Review of Tribalism

ELECTRUM MAGAZINE

Why The Ancient World Matters Today

Top of Form

REVIEWS

Michael Anderson’s 2nd Excellent Book: Tribalism will Divide and Conquer Us

June 29, 2020 8:50 PMViews: 7

Lionel Royer, Vercingetorix Throws Down His Arms at the feet of Julius Caesar, 1899

P. F. Sommerfeldt –

Julius Caesar knew that to destroy the fractured Gauls, his overarching task was to accentuate their tribalism, not their national unity, in order to divide and conquer. History repeats this time and again as Michael Anderson cogently writes on tribalism, the bane of 21st century America. Anderson has done it again with a great sequel book to his Progressive Gene, which identifies deep emotional and even genetic tendencies and responses in behavioral psychology that drives and divides humans into compassionate (progressive) or loyal (conservative) camps, albeit along a broad spectrum. Tribalism is a long-held tenacity to cling to limited regional “us versus them” clannishness or limited nationalism over, for example, multiculturalism, global identity and seeing humanity at large. Racism, for example, is a political construct of the most superficial xenophobic tribalism.

Anderson’s new book is Tribalism: The Curse of 21st Century America and it couldn’t be timelier as 2020 rages on. “Left versus Right” has become increasingly polarized, especially when the current Trump divisiveness becomes ever more entrenched against “libtard” Democrats like myself, such that honest Conservatives despair along with honest liberals – each side with patriots who know national unity is becoming ever more elusive across the abyss. Who could have imagined that Republicans and Democrats could represent such horrible polarized “enemies” as Americans have somehow seemed to become? Weren’t we told only a generation ago that Soviet Communism was the enemy, not our own country’s political parties? Is the dichotomy between Republicans and Democrats as “enemies” true or merely propaganda? I believe the latter. Of course, the fault is on both sides, as Anderson documents.

Nativism and anti-immigration prejudices – nationalist xenophobias – are other aspects of the worst kind of tribalism that can be exploited by internal and external forces. Media preferences can all too easily reinforce tribalism, where charges of “fake news” add fuel to the already irrational flames. Too few know that the meme of “fake news” (part of dezinformatsiya) was a favorite device of Stalin’s NKVD (becoming the KGB) to discredit and destroy opposition and neutralize international media by sowing distrust, undermining what would be perceived as “true’ in postmodernist relativist understanding; in this country “fake news” didn’t really enter the common vocabulary until the political campaign of 2015. The more lies anyone can tell and get away with, the more bewildering the search for knowable truth becomes in the insidious aim to deceive public opinion. To international intelligence analysts, it is clear that certainly within the last decade or so Putin’s authoritarian apparatus exploits the possibilities for disinformation to the max, using the wiliest propaganda experts in pursuing much of this deliberate policy, knowing how to use tribalism in the worst possible ways to divide and destroy other sovereign nations. We should examine exactly how the media has become in Trump’s words, “the enemy of the people” because this rhetoric sounds exactly like what you would have heard and still hear coming out of Russia state-owned organs.

On the simplest level, most people who follow sports have favorite teams – usually their local ones – and this is a deeply-ingrained tribalism where individuals vicariously identify with a sports team that likely doesn’t even know that individual’s existence. I knew rabid fans who became so angry “their” team lost that they literally threw out the television from an upper apartment window in blind rage. Absurd, for sure, but an example of simple tribalism run awry.

