The liberal left is essentially jazzed about the coronavirus. They needed something that could slow down the Trump Train, and they got what they wanted. Take a moment, however, to realize that the coronavirus originated in China, a totalitarian communist regime, and it spread thanks to liberal left progressive mechanisms such as globalism and open borders. As countries have begun to take a note from Donald Trump about sovereignty, the liberal left is celebrating the globalistic communitarianism
they believe has emerged to combat this virus, slamming those who have wished to reassert their sovereignty. We are being told that only big government and globalism can save us from the deadly virus, hence, the claim that it could spell the end of Trumpism.
Politico admits their disagreement with Trump’s America First policy, which tells us they are a We Are The World globalist supporting organization.
John F. Harris writes in his Politico article
that “likely in these strange housebound weeks a new political epoch [is] being born.”
First, Harris explains, is that change is in the air. “Expectations and routines are [being] most dramatically upended.”
Remember, progressivism is all about change, any change at any cost (remember, Obama’s big thing was “Hope and Change”). The forced change of life under the coronavirus, according to Harris, will have lasting effects on people, shaping “their consciousness in more lasting ways.”
“Like most catastrophes,” Harris continues, “the pandemic’s malign consequences will fall most heavily on the underprivileged. Unlike most catastrophes, its costs are also being paid heavily by some segments of the most privileged. Those college seniors whose spring terms and graduation ceremonies are suddenly deleted include many people who are future leaders of the public and private sectors. No, it’s not the end of the world for them. But it’s a piercing loss even so—one being paid more for the benefit of older, less healthy people than for pure self-protection.
“More profoundly, the dynamics of the coronavirus moment likely will resemble the dynamics of other great public policy issues shadowing the next generation. In particular, the global pandemic and the harsh choices it imposes offer—in highly concentrated fashion in coming months—much the same choices that responses to global climate change will impose in coming decades.”
Interesting that Harris makes the comparison to Climate Change, since the hype and facts in both are quite similar, with the only difference being that while the coronavirus is being hyped to be bigger than it really is, Climate Change hysteria is all about being hysterical about something that does not exist as it is being presented. Rather than being a man-made crisis we have control over, it’s a natural phenomenon that is being hijacked as if it is man-made for the purpose of increasing governmental global power over non-elites.
By my statements I challenge Harris’ assessment that men of science (who agree with their agenda) are who we must trust during these emergencies; and by not being in agreement with them that makes me, from their point of view, someone who denies science.
Never mind that the science is being manipulated for political expediency.
Harris then goes into how these two problems, coronavirus and climate change, both seek remedies that may only be achieved “in the realm of community values.”
s, and folks like Donald J. Trump, believe in individualism and sovereignty, then we must naturally be the enemies of community and globalism, which, by their definitions, means we don’t want to work together with anyone.
Hogwash, of course, but that is the line of thinking that travels through the minds of the liberal left, which is essentially being confirmed by Harris’ piece from Politico.
With the coronavirus it goes farther than that. As Harris explains, the emergence of the coronavirus has essentially shut everything down. The economy is at a near standstill, layoffs at least until the disease spike passes are becoming pretty common, small businesses may not be able to survive the down-time, and folks are keeping their distance from each other … a condition that screams for more government in our lives to make it all better, right?
Harris also reminds us in his article that the “coronavirus is like climate change in the sense that it is impervious to national borders”.
As a science fiction fan I can’t count how many futuristic globalistic entities exist in those stories because a crisis brought all of the nations of the world together to combat a common enemy, and that global unity was just what was needed.
Then, Harris lays on us what he means by his headline:
“There is no way to know for certain what the coronavirus means for his [Donald Trump’s] reelection. But already it is evident what it has meant for Trumpism. It has sent it hurtling into retreat.
“Trumpism as an idea is about promoting and protecting American sovereignty and singularity. In some contexts, even Trump foes might agree it’s an attractive concept: Well might we wish to seal our borders from the virus. But the only way this would be effective would be if the United States had years ago opted to adjourn from the modern interconnected global economy. Yes, the coronavirus first presented itself in China. How many people were surprised to learn only in the past few weeks that nearly all U.S. antibiotics also come from China.”
