluid and are subject to the whim of whomever is in charge. Then what constrains the Government from doing things you disagree with? If the former is true, then an explanation is required on why we, as a free people, should allow government to supersede inherent rights.

Notice that the Constitution’s First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Do you see an exception for protesting if there is a pandemic?

Now look at the Fifth Amendment:

No person shall … be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

The last part of the Fifth is also known as the “Takings Clause”. This isn’t just restricted to physical seizures of property. It also applies to constructive takings. This means if the government restricts a persons rights so much-it becomes the equivalent of a physical seizure. If the Local, State, and Federal Government are restricting people from earning a living, they have a right to be compensated. How exactly will they compensate millions of people for the economic loss? How can they?

I understand there are some people who say this is no worse than flu. That’s a statement that I think is wholly incorrect. The data clearly shows that this is far worse than flu, but the data also show that this virus disproportionately affects the elderly and those with preexisting conditions. Given the data and the competing consequences of making a binary decision to either fully lockdown or doing nothing, why is it unreasonable to suggest splitting the baby? After all, we are seeing Sweden do this exact thing. While it’s true that their infection rate and death rate are higher than surrounding countries, it isn’t the catastrophe that experts predicted it was going to be if they didn’t lock down. Further, they seem be in a better position to weather a second outbreak by utilizing herd immunity.

Coherent explanations to these question about U.S. policy help tremendously in convincing people to change their minds, stay home, and sacrifice livelihoods. Instead, character attacks are used. It can’t be that everyone agrees that we don’t want any of this to be happening, but that we disagree about how to solve the problem. Rather, those who don’t see the sense in just staying in their homes forever, are accused of being murders.

What this really seems to be about is idolatry of political tribes. Both Left and right have divulged into worshiping their parties ideology. Their religion asks for faithfulness to the ideology in exchange for personal salvation. For the Left, it’s about Democrats seizing power and cramming down their progressive vision of a utopian society. Simultaneously suggesting that those who think differently or agree with the President, wish death upon their fellow man, but that the virus-the thing that is actually killing people-is a good thing because it’s preventing people from harming the environment.

For the right, it’s the cult of Trump, owning the left at all cost, and in some cases, claiming the whole thing is part of a larger conspiracy to create the New World Order.

However, I don’t think we need subscribe to any of it. Zealotry to a party’s ideology, forces you to place your fate into the hands of the Government. If you’re putting your faith in Donald Trump, Joe Biden, AOC, or any other political entity to provide you with a more meaningful life, or solve your problems-you’re doing it wrong. There is no person on the earth, in a better position to know what’s better for you and your family-than you do.

Is it so hard to believe in the better angles of our nature? If you are too frightened to go out or are in a high risk group, you can choose to stay at home. If you don’t think it’s safe to back to work, the gym, or movies-don’t go. Unless people are just invading your home, your risk of infection is going to remain low. If you want go out, listen to the doctors; wear PPE and stay away from high risk people as much as possible. If you get sick, that’s on you. Respect people who don’t want to have contact with others. Businesses can take whatever precautions that are reasonable to keep people safe, if they choose not to, don’t go there.

What good is it, morally or practically, to seize government power and use it to compel those you disagree with to do what you want? Whatever precedent one tribe sets now, will eventually be used against them when the opposite tribe comes comes into power. Worshiping at the altar of your chosen political party is not going to solve this crisis. Being a zealot to their ideology doesn’t determine your moral worth. The Government is not going produce a vaccine or cure-individuals will. People coming together because they choose to, not because they are forced to, is how we survive this. Personal responsibility and taking care of each other is how the U.S. conquers the Coronavirus.

Originally published at https://theoutlawsports.com on April 24, 2020.