Some of my favorite text sections in the book have to do with extended analyses of how we got to this current impasse through Enlightenment rationalism, to post-Enlightenment, Collectivism, Socialism and Liberalism to Postmodernism. Anderson also says (p. 206) about Trump: “He’s not even a Conservative. He’s a Populist and Populists are politicians who don’t embrace a particular ideology but build a platform around what they think the people want.” Great graphs like on p. 207 show how educated people have gradually moved toward the Left – partly because of academic bias – and many credible political surveys right now confirm educated people moving toward Independent and Democrat affiliations and away from the Republican party as it has polarized so far away from the center and embraced authoritarianism in executive branch power. Elsewhere Anderson’s keen observations and possible solutions include building bridges between divided ways of thought that are exacerbated by inculcated academic and media philosophies to break down animosities to find common ground (p. 282): “If Americans could see their government functioning the way they believe it should, working for the benefit of all of us, the tension level would abate within the tribes. Unfortunately, this will not happen before the end of the Trump presidency. Successful or not, Trump is too divisive to get the Left talking to the Right.” Anderson doesn’t say it, but in my opinion, Trump is the ultimate Tribalist.

This book offers insightful commentary and documentation, and is very clearly written with historic depth. Anderson shows that he can reach me, a Jewish liberal, right between the eyes and in the heart, not with deadly aim so to speak, but with genuine passion and warnings for the immediate future. Anderson may be a prophet in this regard. His glossary at the end is superb, and while he doesn’t mince words, it’s almost impossible to see him taking sides in partisanship. I simply cannot recommend this book enough for readers of modern political thought. Anderson’s warnings are on the mark. The alternatives are frightening, and civil war and dissolution of the U.S. could too easily ensue if we don’t quickly fix the problems of tribalism. When I last stood in the old Athenian Agora in 2016 and saw the ruins of the Bouleuterion, the Greek political voting chambers where democracy began, tears came to my eyes as I pondered how fragile democracy remains. This was even before Trump…

Anarchy in America

The protests over the death of George Floyd are continuing for a third week and by now most of the looters and rioters have moved on to their next shiny object. Only protesters and anarchists remain. The protesters are doing what Americans know how to do; express frustration with government by peacefully demonstrating. They want police violence against black people brought under control. The anarchists are also acting out their role, tearing down statues of famous people.

It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to recognize the irrational nature of anarchist behavior. It started with the removal of Confederate statues, as a statement against the continuing repression of black people. It then moved on to statues of individuals who were not members of the Confederacy. Any one who had a link to slavery was now included; even George Washington and Thomas Jefferson were pulled down. Actually, the anarchist’s efforts are only partially irrational because there is also a strategy at work; the purposeful intent to destroy our political system.

Anarchism is a branch of the collectivist model of government, which was introduced by Rousseau in the late 1700s. Collectivists believe that political systems should be built around society as a whole and not individuals, which makes them strongly opposed to democracy. Anarchists believe that human society can exist without government. In their model, everyone would participate on a voluntary basis, without rules. Since this model can’t work in practice, anarchists spend their time engaged in revolutionary activities that accomplish nothing.

There are two problems with the anarchist activities happening now. First, they go beyond the intentions of the protestors, who want the government to address a serious issue and are expressing their feelings about that issue. The work of the anarchists is peripheral to those protests, being no more than the expression of mob behavior designed to remove symbols of democracy.

To improve the lives of black people, the country has to come together and take action as a whole. It takes, intellectuals, politicians, and citizens to unite for the common cause of equal and fair treatment by police. This issue extends to white people as well, demonstrating that the problems with police go beyond race. So far, in 2020, there have been 88 black men killed by police and 172 white men killed by police.

People must pressure the government to enact laws that will address the problem because a solution can’t be achieved through anarchy.

The second problem with anarchist efforts is the refocus of media attention onto themselves and the government’s response to them, away from the problems that caused the protests in the first place. Conservatives and others who believe in the rule of law, build their own anger narrative against the anarchy, wasting energy that should have been directed at fixing the original problem.

Do we really want to end this period of legitimate protest with torn down statues and nothing else to show for it?

There is also another issue: the lessons of history. A solid argument can be made for the value of understanding history, both bad and good. Immoral behaviors in history remind us of where we don’t want to be; they recall the behaviors we rejected in the past to make the world a better place. The list is long: slavery, exploitation of women and children, discrimination based on sexual preference, and more. Recognizing that those conditions existed, and were corrected, is the accomplishment, not the immoral behaviors themselves. Discard history and we discard knowledge of our sins.

