What We've Got Here is Failure to Communicate

In his first inaugural address, when Franklin Delano Roosevelt famously declared that "the only thing we have to fear is...fear itself," he was not merely lifting spirits or deploying powerful rhetoric. In 1933, with the Great Depression raging, FDR was both acknowledging one of the sources of the crisis and laying out one of his key strategies to combat it. Fear was indeed one of the root causes of much economic pain. Lack of confidence in the health of the financial sector was causing investors to abandon markets and depositors to make panicked runs on banks, setting off a vicious cycle (as more banks failed, more runs were set off, causing more banks to fail, etc.) that threatened to destroy the collective wealth of the nation entirely.

FDR understood the role that the president could play in allaying such fears. Mass panic is triggered by each person's lack of faith in what others will do. If I know that the bank is solvent, but I am convinced that all my neighbors are going to withdraw their deposits in delusional terror, I have no choice but to join the general stampede as quickly as possible or see my savings disappear. But if there is a single voice that I know my neighbors will listen to and trust, I can wait and see what will happen. If that voice gives them the reliable information I know to be true- the banks will be fine if only people will refrain from panic- then the crisis might pass. That was what FDR accomplished (in concert with policies like the creation of the FDIC) through his "fireside chats." By getting on the radio he was able to broadcast reliable information about the level of risk to everyone in the nation at once, and by arming people with that information (and the knowledge that everyone else had been similarly informed) he was able to redirect their collective behavior.

The situation now might seem to bear no resemblance to the crisis of 1933, but in concrete ways our problem is the same. During the Covid-19 pandemic much of the personal risk I as an individual face is dependent on other people's behavior. In deciding whether to go out and interact with others, I am confronted with questions. Do they understand the dangers of the virus? Are they taking precautions against infection? Have they washed hands? Disinfected commonly used surfaces? Will they know to wear a mask, and to maintain social distance? The pandemic itself is obviously a medical problem that will largely have to be redressed with medical techniques (vaccination, the development of effective anti-viral drugs). But as in the case of the Great Depression, much of the economic pain being caused by the pandemic is the product of fear, and much of the power to allay those fears resides in communication.

Concern over the state of the economy is understandably high, but in all the bluster about "the cure being worse than the problem" there has been little acknowledgment that the key to a restoration of economic productivity lies in information- both the collection of facts, and their accurate and credible dissemination to the general public. If we want people to go back to dining in restaurants and shopping in malls, we need to let them know: 1) how the virus is spread; 2)what the chances of getting it are in various circumstances; 3)what the risks of developing acute symptoms are (and how those vary from person to person on the basis of age, health, etc.); 4)what provisions have been made to provide them with urgent care (oxygen, ventilators) if they should need it; 5)what the mortality rate is for the population as a whole (and how those odds change from individual to individual on the basis of age, health, etc.). Moreover, it is not enough that this information is gathered and available:  the public must be assured that everyone has been apprised of it and can be counted on to act accordingly.

In this light, part of the challenge confronting our leadership lies in gathering information. Our response to the pandemic is hobbled because we do not have solidly credible answers to the questions I listed above. This is somewhat understandable. The Covid-19 virus is a new pathogen, and it will take scientists some time to sort through its impact on human physiology. But some of the blame for our ignorance lies with government. Developing at least provisional answers to key questions depends on testing (both tests for the infection itself and tests for antibodies in its aftermath), and testing has not been done on anything near the scale or at the rate that would be needed to develop a clear picture of risk.

But even accounting for the impediments posed by lack of testing and information, the vital task for the resumption of economic activity is communication. Since (on a recent, optimistic report) the earliest a vaccine will be available is September, and the economic pain of maintaining our current degree of social distancing will not be endurable until then, our leaders will need to begin to lay the foundations for the reopening of society NOW. As long as there is no general consensus about the risks posed by the virus in the absence of social distancing, about how they might be mitigated, and about what provisions need to be made for people who suffer the worst impacts, everyone will be held in place by fear.

