@LesothoPoet asked in a Tweet today, "Why is it always Democrats who want to begin to heal? Why do Republicans never want to begin to heal ... how long is healing going to be one-sided?"
I've given this a lot of thought. I think that it comes down to psychology, the need to appear tough in order to feel tough when really feeling scared and, most importantly, out of control in some important aspect of one's life. I think there are Rs who want to see healing, but I think they'd rather call it kicking ass because healing is somewhat passive whereas fighting implies control. The language creates an illusion that helps people deal with situations over which they have little to no command.
With the coronavirus, some people have some control, some people are in charge of how much they expose themselves and others, but that control comes at a dear cost and is imperfect because the outcome is not guaranteed.
Of course, our miserable handling of the COVID-19 crisis is all Trump's fault. He could have sent a signal to supporters that masks are tough, like knight's armor, for instance, but he did the opposite and worse, so here we are. Tough v. compassionate, compassion as weakness. This framing comes naturally to Rs but is not inevitable.
The pandemic, like previous national emergencies, was an opportunity for Americans to unite against a common foe, in this case, a virus. Trump squandered that opportunity. He is far worse than others before him, but he is not alone. After 9/11, the immediate language from the White House was unifying and intentions were good, but the Republican response did share something in common with what has happened with COVID. Rs did not ask anything of Americans. Instead, Congress sent out checks. It was not an economic rescue, it was a gift when what Americans needed at that moment was to serve. For those old enough, do you remember the flood of people waiting in lines to give blood, much more than could be accommodated? And the thousands of men and women who signed up to serve our country in the military? We needed to give, not to take.
During the Great Depression, our president called on every American to stay strong and pitch in when they could. In WWII, our president called on young men everywhere to sign up to fight a war on foreign shores. Conscription was not necessary as 18-, 19-, 20-year old boys volunteered for duty. And that is how they and most Americans saw it, a duty.
In January (or at least in March) of 2020, we needed our leaders to ask something of us. Imagine if our president had launched an effort for a national service program, enlisting young Americans to give a year or two of their lives to public service and all other Americans to give what they could. President Franklin Roosevelt created the Civilian Conservation Corp, and the 1944 GI Bill linked education to service. President Kennedy created the Peace Corps with the hope that it would lead to the creation of national service in the US. But it wasn't until 20 years after Gov. Jerry Brown created the California Conservation Corps and, President Nixon, to his credit, signed into law the short-lived Youth Conservation Corps (it lost its funding under President Reagan) that AmeriCorps was created by President Clinton. AmeriCorps was a step in the right direction, but as with JFK's Peace Corps, the goal was for it to grow into a mature program, a true national service program. President George W. Bush had that opportunity but let it pass. President Trump had that opportunity, and he also let it pass and did far worse. Had Republicans been called on by Reputlicans to fight, they would be praising their leaders for their strength as Democrats praised it for its compassion. He could have united us, strengthened our United States of America, and left a legacy of national service.
Photo by Caleb Wright on Unsplash.