The “cancel culture” thought process uses false logic; believing that behaviors that are now abhorrent must be used as clubs against those who participated in those behaviors in the past. George Washington had slaves so let’s cancel George Washington. This logic can be negated by examining its end point, which is an absurdity. As an example, we go back 150,000 years to the early human tribes in Africa. There are two tribes living in close proximity. One tribe kills the other in order to steal their food. By the cancel culture logic, we must cancel the killer tribe because they didn’t adhere to the current morality of the United States. Every society between then and now must be cancelled because, at some point, every society has exhibited immoral behaviors as judged by 21^st Century morality.

Morality and laws change as society decides they must, in order to respect the lives of human beings. Without the knowledge of what was bad, we can’t turn that knowledge into something good.

Bias Reporting on COVID and the Vaccine Paradox

One of many discussion topics about COVID is the apparent rise in new cases across several states. The data is accurate, but the reporting is biased. Another case of fake news.

Since the media represents the liberal establishment, they would like to make the situation look worse than it is, so they can criticize early red state openings. If they can make that narrative stick, it could hurt the Republicans in the fall elections.

Here are the current charts for Florida and Georgia. Florida cases are rising; Georgia cases are level to decreasing slowly. Deaths are dramatically lower in both states.

The obvious bias lies in what is not reported rather than what is reported. From the very beginning, the CDC has warned us that as testing becomes universally available, the number of cases will go up. That fact is obvious because if you test more people, you’ll find more cases of the disease. Asymptomatic cases won’t be identified unless widescale testing is done.

The second bias is not describing the new case characteristics. What is the age of these new patients? Old or young? Who cares if the new cases are asymptomatic people? Yes, those people now have to be careful they don’t infect others, but they certainly don’t represent a scary new trend. Our medical profession has done a good job of identifying the high-risk population. As long as those people are protected, the disease will come under our control.

As the data stands right now, if you are under 65, the risk of dying from COVID is about equal to that of being killed in a car accident on the way to work. Not a big deal.

______________

The COVID vaccine discussion is also interesting. As we all know, there has been a universal desire across our country to get a vaccine for COVID as quickly as possible. Some governors have made public statements that their states will not be open until the vaccine is readily available.

Lo and behold a new poll comes out, which shows that Americans are indifferent to receiving a new vaccine. Only 49% said they planned to get the shot. A large majority of older people plan to get the vaccine; younger people less so. Looking inside the numbers shows that 62% of Democrats will get the shot, but only 43% of Republicans will. A profile of those interested in a vaccination is a pretty close match to the same polls about the Flu. In others words, people have decided COVID is no worse than the Flu.

This public indifference throws a wrench into the control narrative of the Left about how the disease needs to play out. Ultimately, we have to have herd spread to control the disease, so getting there faster may not be a bad thing.

Twin Cities – Twin Problems

Problem 1

The death of George Floyd on May 25^th brought to the surface, once again, the problem of police brutality in America. It was a case of murder on TV -- so egregious no one could ignore it.

The reaction in Minneapolis and across the nation was swift and widespread. Protests were organized in all the major cities and launched the same day. “Why does this keep happening, asked the American people? Why can’t it be stopped?”

It’s obvious at this point that police training has failed and penalties for misconduct are inconsequential. It’s time to fix these problems because there is no excuse for not doing so. Criminal behavior appears to infect only a small minority of the police force, perhaps 5-10%, so the problem is easier to fix than if it were more widespread.

There are three parts to the fix: better psychological evaluation of recruits, better training, and more severe penalties for misbehavior. Police recruits already take a psychological profile test. It would be interesting to know how the test results are evaluated, but no one has access to that information. It would also be interesting to know how officers accused of misbehavior performed on the test. Were the indications of a future problem? That would help determine whether the tests have any value. Second, police training should include a strongly presented demonstration of prohibited behavior, such as choking and overuse of force on a victim. Recruits should sign a document that they will not engage in prohibited tactics. Penalties of misbehavior should include suspension and expulsion based on repeated offences.

