Coronavirus and the Generational Blame Game

Out of coercion, fear, genuine concern—or more likely a combination of the three—many Americans have hunkered down to combat the coronavirus outbreak. We talk endlessly about social distancing, but resonating within those conversations is the oft-unspoken social contract. Generally, the social contract stipulates we should cooperate with one another, sometimes sacrificing personal freedoms or benefits for the well-being and safety of the collective.

Or so the theory goes at least.

I say this because there's concern that many Americans aren't taking the threat seriously. A recent NPR/PBS/Marist poll found that only 56% of us view the coronavirus as a "real threat," which astonishingly represents a 10-point drop from where that number was a month ago.

Meanwhile, there's a palpable sense of frustration among government officials and media reporters regarding this cavalier attitude. Last night on CNN, Jake Tapper appeared visibly outraged, and understandably so. This monologue in particular caught my ear:

And look, I mean, my dad is turning 80 this month, you know. People out there who are millennials or younger and thinking, "Well, if you're 80 years old, you know—it only affects people who are in there 70s and 80s." Which isn't true, although obviously the people in their 60s, 70s, and 80s are most vulnerable to it. But what are you saying? That my 80-year-old dad, therefore, is fair game? I mean, the selfishness of people who are not taking this seriously is just maddening. And I get some people just don't understand it, but what bothers me is the people who just think, "Well I'm young. I'm not gonna die from it." First of all, not necessarily true. Second of all, you could get really, really sick, and you could be injured for the rest of your life with, like, scarred lungs. And third of all, who the hell are you to be walking around, just giving this to old people, and you're just flippantly dismissing it?

On the whole, I agree. But I do object to the notion that he and others I've seen across various media outlets laying this albatross across the necks of younger generations as if this isn't a widespread problem.

That NPR/PBS/Marist poll illustrates this point plainly when you dive into the question-by-question data. The key question NPR highlights in its article is this: "Do you think the coronavirus is a real threat or blown out of proportion?" Again, 56% list say yes, it is a real threat, while 38% feel it's blown out of proportion. Moreover, the generational breakdown follows the blame-the-young narrative: 57% of baby boomers view coronavirus as a real threat, while only 51% of millennials/Gen Z do.

Similarly, the poll asks how concerned people are about the spread of the virus in their communities. Overall, 70% express concern. Among boomers that number is 74%, but among millennials/Gen Z it's only 63%, which is one hell of a drop off.

What's interesting to me, however, are the questions that ask about mitigation behaviors. So for instance, "Have you, yourself, or someone in your household experienced any of the following because of the coronavirus:"

	All adults	Baby Boomers	Millennials/ Gen Z
Decided to eat at home more often?	46%	44%	49%
Stocked up on food or supplies?	42%	38%	47%
Changed travel plans?	30%	29%	35%
Cancelled plans to avoid crowds?	48%	48%	54%
Changed your work routine?*	33%	25%	40%

*This question excluded retirees. It also separated age groups as under or over 45.


At first I thought these difference might be explained by other factors. For instance, millennials do dine out more frequently than boomers, but boomers on average visit restaurants at least weekly—and they almost always dine in. Perhaps boomers travel less frequently? Not really. According to AARP, boomers average 4-5 trips annually while millennials are on par with about 5 trips a year.

My takeaway is that in comparison to millennials/Gen Z, baby boomers tend to view coronavirus as a greater threat, but despite their increased level of concern, they appear less willing than younger generations to make changes in their routines that would mitigate its spread. While it's certainly true that many young people are ignoring the warning signs, the ones paying attention are taking action. I'm not sure we can say the same for boomers.

When is a Wall not a Wall?

Never has something so concrete as a wall been so abstract. The Wall isn't about a wall. It's a racist dog whistle cranked to 11, intended to stoke fear where there should be calm, inject simplicity where there should be nuance, and elevate political expediency over policy expertise, all to fulfill a campaign promise (except for the Mexico paying part) that should never have been made.

Clearly, I'm not a fan of the Wall, but my view has more to do with the action and rhetoric surrounding its construction than the feasibility of the project itself. To be sure, it's a bad idea, for a number of reasons you've likely heard already:

1.) It won't meaningfully address illegal immigration. The number of illegal border crossings at the Southern border has steadily declined over the past 20 years. Moreover, the majority of new illegal residents (~65%) are from visa overstays, meaning they legally entered the U.S. and just didn't leave.

2.) It won't diminish crime. Immigrants, both legal and illegal, are less apt to commit crimes than native born citizens. This fact is so widely established that the conservative CATO Institute agrees: "All immigrants are less likely to be incarcerated than natives relative to their share of the population." It's also worth noting that overall U.S. crime rates more have markedly decreased over the past 25 years, so we're safer now than we have been in decades.

3.) It won't solve any drug problem. The vast majority (80% or more) of illegal drugs entering he U.S. are smuggled through legal ports of entry, not hauled across the desert by kids "who weigh 130 pounds [with] calves the size of cantaloupes" as Rep. Steve King would have you believe.

