If it had been up to me, I would not have allowed Mike Pence to visit the Mayo Clinic unless he wore a mask. America was born by rejecting the British monarchy but it does not mean that we don’t have our own version of aristocracy. Americans are extremely deferential to those in power, whether in elected office or in business. In a truly egalitarian republic as America claims to be, the vice president would have complied with the mask policy on his own or senior management at Mayo would have enforced its strict rules.
Pence’s decision not to wear a mask has been roundly criticized, as it should be. The vice president’s stated reason for not wearing it because he wanted to see workers ‘in the eye’ is insincere and beyond laughable. At the same time, his critics are making a mistake by attributing Pence’s decision to arrogance or vanity.
Pence thumbed his nose at Mayo Clinic policy requiring everyone to mask. They should have denied him entrance, and not kowtowed to his arrogance.pic.twitter.com/txnvjNJSOd
— Tulsi Gabbard 🌺 (@TulsiGabbard) April 28, 2020
Refusing to wear masks on the part of Republican elected officials is not about being tough or vain. Instead, it is part of a broader strategy to convince the public that COVID-19 is not a threat.
If it had been up to the ruling elites, there would not have been any lockdowns. Their hand was forced by a series of events beyond their control. The president is a perfect example of what I am referring to. He would have preferred continuing his rallies and bragging about the Dow Jones and record low black unemployment. As long as the COVID-19 seemed limited to Asia, everything was going to plan. However, once the virus started spreading like wildfire in Europe and Italy went into lockdown, the White House had no choice but to change course.
In March, Donald Trump shifted from dismissing the threat to declaring himself a wartime president fighting an “invisible enemy”. As measures were being introduced on a daily basis to slow the spread of COVID-19, hardly a peep of opposition from Wall Street or the business community. Quite the opposite, Jim Cramer and Bill Ackman were on CNBC calling for aggressive government action. Tucker Carlson was winning praise for traveling to Mar-A-Lago to “speak frankly about the dangers of the coronavirus epidemic, the gravity of which had not yet fully registered with Trump or his White House.”
It wasn’t until after the donor class was able to secure trillions in bailouts that concerns about the infringement on constitutional rights began to emerge – no doubt an innocent coincidence. As the national conversation began shifting towards bringing manufacturing back to America and an immigration moratorium, the cry for “liberty” grew louder. Coincidentally, ending outsourcing and the importation of cheap labor would adversely affect the profit margins of the donor class. Adding to the oligarch’s angst was a growing bipartisan consensus for implementing U.B.I. for the duration of the crisis – something had to be done and quickly!
Enter Tea Party 2.0. “Patriots” funded by Republican donors took to the streets demanding an end to lockdown measures – just as Trump seemed to return to the populist themes that won him the presidency. Peter Navarro was taking center stage arguing the case against being dependent on foreign supply chains. As millions of Americans joined the ranks of the unemployed, an immigration moratorium gained support. Once the protesters took to the street, has anyone seen Peter Navarro lately? The demands for an immigration moratorium were effectively neutralized by an executive order so riddled with exceptions rendering it little more than a PR stunt.
The anti-lockdown protests have succeeded in shifting the discussion in right wing media but have failed to resonate with the majority of the public. As I have written previously, consumers were reducing their economic activity before any stay-in-place orders were issued anywhere in America. Consumers will only return if they feel it is safe to do so. Thus, a slew of articles in recent weeks minimizing the threat of the virus or making the case that staying at home is more dangerous than going to a crowded bar. Mike Pence not wearing a mask is part of the same effort.
Employers and employees are also reticent to return to normal. The latter fear for their health while the former fear lawsuits. To address the problem Mitch McConnell is working on legislation to shield business owners from lawsuits. Employee on the other hand, will be forced to go back to work but cutting off their unemployment benefits. The lives and health of the plebs don’t matter. Only the wishes corporate donors matter. Pence not wearing a mask is not about vanity, it’s about greed.