 If we want people to emerge from their homes, we have to prepare them for the assumption of a level of risk, let them know what that level of risk is (or at least demonstrate that every effort is being made to measure it) and how it might be mitigated (through the use of masks, gloves, testing, etc.), and reassure them that emergency provisions are being made to minimize the worst impacts of those risks for everyone (through a temporary boost in hospital beds, ventilators, etc). Above and beyond getting these messages to citizens individually, it will be necessary to make the general public feel that everyone  is on the same page. Since so much of my personal risk will be contingent upon the level of information of my fellow citizens, I will not feel confident that I know what my level of risk is unless I feel that everyone else is armed with and has assented to the same information.

As in 1933, the institution in our society that is optimally placed to broadcast and coordinate the communications necessary to remediate the economic effects of the pandemic is the White House. No other office has such a broad audience or speaks with such authority. We need our president to formulate a coherent message and broadcast it consistently. Informing the public of the situation and enlisting their participation in confronting it will not be the work of days or weeks, but MONTHS of a persistent, deliberate, and coordinated campaign, employing all of the media tools and venues at the government's disposal, and bringing all of the different organs and agencies of the government into alignment.

As anyone who has been following the news must realize who has read and agreed with the last paragraph, the current situation of the United States gives little cause for optimism. The behavior of the Trump White House up to this point has been the exact opposite of what is needed for an effective amelioration of this crisis. Even before the pandemic hit, Donald Trump had undermined his credibility through frequent mendacity and gratuitous vitriol (it is difficult to trust the credibility of someone who has spent almost four years insulting you). Since the pandemic began he has further abandoned the public trust by falsely minimizing risks, evading responsibility, and disseminating misinformation. Communication is the key to forging a path out of the crisis, and our current White House has crippled its own capacity for effective communication.

Change is needed, and it must come quickly. Since the removal of Donald Trump from office is not likely before next January, and since he has shown little capacity to change over more than three years on the job, the best possible solution would be to remove Trump himself from the process. Finding someone to be a proxy voice is an imperfect solution. One of the reasons that the public is so inclined to heed the president is on the understanding that his words are backed by real power, and no one can be vested with power to match that of the president. But if someone with a very high political profile, broad credibility, and a proven track record of managerial success were invested with sweeping powers  and allowed to act with unfettered independence (i.e. the creation of a new, vastly more authoritative "pandemic tsar"), that person could become the epicenter of the communication strategy necessary for a resolution of our economic crisis.

The person who springs immediately to mind is Mitt Romney. There is obviously no love lost between him and the president since Romney's vote in favor of Trump's removal during impeachment proceedings. But for precisely that reason, the appointment of Romney would inspire confidence that the President had acted purely in the public interest, and would advantage the new "pandemic tsar" with both immense credibility and the undivided attention of the media and the public.

Such a move might be a stroke of political genius- by ignoring his own political advantage, the President could ironically increase his political capital tenfold. Given the track record of this White House, I will not hold my breath in anticipation of such a boldly deliberate move. But for all our sake, I hope that the White House will do something to fix its communication problem. Unless it does, there is little chance that our present distress can be alleviated.

The Book of Ruth

Since the autumn I have been volunteering to teach a “Confirmation Class” at our synagogue. Confirmation is a ceremony established within Reform Judaism (my temple, which is Conservative, has adopted it). The concept is to give teenagers a chance to “reaffirm” their commitment to Judaism when they are older and more mature than they were at the age of bar or bat mitzvah (“confirmation” usually occurs at the age of fifteen or sixteen).

I have been meeting with the students once a month for classes devoted to different topics concerning Jewish theology and religious life (past classes included discussions of God, ethics, ritual, tradition). Our last topic was “society,” which was a poignantly apt one to address in an online class during a period of “social distancing.” Since conditions precluded classroom activities like breaking into groups, I cast about for a text that we could read and discuss together in our online session. The one that sprang immediately to mind was the Book of Ruth.

