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.