The House of Representatives will be introducing a bill this week to address some of these issues. One part of the bill changes the standard for misbehavior from “willfully” violating a person’s rights to “knowingly or with reckless disregard” violating a person’s rights. The current provision places the burden of proof on the prosecution to show intent, which is a tough standard.

There is also talk of defunding police forces in different cities including Minneapolis. As crazy as this seems, I support the concept being on the table as a tool to force action. It is my firm belief that all human institutions become corrupt over time and cannot be reformed without radical change. Other examples of this corruption include universities and public-school systems. Usually, there are powerful lobbies that prevent reform. Those lobbies have to be overcome through public pressure.

Problem 2

The riots. An unfortunate result of the Floyd protests was the subsequent riots and looting that devastated parts of Minneapolis, including Black businesses. The perpetrators of this criminal activity robbed legitimate protestors of the spotlight, blunting the strength of their message. The rioters pursued their own ends without regard for whom they were impacting. The destruction of Black businesses pushes the affected neighborhoods deeper into a economic hole and postpones their opportunity to make progress.

Who were these perpetrators? Most likely multiple actors, including anarchists, criminals, and opportunists. The anarchists are bent on tearing down the institutions of America, hoping to cause a revolution against the American government and way of life. Anarchists have been with us, as organized groups, since at least the early 1800s. They reject all forms of hierarchy and wish the destroy the state, thinking the result will be freedom for the people. President William McKinley was assassinated by an anarchist.

The criminals were seeking profit, taking property for resale. Public anger provided the spark for them to come out of the woodwork and commit their crimes. The third group, the opportunists, are always present. They do not usually lead the way in riotous situations, but show up to join in on the spoils.

The riots and destruction hurt the protestor’s cause in a second way. They create anger among those who strongly believe in law and order, so it becomes easy to blame the protestors for the destruction even if they weren’t involved. In situations like this, the messaging coming out of law and order types should be carefully focused on the perpetrators rather than the protestors. Having said that, many municipalities have done a poor job of responding to the riots and looting. Public safety has to start with law and order or there is anarchy. Polls taken since the Floyd’s death show that a high percentage of Americas want cities to do a better job of keeping law and order.

It’s a strange twist that it’s the police department that has that job.

Deconstructing Face Mask Politics

The face mask has now become the “shiny object” of the Coronavirus pandemic – both a symbol and political statement.

Many on the Left believe all of us should wear masks all the time. This may be due to the fact that twice as many people on the Left are worried about getting the disease as those on the Right. I can’t explain that one. The Right thinks masks are appropriate, but fewer support them in polls, compared to the Left. Of course, there are many on the Right who wear masks all the time.

Before deconstructing mask usage, let’s go back and review how this issue evolved over the past few months.

Initially, the CDC stated, correctly, that wearing a mask does not protect you from catching the disease. Masks do not seal well and most don’t filter enough airborne material to offer adequate protection. Some politicians were concerned about the impact of a mask requirement on those who couldn’t tolerate wearing one, so there were mixed policies put into place Government leaders have to think about the psychological impact of having one’s breathing restricted and feeling closed in. Universal wearing of masks was not a part of the CDC recommendations.

Sometime later, mask use was refocused. Rather than worrying about protecting the person wearing the mask, it became more important to protect people coming in contact with that person. This logic was based on the fact that some people with symptoms could infect others, so mask use should be mandatory. Other people could be asymptomatic and infect others without knowing it, if they didn’t wear a mask. Makes sense.