I had read Ruth in the days before my own bar mitzvah, and thus was aware that it would serve our discussion well. But going back to re-read it with 52-year-old eyes gave me a new appreciation for its subtlety and depth. The text is brief, but it succinctly encapsulates some of the most complex dimensions of ancient Jewish social thought.

One of the most interesting aspects of the story is that its protagonist is not Jewish (at least not as the story begins). Hers is the only book of the Tanakh (the Jewish bible, comprising Torah, Nevi’im [prophets], and Ketuvim [writings, into which Ruth falls]) whose eponym is a non-Jew.

Another remarkable aspect of The Book of Ruth is the candor with which it depicts the inequities and weaknesses in ancient Israelite society. As the story opens, Ruth’s mother-in-law, a Hebrew woman named Naomi who has migrated into the lands of the Moabites with her husband, loses her husband and both adult sons to famine. The text is very clear that Naomi’s situation is as dire as a human being’s can be, and that her dilemma is the product of forces such as patriarchy, wealth inequality, and xenophobia. Old, female, poor, and a stranger in a strange land, she has been reduced to a position of pure need and liability. She immediately dismisses her two Moabite daughters-in-law, telling them to return home to the families of their birth. She recognizes that it would be unfair to force these young women to share her fate.

One of the daughters-in-law, Orpah, bids Naomi a tearful farewell. Ruth declines Naomi’s dismissal, famously declaring, “Where you go, I will go.” If Naomi is a case study in pure need, Ruth is one in almost pure altruism. Ruth has little to offer Naomi, only her youth and strength. But to call the exchange asymmetrical would be a colossal understatement. Israel had food at the time, so ostensibly Naomi could offer Ruth entry to better circumstances. But the story goes on to show that Naomi’s ties of common heritage have little practical power in Israel. If Ruth has little, Naomi can only requite her with less than nothing: penury, misery, and (very likely) death.

Together Ruth and Naomi return to Bethlehem, the native place of Naomi’s departed husband. Once there, Ruth volunteers to provide for them by “gleaning” in the fields of one of Naomi’s kinsman, a wealthy farmer named Boaz. Gleaning was essentially a form of begging. Leviticus and Deuteronomy contain “gleaning provisions”- commandments that fallen grain and certain portions of each field should not be harvested by the owner of any land, but must be left to be gathered by those who are destitute.

Ruth proposes that she will glean Boaz’s land by following one of his workers during the reaping of the barley harvest. We see from the text that though the gleaning provisions are divine Law, they were honored more in the breach than in compliance. Despite the fact that Ruth is gleaning on a kinsman’s property, she hopes to glean “behind someone in whose sight I may find favor.” In other words, she will have to find a workman that she can charm into letting her collect grain, otherwise she would presumably be chased away. The person she ultimately finds favor in is Boaz himself. He sees her in the field and speaks with her, assuring her that he has ordered his young male workers not to obstruct her and that she may glean in his field unmolested. Again, the text is remarkably candid in admitting that the Law was no guarantee of compassion. If the gleaning provisions were being generally obeyed, it would not be necessary for Boaz to order his men to give Ruth leave.

When Ruth reports back to Naomi, the older woman intuits Boaz’s feelings and sees an opportunity. Knowing that Boaz will be sleeping out on the threshing floor during the harvest and will be approachable, Naomi sends Ruth to seduce him. The text speaks in euphemisms (Ruth “sleeps by his feet”), but it makes clear that Ruth has taken a grave personal risk. Boaz praises Ruth, saying, “this last instance of loyalty [to Naomi] is better than the first.” If Boaz had rejected Ruth, she would have at least suffered a loss of good reputation, perhaps worse. Instead, he conceives of a plan by which he might help Ruth, and sends her away under cover of darkness to Naomi with gifts of food.

Boaz’s plan reveals other elements of ancient Hebrew Law, and the vagaries of its real-world application.  He goes to the gate of Bethlehem in search of one of Naomi’s other kinsman (whose name we never learn), whom he consults in front of the “city elders.”  The issue is, of the two men, who has the right to “redeem” Naomi? 

