I am not afraid of the charge of hyperbole that might be leveled against my next sentence. There is nary a proposition in Ms. Stewart's essay that is true.
Let us for a moment skip the criminal characters Ms. Stewart lists in her indictment. Instead, let us read her most important sentences, such as they are. Please observe what they suggest (sentences not shown in original sequence):
When a strong centralized response is needed from the federal government, it doesn’t help to have an administration that has never believed in a federal government serving the public good.
When you’re engaged in a struggle between the “party of life” and the “party of death,” as some religious nationalists now frame our political divisions, you don’t need to worry about crafting careful policy based on expert opinion and analysis.
One of the first casualties of fact-free hyper-partisanship is competence in government.
It is fair to point out that the failings of the Trump administration in the current pandemic are at least as attributable to its economic ideology as they are to its religious inclinations.
When the so-called private sector is supposed to have the answer to every problem, it’s hard to deal effectively with the very public problem of a pandemic and its economic consequences. [Bold added for emphasis]
Note what appears above in bold letters and consider what this tells us about Ms. Stewart. She is a collectivist. A totalitarian. A socialist, perhaps even a communist. Her argument with the Trump Administration is not really about science or the denial thereof, nor is it about the Religious Right. It's about political convictions held by millions of Americans that do not conform to a collectivist, totalitarian, socialist "strong centralized response," one born of "expert opinion and analysis" by an empowered "public" sector of a particular "economic ideology." Her big concern is not about the denial of medical science vis-a-vis Covid-19 interventions. Her concern is the denial of theories regarding man-made causes of, and cures for, climate change, as such denial thwarts the collectivist, totalitarian "strong centralized response" leftists like Ms. Stewart adore.
Ms. Stewart's ideals sound eerily reminiscent of what Times columnist Thomas Friedman said during the Obama presidency when he dreamily considered what it would be like if the American democracy embodied in that presidency could just be "China for a day," all so Obama Democrats could impose major social and economic reforms on America.
Ms. Stewart's obvious contempt for the private sector is particularly risible (though her whole piece is risible), since the private sector has clearly shown itself ably capable of answering the Covid-19 problem, with capitalism proving remarkably effective (much to her consternation, no doubt) in creating and delivering essential goods.
As for Ms. Stewart's charge that the Religious Right is "anti-science" and thus culpable in the spread of the coronavirus, one look at her list of criminals shows Ms. Stewart is rather lazy.
- Ms. Stewart derides and dismisses HHS Secretary Alex Azar as anti-science, which is odd, considering Secretary Azar, an Eastern Orthodox Christian, graduated from Dartmouth and Yale, neither one of which is a bastion of "science denialism." It's also odd because the secretary's father was an ophthalmologist, i.e., a man trained in science.
- She denigrates Dr. Steven Hotze as a mere "anti-LGBT" activist despite the fact he earned an M.D. from the University of Texas Medical School, which means, presumably, that he was trained in the scientific method and must continue in that method in order to maintain his medical license. Dr. Hotze, a vitamin enthusiast, may indeed be wrong about the health benefits of vitamins, but I suspect he is not promoting vitamins absent of science.
- Ms. Stewart mocks Liberty University President Jerry Falwell Jr. because he dared to consider the possibility that the media's Covid-19 reaction, which he described as "hype," might be an effort to further impugn President Trump. However, while tossing Falwell in with all of the allegedly dangerous science-denying members of the Religious Right, she ignores the fact that Falwell's school, along with nearly every other Christian college and university, maintain degree programs in the sciences, even the medical sciences (including fully accredited advanced degree programs).
- Ms. Stewart also chides HUD Secretary Ben Carson, a Seventh-Day Adventist who happens to be a world-renowned neurosurgeon, for his allegedly shameful act of following the science as it was developing: he dared suggest that healthy people need not likely worry about Covid-19 infection. But such a suggestion was perfectly apt considering the science at the time. You know the science I am talking about: masks are not effective, until they are; young adults are unlikely to get infected, until they do; and the like. One might call Ms. Stewart's criticism the 20-20 fallacy, which is another form of the fallacy of anachronism: she's arguing about past ideas based on what is known at present. In fact, this has been an operative fallacy of nearly the entire White House press corps since this health emergency began.
Admittedly some of the Covid-19 comments Ms. Steward cites made by certain religious leaders in America are troubling, but they are hardly emblematic of the beliefs of either the Religious Right or the Trump Administration.
Had I been Ms. Stewart's editor, I may have asked her, if only to provoke her to think more carefully, which folks she'd blame for the Italian government's Covid-19 response, Catholics? Would she dare blame Shia Muslims for the Iranian response to the virus? Does she blame faithful and devout Communists – communism is a religion – for the Wuhan outbreak, or would she feel more inclined to blame Confucians, or would that add to her confusion? Taoists, perhaps? Might she want to take a shot at India, where she could blame Hindus, Muslims, Christians, and Buddhists, if only to add balance to her piece?
I would also ask her about the remarks made by the health commissioner of New York City, Dr. Oxiris Barbot, who, as the virus pressed upon the city, told New Yorkers to continue to live their normal lives and to "take the subway, go out, enjoy life," and that "casual contact" was an unlikely means of transmission. She also said protective N-95 masks were not really effective. Most damning, though, was this tweet from Dr. Oxiris as she echoed NY Mayor Bill DeBlasio's message to New Yorkers (note the date):
Is Dr. Oxiris a member of the Religious Right, Ms. Stewart? Is she a science denier?Today our city is celebrating the #LunarNewYear parade in Chinatown, a beautiful cultural tradition with a rich history in our city. I want to remind everyone to enjoy the parade and not change any plans due to misinformation spreading about #coronavirus. https://t.co/bwCnIb7j8H— Commissioner Oxiris Barbot (@NYCHealthCommr) February 9, 2020
Not that I would've had an opportunity to ask Ms. Stewart such questions. I would never edit her. I would only edit good writers.
Two questions remain, I suppose.
First, how is it The New York Times maintains an aura of excellence when it is so drearily mediocre?
Second, how is it that a Times guest columnist like Ms. Stewart, clearly an author and anti-Religious Right activist, has nearly no online footprint? Look for yourself: Ms. Stewart is unknowable, without background or biography. Apparently she doesn't even have an alma mater.
Which may explain why she's so adept at penning mere sophistries.
________________
©Bill Gnade/2020
1 comment:
One does gets a glimpse of what her Utopia might look like from reading those words. Hopefully, people take the NY Times just for the sales ads and the puzzles.
Post a Comment