In other words, it’s a global crisis so we have to play the globalism game, which is the opposite of what Trumpism stands for.
Harris is misunderstanding what Trumpism is. Donald J. Trump, and his supporters, don’t believe in protectionism, or completely cutting ourselves off from the rest of the world. But, the global community, in general, is not more important than our own sovereign needs. We don’t believe in putting the community before the individual, not because the community is not important, but because when the individual does well for himself, in the long run, it’s actually better for the community. A strong individualistic sovereign America, in the same way, is better for the world than if the U.S. was just some country that acts in a certain way just so that we can get along with everyone.
Trump’s supporters are not anti-government, either. We simply believe that the government’s role is a limited one and that the authorities granted to government are few and defined. America does better when government gets out of the way and lets us do our thing.
A Democrat once asked me, “Don’t you want a government that takes care of its people?”
“No,” I replied. “I want a people that takes care of its people.”
Charity is a wonderful thing. Doing things like donating to the less fortunate, or doing things to strengthen the community as a volunteer is awesome. But, government is not charity. When they get involved in these things, usually there are totalitarian undertones involved.
Yes, we are all in this together, and we will need to work as a community in some instances to do what we need to do, but that does not spell the end of Trumpism, and it is not a signal to government to increase its power and become more authoritarian. If anything, it is helping Trump, because unlike other countries, his plans in tackling the problem uses the power of the free market.
Since the disease is not as dangerous as the media is making it out to be, the relatively mild disease will pass easily, and in the end it will actually make President Trump more popular. In fact, that’s already happening. An ABC News/Ipsos poll released Friday shows Trump with a 55 percent approval, reported ABC News
: “A new ABC News/Ipsos poll out Friday morning found 55% approval of Trump’s handling of the novel coronavirus crisis, with 43% disapproval. Exactly a week ago, the same poll found a 43-54 approval-disapproval — a near-mirror-image reversal.”
The Harris Poll released Thursday shows a 53 percent approval for Trump’s handling the virus, an increase from 49 percent from last week’s Harris poll.
A Survey USA poll released Thursday has Trump with 51 percent approval for his handling of the virus.
Michael Levitt, an “American-British-Israeli” chemist who won the Nobel Prize for chemistry in 2013, says
we should be also optimistic about the virus itself.
“The rate of infection of the virus in the Hubei province [in China] increased by 30% each day — that is a scary statistic. I am not an influenza expert but I can analyze numbers and that is exponential growth.”
A continuation of that rate, if accurate, would have plunged the entire world into infection within 90 days. Levitt, however, after continuing to process the numbers, recognized that would not be the case.
On February 7 “the number of new infections started to drop linearly and did not stop,” Levitt said. “A week later, the same happened with the number of the deaths. This dramatic change in the curve marked the median point and enabled better prediction of when the pandemic will end. Based on that, I concluded that the situation in all of China will improve within two weeks. And, indeed, now there are very few new infection cases.”
By plotting the data forward, Levitt has predicted that the virus will likely disappear from China by the end of March.
Levitt explains that the early models assumed a steady rate of infection. “In exponential growth models, you assume that new people can be infected every day, because you keep meeting new people,” Levitt said. “But, if you consider your own social circle, you basically meet the same people every day. You can meet new people on public transportation, for example; but even on the bus, after some time most passengers will either be infected or immune.”
Levitt also concludes that most people are naturally immune to COVID-19:
In Wuhan, where the virus first emerged, the whole population theoretically was at risk of becoming infected, but only 3% were.
The cruise ship scares helped us understand the reality of the numbers even more. The close confines of the ships offered optimal conditions for the virus to be passed among those aboard. The population density aboard, with central air conditioning and heating system, and communal dining rooms, should have led to the entire ship population becoming infected.
“Those are extremely comfortable conditions for the virus and still, only 20% were infected. It is a lot, but pretty similar to the infection rate of the common flu,” Levitt said. Based on those figures, his conclusion was that most people are simply naturally immune.