“Redemption” is one of the most interesting institutions of ancient Israel, the source of the epithet “My/Our Redeemer” often applied to God in hymn and prayer. It is articulated in disparate passages of Torah, and forms a complex of obligations and privileges that fall on individuals as a function of kinship. When any members of the community fell into circumstances from which they could not escape (for example, if they were captured by enemies and held for ransom, or had debts that they could not repay that would drive them into bondage), it was the duty of their closest relative to “redeem” them, to do that for them that they could not do for themselves.

Boaz explains that this other, closer kinsman has the right to redeem Naomi. Naomi, according to Boaz, is “selling” a property she inherited from her husband. It is not clear whether Naomi actually owns the property (in which case the kinsman would simply have to provide men to work it), or whether the kinsman is being asked to purchase it (back from someone else) to help maintain her. In either case the implication is clear: the kinsman will provide for Naomi until she dies, and the kinsman will then inherit the property dedicated to her upkeep. The kinsman immediately agrees, as this looks like a “win-win” situation: Naomi will have support, but since she is older the property used to support her will profit the kinsman in the not-too-distant-future.

Boaz then reveals that Naomi is accompanied by her young daughter-in-law, Ruth the Moabite. At that news the kinsman balks. In the best case scenario he would have to wait out the lifetime of Ruth to have the use of the property, in the worst he might lose his claims on the property altogether if Ruth remarries, and he does not want to encumber his fortune (marrying Ruth would solve the problem, but he was obviously unwilling to do that, perhaps because she was a Moabite). He surrenders his right of redemption to Boaz, who now has a perfectly legitimate pretext on which he can marry Ruth (as part of his obligation of redemption- a “levirate marriage” to continue the lineage of his childless kinsman).

The Book of Ruth is fascinating because the complex of institutions that drive much of the drama of the narrative outline, in ideal form, a relatively robust “safety net” in ancient Israel. One could leap to the conclusion that the ancient Hebrews were early “socialists,” but that is a stretch. The kinds of hard distinctions between “private” and “collective” ownership of property that underpin and distinguish modern ideologies like capitalism and socialism are not articulated in the ancient sources. What makes them intriguing from our perspective is what they have to say about the philosophical foundations of society in the abstract.

The book begins by acknowledging, in almost Aristotelian fashion, that human beings are social animals. This is the import of Ruth’s famous speech- she pledges herself to remain with Naomi not out of some specific filial imperative, but because in very general terms to do otherwise would be to abandon Naomi to die. This is made clear by the text’s framing of Ruth’s sister-in-law, Orpah. Orpah is not depicted as making a “wrong” choice to contrast the “right” path taken by Ruth. The parting between these characters is tearful and laden with emotion. Ruth’s sacrifice is taken almost as much on Orpah’s behalf as Naomi's: since staying with Naomi entails hardship and likely doom, Ruth’s acceptance of the obligation frees Orpah to save herself. From the very beginning the text acknowledges that the operation and maintenance of all social ties entails a complex negotiation between disparate individuals’ obligations to self and others. These tensions are maintained throughout the text’s depiction of the social institutions of ancient Israel and their operation in practice.

Ancient Hebrews would have understood these Laws in theological terms. The Torah opens with God offering human beings a choice between self-awareness and immortality. Two trees were accessible in Eden: the Tree of Life and the Tree of Knowledge, and only the latter was forbidden. If human beings had obeyed God’s command and accepted the gift of immortality, none of the tensions that drive the Book of Ruth would exist. Since human beings chose exile from Eden, God has taken pity on them by granting them the Torah, which Solomon (putatively) understood to be “a Tree of Life to those who hold fast to it (Proverbs 3:18).” In other words, following the Torah and the social Laws it lays down regarding gleaning, levirate marriage, and redemption could rescue humankind (particularly those of humankind most vulnerable, like childless widows) from the perils of the mortal world and restore the Edenic paradise that God had originally intended human beings to possess.   