Quickly, the mask debate got more heated and is now completely political. The Left criticizes those photographed without masks. Perhaps the assumption is these maskless villains are Republicans. But notice the CNN reporters at the White House who only wear masks when the camera is on. Or the CNN reporter commenting on lack of masks on the beaches Memorial Day. He had a mask. His cameraman didn’t. Trump is photographed golfing without a mask. How terrible of him, even though he’s outside and away from other people. Golf courses are open around the country and none require golfers to wear masks.

The public is riled up too. A grocery shopper in New Jersey was verbally attacked and driven out of a store recently because she wasn't wearing a mask. Whether you're social distancing or not, you better not leave that mask home. In this case, the customer was actually violating the governor’s order to have her face covered.

There are fifteen states that require masks while shopping, most of them in the Northeast. New York is a hair more lenient saying “wear a mask if social distancing is not possible.”

Let’s take the mask debate to its logical conclusion. If a person has COVID and knows it, or has symptoms, they should stay home. If they have to go out, they should wear a mask to protect others. Asymptomatic carriers are different story. Since we can’t know who is asymptomatic unless we test everyone for COVID or antibodies, how do we identify these people?

We might never reach a point where everyone is tested, which means all of us will have to keep wearing masks forever or stay home. Huh?

We should be using practical, rather than Draconian, rules. If you have COVID or have symptoms, you should wear a mask. Masks for the rest of us should be optional, unless social distancing is not possible.

The management of the pandemic depends on the commitment of the America people, so reality has to be applied to balance risk and behavior. Seventy three percent of COVID deaths in New York City involved people over the age of 65. Of the total deaths across all age groups in that same study, only .7% had no underlying conditions. If you’re older or have underlying conditions be careful and limit interactions with the public. Always wear a mask. Younger people with no underlying conditions have little to worry about.

Everyone should use social distancing as the primary method of keeping themselves safe. Masks are a backup.

It’s also important to follow the data. As summer heats up, the country becomes more open, and the graphs trend further downward, feel more confident about having your face uncovered.

Censorship in the Time of Pandemic

Censorship has become an important issue in America over the past two decades. It encompasses the news media, academia, and, lately, the Internet. Censorship impacts what we hear, what we read, and how well we are able to express our first amendment rights. Although it bears no relationship to the pandemic, the disease has become weaponized for political purposes and, in this election year, all things are political. One side provides information that the country should open and the other side says it shouldn’t. Even the president’s task force is not immune from bias because they are working for the benefit of the Republican Party.

For most of the history of our country, the first amendment stood as a measure of the value democracy brings to its people. Photos of flag burnings during the Viet Nam War were often cited as proof of this most fundamental freedom. The 1960s were a decade of the New Left attack on the establishment, which they said was out of touch and leading America in the wrong direction. Protestors fought for the right to speak freely and campaign against government misbehavior and censorship. A climax in this battle was reached, at the 1968 Democratic Convention in Chicago, when student protestors were attacked by the police.

The broadcast and print media have evolved in tandem with the growth of tribalism in the United States. As Left and Right split farther apart, the tone has sharpened between them. Because the Left controls most of the broadcast spectrum, we get exposed to views of the Left more than the views of the Right. Forty years ago, we received most of our news from three networks and newspapers. Most biases showed up on the editorial pages and not the headline news pages. As citizens, we couldn’t know whether the reporting was shaded, because there was no way to validate the content. Still, there were accuracy standards journalists applied to their craft.

That has all changed now, because journalists have become ideology advocates, who attack those who do not share the opinions of their employer. As a citizen, if your beliefs match the content of your favorite media outlets, you’re hearing the truth. If they come from an opposing news outlet, you hearing lies.

Academia has trended left over the past thirty years and most conservative professors have left the stage for retirement or think tanks. The political voice of our universities is solidly left, with no probability of changing. How ironic it is, given the Left’s advocacy for free speech in the 1960s, that universities now prevent conservatives from speaking. Their view is that the Right does not tell the truth because its narrative was created by white privilege or a white man’s corrupt aristocracy. Bigots once are bigots for all time. The university’s fault is not that they are actively preventing free speech; its that they are afraid to oppose their students. Of course, the faculty shares the political views of the students so they are very supportive.

