I imagined that, like one of our indoor cats, I was living in a very small world that felt very comfortable and familiar, but was contained within -- or constrained by -- a much larger world about which I knew next to nothing. This latter world, just by virtue of being unknown, was enticing -- I was curious to know more, to see it with my own eyes -- but it was also frightening. Thousands were getting sick and some significant percentage were dying. I listened to the cacophony of sirens and scrolled through the numbers on Twitter. The accompanying graphs and hockey-stick projections were alarming, a reason to double down on my (our) resolve to stay home as much as possible. But then I would read something more optimistic, something about how we might get through this crisis without too much harm (relatively speaking), and even though I recognized that the source of these hopeful projections were political leaders known for half-truths, outright lies, and corruption, the constant repetition of these statements in the news and on social media had an almost narcotic effect on me, so that I could feel myself drifting into magical thinking.
This effect was amplified by the weather. The spring light, the new flowers, the chirping birds: all of it worked to create a kind of surreal oasis in which it was impossible to imagine our society splintering apart.
I kept asking myself why people weren't angrier at our leadership. Some were angry, and had been for quite a while, and they (we) were still angry, despite being dismissed as overly idealistic and immature with sneering, patronizing contempt by those who knew how 'the real world' operated, even if they couldn't justify the reasons why it had to operate the way it did. But even after the virus began to spread into our backyards, even as millions lost their jobs and -- in some cases -- their lives, a majority of people were -- apparently -- still, somehow, not angry. To the contrary, I kept seeing polls showing a widespread approval of how things were being handled by the leadership of our country (and state and city). No surprise, given that I was on record as a Bernard Brother even before the crisis, I sided with those who couldn't fathom the concept of a 'relief package' like the one that was passed, which -- as I saw it -- offered a pittance to the middle/working classes and otherwise marginalized people who were suffering the most while offering a huge windfall to their corporate overlords, the same ones whose reckless pursuit of profit had done much to lead us to this disaster. So where was the anger? Or more to the point, where was the widespread, volcanic, unassuageable anger, the anger of those drowning in debt or unable to afford rent, the ones who sat in traffic for hours every day and made monthly car payments, who lived paycheck to paycheck, in fear of deductibles and trips to the doctor? What would it take to mobilize this majority, to get them angry enough to demand actual political change instead of platitudes? Did these people -- much less their anger -- even exist? In the wake of Bernie's Super Tuesday Massacre, I had my doubts, but I still wanted to believe they were out there, ready to be awakened to the possibility of different kind of life.
Being gay, I have a certain predisposition for anger. It's easy for me to distrust the government. I won't pretend to have been an active participant in the protests that defined the first fifteen years of the AIDS crisis, but it was always on the periphery of my awareness, shaping my understanding of society. What's apparent to me is that the government of that era, out of contempt, was valuing some lives more than others, and it was this contempt that sparked the outrage of those who did whatever it took to obtain the necessary medicine and, in doing so, altered the relationship of gays and our government in ways that are still unfolding today. When people around you start dying and your government does nothing about it -- or even abets it -- you have to ask yourself whether this is the government you actually want. If the answer is 'no,' then the question becomes how to change it.
Whether and to what degree the current crisis is analogous to AIDS is open to debate, but I think in terms of political representation of those who are getting sick, a good case can be made for the comparison. Our leaders are making a bet that the majority of coronavirus deaths (the most important metric) can be contained in a demographic -- poor, urban (primarily those who lack the means to escape to the country) -- for which these leaders already hold great antipathy. Like any true bet, however, this one has a big risk, which is that these deaths will not be limited to urban and lower-class populations, but will afflict the rich and the suburban. And if it does, those who have never witnessed the death of their own families and friends at the hands of a negligent or contemptuous government might finally become angry enough to do something about it.
Moral questions aside, it strikes me as a very risky bet for our leaders to be making, given how little we seem to know about how far the virus can be expected to spread and exactly who will be susceptible to it. But this scenario is far from hypothetical: over the next few weeks or months, we'll know the answers to these questions. Will the more rural and suburban areas of the country -- the areas on which our leadership draws its support -- suffer in the same ways that the cities are? And will this suffering lead to the kind of institutional change -- universal medical care, environmental protection, reformulated wealth distribution, and so on -- that will help to alleviate the possibility of another crisis?
For the sake of those individuals who might one day pay the price, I hope the answer is no, but for the sake of those who are paying right now, I hope the answer is yes.