Why then, does Eden remain elusive? Here again the text is very candid. In an ideal world, with everyone following the Law to the letter, the Torah might operate as a true “Tree of Life” on the mortal plane. But that would require all people to embrace the Law, including the Moabites, Edomites, Egyptians, and myriad other peoples with whom the ancient Hebrews traded and interacted in diverse ways. Since the reality was that this would never be the case, accepting the socioeconomic obligations of the Law to neighbors and kin always entailed personal risk, which made the probability that even Hebrews would keep faith with the Law relatively low. 

For example, redeeming my kinsman from bondage sounds like a very wise thing to do, as long as I can count on someone doing the same for me if and when I am in such need. But what if some of my kinsmen (or the kinsmen of my kinsmen) are Moabites and do not recognize that obligation? How does that figure into my risk-reward calculation as I weigh my obligation to the Law? If I operate under the assumption that God always punishes the wicked and rewards the good, I might feel more confident (i.e. as long as I keep following the Law, I can be sure never to need to be redeemed by another human being), but if that were the case, why would Laws such as the gleaning provisions, levirate marriage, and redemption be necessary in the first place?

What is most surprising about The Book of Ruth is the irreducible degree of humanism latent in its underlying message. The text shows that God’s will can never be enough to forge a functional society. Laws like redemption, levirate marriage, and the gleaning provisions can sketch out the parameters of what is fair (there but for the grace of God go I- since all providence comes from God, God may command us to share what we have with those who do not), but they cannot in and of themselves create a social compact in the absence of the personal commitment of the individual members of a community.

In the final analysis, the text demonstrates that society itself is not possible without individuals like Ruth. The human condition makes all of us vulnerable at some times (childhood, old age) and some of us vulnerable at all times (due to sickness, poverty, isolation). Unless some of us are ready to “redeem” others- to accept others’ vulnerability as our own responsibility, as Ruth does with Naomi- society will never be able to cohere to any minimal degree. Moreover, though the text acknowledges that there are almost never enough people like Ruth (everyone around Naomi wonders at her unexpected good fortune), in the figure of Boaz it shows how we might have more. Boaz chooses Ruth as a mate as much or more for her “social mindedness” as her other qualities. He shows that if we could see and value that in others (seeing past other arbitrary characteristics, such as their being widowed, poor, or a “foreigner”), the world might be a much better place.

In discussing the Book of Ruth with my students I did not make any mention of our current political situation, but I cannot help reading it in light of what is happening today. Now more than ever we can see that the persistence of society itself depends upon our willingness to accept responsibility for one-another’s welfare. Now more than ever we can see the vital importance of valuing social-mindedness in others, particularly our leaders, over vanity and self-promotion. It is no exaggeration to say that the lessons of the Book of Ruth are not merely timely and cogent, but essential to our very survival. Not bad for a bunch of ancient Hebrews.

Calling Dr. Feelgood, Or This is Our Final Warning, Part II

   

There is this video going around that sums up Trumpism in a nutshell. It is of a chiropractor telling people to eat zinc and drink tonic water to fend off Covid-19 (I won't link to it, because I refuse to move traffic to his page- please Google around if you want to see for yourself). Now, there is nothing wrong with drinking tonic water (according to the chiropractor the quinine in it will have the same salubrious effects as the hydroxychloroquine Dr. Trump keeps prescribing) and little wrong with taking zinc (actually, too much zinc can really do you harm- PLEASE consult your doctor if you are going to take zinc supplements). But anyone who imagines that zinc and tonic water can IN ANY WAY replace washing your hands, disinfecting the commonly used surfaces in your home, and maintaining social distancing as protection against Covid-19 IS OUT OF THEIR COTTON-PICKING MINDS.

      But to watch this "doctor," you would believe that all of this talk of a pandemic is just hooey. He rants on and on about how people are being lied to. The dead are filling hospitals in NYC? Why, in his part of Florida (!) doctors are being laid off! How does he know that quinine and zinc will help PREVENT the virus? Because some doctor in Louisiana has had good results giving it to patients WHO ARE ALREADY IN THE ICU! You can't make this shit up.