Starting in the middle ages, universities advocated a fundamental right that all points of view should be heard. The basis of that intellectual freedom was “debate leads to truth.” If that debate is missing today, we end up with propaganda.

In the last ten or fifteen years, the Internet has extended its role as a major communication platform across the globe. Facebook, Twitter, and Google control a large percentage of the content we receive. These platforms began with noble intentions; the desire to create platforms mankind could use to communicate and share common interests. Unfortunately, it didn’t take long for bad actors to start using these platforms for their own nefarious purposes. Skinheads, anarchists, pedophiles, human traffickers, and other groups appeared, who would not normally have access to the personal sites of millions of people. The social media companies responded to these “attacks” by allocating resources to automated and human filtering of content to block the bad actors.

At the end of 2016, Facebook started looking into presidential campaign abuses and discovered that Russia had created false identities for the purpose of influencing the American election. They also started to look at ways to identify fake news so it could be barred from their platform. In May 2017, Facebook created new policies for dealing with sexual predators, sexist, racist, and hate speech. These changes were appropriate given the potential for abuse.

Since then, Facebook and the others have stepped over the line regarding censorship. Complaints have recently started to surface that conservatives are being blocked. Others including LGBT and African-Americans also complained, but the conservatives have been the most vocal. A widely cited example is Prager University, which is an online conservative website. YouTube took down several of their videos because they portrayed harmful or dangerous activities. These videos included “Are the police racist?”; “Why do people become Muslim Extremists?”; and “Are 1 in 5 Women Raped at College?” Prager University sued YouTube in 2017 and lost the case. The court ruled that YouTube is not a public forum, so they are not a state actor for the purposes of First Amendment rights.

This is an unfortunate outcome because it means that YouTube has the ability to censor free speech based on their own rules – and their political views. If they lean Left, there is even less balance in political expression than there was previously.

Now we move on to a more egregious example. On April 22^nd, two California ER doctors, Dr. Dan Erickson and Dr. Artin Massihi posted a YouTube video discussing results from their own analysis of COVID patients. The opinion was that stay at home orders were excessive, the disease had spread further than reported, and they recommended that the economy more open. At the beginning of the pandemic, they were on board with the CDC strategy but had changed their minds after two months of experience with patients. They were expressing their opinion, not advocating a revolt. Soon after its posting, the video was removed by YouTube.

YouTube issued the following statement, “We quickly remove flagged content that violate our Community Guidelines, including content that explicitly disputes the efficacy of local health authority recommended guidance on social distancing that may lead others to act against that guidance," said the statement. "However, content that provides sufficient educational, documentary, scientific or artistic (EDSA) context is allowed -- for example, news coverage of this interview with additional context. From the very beginning of the pandemic, we’ve had clear policies against COVID-19 misinformation and are committed to continue providing timely and helpful information at this critical time.”

How is this video dangerous when CNN can falsely report that Trump suggested people drink bleach?

YouTube is an extremely influential platform worldwide. Millennials say it is their number one source for news. To the extent that YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter censor content based on their own rules, these actions remove alternative viewpoints from public view so that only one side is heard.

Mark Zuckerberg was asked about Facebook guidelines in a recent interview. He said that Facebook was blocking all organizations trying to organize protests against stay at home orders because they oppose government rules. This is raw censorship. It assumes that the government always knows what is best for the public. Wrong. The government is supposed to be working for the public. What is the difference between censoring opposing opinions here and Nazi propaganda? Hitler won because the opposition was worn away to nonexistence.

Red State Versus Blue State Reopening

Its interesting to observe the difference in the red state and blue state opening’s, which are designed to carry the country back to full operation. I’m defining red and blue not by typical voting pattern but by the party of the state’s governor, who manages the response to the pandemic. Red state behavior shows a determined effort to move forward, while blue state efforts demonstrate a determined effort to stay closed. Why would that be? One might guess that part of the reason is due to blue states having large cities, which have concentrated populations leading to greater transmission of the disease. But that can’t tell the whole story.