4.) It won't combat terrorism. Terrorists do not illegally enter the U.S. Again, according to the CATO Institute, since 1975, there have been zero deaths or injuries from terrorist attacks at the hands of illegal entrants. In that 40+ year span, only seven illegal immigrants were arrested and convicted of plotting terrorist actions, and all seven entered either by sea or across the Canadian border.

5.) It won't be cheap. Mexico clearly isn't paying, and $5.7 billion won't cover it. In truth, it's hard to estimate the cost of the Wall because the size/length/material that Trump pitches changes so often. The Department of Homeland Security estimates a three-year construction project totaling $21.6 billion. The cost of maintaining and patrolling such a large structure would add to the price tag.

6.) It won't be easy. The federal government doesn't own much of the land across the border. Trump would need to invoke eminent domain to attain the land, which of course taxpayers would have to pay for. Additionally, those who own that land aren't keen on giving it up, so we could expect several lengthy and costly court battles.

7.) It won't effect our sovereignty. While there are numerous examples of nation-states constructing border walls throughout history (North/South Korea, East/West Germany, China, Jericho, etc.), they clearly aren't required to establish sovereignty. Were that the case, we'd need the Wall 2.0 on the Northern border as well. Moreover, because a nation wishing to erect a wall must do so on its own land, we'd effectively be ceding land to Mexico by building the Wall.
 
8.) It won't be environmentally sound. This one's rarely reported, but a wall creates several ecological problems, from increased green house gas emissions to blocked migratory pathways for wildlife.

9.) It won't be popular. Recent polling from Pew shows more Americans oppose building the Wall (58%) than support it (40%). Moreover, the representatives from all nine Congressional districts along the Southern border oppose the Wall as well.

So the Wall is a stupid idea. And that's not a simply a liberals-hate-Trump position. Most of the supporting data I presented comes from government agencies who deal directly with border crossings and track the criminal activities (or lack there of) of these individuals once they arrive. Even conservative think tanks have essentially called the president a liar, consistently refuting his false pretenses for building the Wall.

Because most Americans aren't buying this particular con job, several in the administration have turned to a form of whataboutism, citing Democratic support for the Secure Fence Act of 2006, conveniently ignoring that it was seen by many Democrats as an acceptable compromise against other proposals that would have, among other things, made illegal immigration a felony offense rather than a misdemeanor.

Such comparisons also propagate the political lunacy of demanding that no one ever change his or her mind about anything, ever, no matter what. When I was 7, I believed in Santa Claus. I didn't double down on that belief at 20, waiting for a fat, bearded stranger to slide down the chimney on Dec. 24. I acquired new information and altered my view accordingly. For some reason, that's unforgivable in politics.

And sure, many would say the Democrats position change isn't one of heart but of political calculation. There's certainly some pandering going on regarding the Hispanic vote, but at least that position is factually defensible. Is the Republican position somehow more noble because its consistent with the party's recent past, even though its based on falsehoods?

So President Trump, and the Republican Party by extension, continues to make inaccurate claims, which often demonize an entire swath of people, all to spend money on an infrastructure project that won't solve any of our nation's problems, in part because many of those problems don't exist.

And for the serious questions that remain about immigration—its value to our nation, our capacity to absorb incoming residents, who those individuals should be, how we can treat them humanely, and whether we should offer a path to citizenship—have been completely eclipsed. Now the whole "debate" boils down to Wall vs. Open Borders, a position most people don't want vs. one that no one is advocating.

To compound the issue, Trump chose to paperclip funding the federal government to his demands for the Wall. Shutdowns are never good, in part because they're costly, both to the taxpayer and the federal worker, though the political damage Trump and his party faced was likely the deciding factor on today's ceasefire. 

The bigger picture problem with shutdowns, however, is that it ups the political and fiscal ante by putting unrelated items on the table. Whatever our disagreements, we should at least be able to keep the lights on, if for no other reason than its hard to continue good faith negotiations in the dark.

For now, the question looms as to what Trump will do next. When Trump refused to avoid the shutdown in the first place, snubbing the then Republican controlled legislature, he essentially made his position Wall or bust. The Democrats, riding the wave of their midterm victory, aren't going to hand Trump a political win without getting something significant in return, especially considering how unpopular Trump and his Wall currently are. Stephen Colbert arguably said it best: "Clearly, Trump has painted himself into a corner, which isn't easy when your office is oval."

So it looks like Trump's only exit is to break a serious norm and declare a national emergency, where one obviously doesn't exist, so he can build the Wall and save face. Such a move would almost certainly be challenged in court, and to make the situation even stranger, the best outcome for everyone would be for the courts to rule against the Wall, that way the Democrats can claim a victory and Trump can cry foul and continue calling for a wall he doesn't really give a damn about to appease a political base he's equally vested in.