       But those noxious leaps of ill logic are not what encapsulate Trumpism in its essence. That effect is achieved by two properties of the video. The first is the whole rhetorical frame. The guy is wearing a kind of medical uniform and sitting in a recognizable medical office (there is a chart of the human musculature behind him). He is thus trading upon the credibility of his profession, without accepting any of the responsibility that such a move would entail (Trump's credo- all the credit, none of the responsibility). As a "doctor" he should stick to what is PROVEN, and the only proven prevention for Covid-19 at this point is hygiene, disinfection, social distancing. For anyone speaking as a medical professional to say ANYTHING different is malpractice. Might zinc and quinine help? Yeah, maybe. MAYBE. The fact that one doctor in Louisiana has had good results giving them to ICU patients is cause for hope, not certainty.

     And suppose, just for shits and giggles, we speculate that what the doctor in Louisiana has shown (we can't know now for sure, after all) is that zinc and quinine will cure you after you develop severe symptoms, but won't do shit for you before that. What would the chiropractor have done then? He will have fucked us all, won't he? He will have sent millions of people out to get zinc and quinine, so that everything in stores and warehouses is bought up, and nothing is available to the hospitals where it might do some good.

     That is the kind of thing you would think about before taping a viral video, if you took your hippocratic oath seriously, in the same way much of what Trump says or tweets would never be uttered or written if he took his oath of office seriously. But taking your oath of office seriously is for losers. Trumpkins have no patience for that kind of thing. And who am I? I am just some libtard who suffers from TDS, so I must just be saying this because I hate Trump 🤣.

     The other way in which Dr. Feelgood perfectly channels the Trumpist message is in his persistent use of a particular logical fallacy. He points to several instances of what he calls "fake news," for example, a news story that misleadingly says that a baby died of Covid-19, when in fact it was born prematurely to a woman suffering from the disease. His criticism of such reporting is plausible, but he keeps comparing these instances to "shouting fire in a crowded movie theater," noting that to do so is a felony.

     This is the scariest aspect of Trumpism. When Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. first articulated the "yelling fire" thought experiment, he was trying to outline the UNIQUE and EXTREME circumstances in which the state might bar free speech- if what you say has the potential to kill or harm hundreds of people IN A MATTER OF SECONDS, the state has a right to punish you for saying it. But now Dr. Feelgood is implying that people should be jailed if what they write in their newspaper or on their website upsets enough young mothers.
 
      This is the true Trump Derangement Syndrome. Trumpkins seem ready to suspend any and all critical thinking about the principles of our democracy in defense of their Dear Leader. Watching them sort through the facts of this pandemic is like watching a medieval astrologer try to explain what is going on in the sky. Trying to explain things like "retrograde motion" is very hard if you are committed to the idea that the sun revolves around the earth. In the same way, trying to deal with the plain facts of our situation on a day-to-day basis is very difficult if you are committed to the idea that Trump is a great leader (hell, if you are committed to the proposition that he merits being called a real "president").

     For example- how does it look that Trump said we would have zero cases by April so we shouldn't worry, then he said we might have as many as 200,000 deaths so we should start taking it seriously, then he said we should all start thinking about getting back to work, because we should stop worrying again? Does that look like the blatherings of a weak, indecisive, and irresponsible "leader"? If so, someone must be to blame! Someone other than Trump, of course. The media! The liberal elites! Round up the usual suspects!

      This cult of personality around Trump is frighteningly toxic and corrosive. As long as Trump is in office we will simply not be capable of having a meaningful discourse about public affairs that engages a critical mass of the citizenry. Now is Dr. Feelgood's time. I would say that I hope he is enjoying his fifteen minutes of fame, but it is coming at the cost of endangering many gullible people's lives. Hopefully the fall will bring some amelioration of this pandemic of bullshit, and we will have effective treatments and preventative medicine for Covid-19 soon after.