Of the top ten states by population, five are red and five are blue. All have big cities.

Among the red states, twenty are open now. Five will open in mid-May, and one (Maryland) has no open date.

Among the blue states, five are open now, seven will open around mid-May, and the other twenty intend to open at the end of May or later.

Some of the behavior is logical. The Northeast is hit hard, particularly New York and New Jersey. Connecticut has a high commuter volume to New York. Massachusetts has Boston, and Rhode Island sits in the middle.

Likewise, one would expect the low-density states to be minimally affected and able to recover quite easily.

We can evaluate how well each state is doing managing the virus by dividing the population by the number of cases. That corrects for the size of the states. The ten best are Montana, Alaska, Hawaii, Oregon, West Virginia, Maine, Oklahoma, Wyoming, Texas, and Kentucky. Six of these ten are open.

The ten worst states are New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Louisiana, Delaware, Illinois, Michigan, and Maryland. None of these are open. Big cities are certainly a factor in all except Delaware, Rhode Island, and Connecticut.

Some states have a strategy that makes them an outlier. Maine has been 6^th best at managing its caseload, and it has had 56 deaths since the outbreak began. It has a stay at home order in place until May 31^st. Maine’s opening schedule follows.

As of May 1, gatherings of 10 or more people are prohibited, and all people entering or returning to Maine must quarantine for 14 days. This constitutes Stage 1.

For Stage 2, tentatively beginning June 1, only gatherings with less than 50 people are allowed, and maintains the aforementioned 14-day quarantine for those entering or returning to the state. There would also be some degree of reopening for restaurants, retail stores, lodging and campgrounds (for those who have met the 14-day requirement) and more.

In Stage 3, tentatively beginning July 1, gatherings with less than 50 people will continue to be allowed but the 14-day quarantine for visitors continues. Also, there would be some degree of reopening for lodging, hotels, summer camps and RV parks for both Maine residents and visitors.

There is also a Stage 4, although the timeline is undetermined, that would allow for businesses and activities to resume with the appropriate safety precautions and lifting the previous restrictions.

Hawaii also has a very conservative approach, even though it is 3rd best at managing cases. Below is its epidemic chart:

Hawaii reached its peak in number of new cases on March 18^th. They have had 16 deaths since the outbreak. Hawaii has a stay at home order until May 31^st. Beaches can be used and some elective surgeries can be performed. Maui is putting together a plan to reopen, because they haven’t had any cases in a couple of weeks.

Texas and California are interesting cases, with very different approaches. Texas is 9^th in population case ratio and has done a great job. It has restaurants and bars open, with reduced capacity. Malls and movie theaters are also open. California has also done a great job, but has been closed up tight with a schedule to hold off reopening until May 31^st. It appears the governor is now reacting to pressure to get the reopening started, because he announced that some businesses could open on May 8^th. These include places such as book, clothing, toy, and sporting goods stores as well as music shops and florists. Still, a very conservative opening strategy.

At the opposite end of the spectrum are states like South Dakota, which never closed. It has experienced 800 cases and 21 deaths since the pandemic began. South Dakota is using Hydroxychloroquine in a clinical trial to treat the disease.

How is Georgia doing – the first state to open?

On April 20^th, Georgia reached its peak for the number of new cases added daily. That was four days before the open. Now 11 days into the open, the new case numbers are steady at a low level.

There is no question that we've reached one of the critical milestones of the pandemic; the point were open states will prove whether the disease can remain under control. Citizens of the states holding back will be watching closely. If things go well, there will be a stampede.

Are there politics at work here? Probably. It is an election year and the Left would like to postpone a strong economic upturn until after the election. The stock market is betting on faster versus slower. The S&P 500 lost 33% of its value in March, but since then has regained 21%.