A
s I write this article from my
home in Miami, Fla., my state’s
COVID-19 rates continue to
peak at tens of thousands of new cases
per day. An article from The Guardian
described the magnitude of the Sunshine
State’s crisis as such: “If Florida was a
country, it would be one of the world’s
biggest hotspots.” Nonetheless, Florida
Gov. Ron DeSantis has adopted an opti-
mistic, yet somewhat dismissive outlook
on the growth in cases. In June, DeSan-
tis chose to veto an increase in health
care spending from the state’s budget.
More recently, while advising Floridians
to be cautious but not fearful, DeSantis
quipped, “I think fear is our enemy here.”
DeSantis has been criticized for his
lackluster response to the pandemic —
and rightly so. In spite of expert medical
advice, DeSantis has pushed to reopen
the state’s businesses, its schools and even
Disney World as soon as possible. His
eagerness to open back up has been criti-
cized by many as prioritizing economic
gain over protecting vulnerable lives,
but it’s also been criticized for its defer-
ence to President Donald Trump. Many
local, state and international leaders have
expressed concern with the commander-
in-chief’s statements and policy regard-
ing COVID-19. The Red Cross even
spoke out against the U.S.’s response,
deeming it divisive and ineffective.
In Brazil, however, Trump’s bombastic
rhetoric may have found a receptive audi-
ence, especially within the Latin Ameri-
can country’s own executive branch,
based on the leaders’ similar responses
to the pandemic. In April, Brazil Presi-
dent Jair Bolsonaro had responded with
a shrug when reporters pressed him
about Brazil’s record number of deaths.
“So what?” said the president of the larg-
est and most populous country in Latin
America. He continued dismissively, “I’m
sorry. What do you want me to do?”
It is unlikely there is any single expla-
nation for the drastic rates of infection and
death in the U.S. and Brazil. Americans
and Brazilians are not inherently sick-
lier or weaker than the rest of the world.
While some structural factors — geogra-
phy, public health resources and even the
weather — can make disease spread more
likely in any given country, the impact of
irresponsible and reckless leadership
on transmission is pronounced. To
that extent, Brazil and the U.S. cer-
tainly have many geographic, struc-
tural and climatic differences but do
share one eerie commonality: a lack of
effective, responsible leadership.
I am often hesitant to assign too much
theoretical power to any particular poli-
tician because government is inherently
complicated and a single person is rarely
the only one responsible for a larger phe-
nomenon or problem. But the reality is
that Bolsonaro and Trump do wield an
incredible amount of persuasive power
over some of their constituents. Many
people do make decisions based on what
their country’s leaders say, even if what’s
being said is misleading or simply untrue.
As Brazilian media has reported,
every time that Bolsonaro downplays the
coronavirus on television, his supporters’
adherence to social distancing declines.
Likewise, to say that Trump has also
been dismissive of COVID-19’s spread
throughout America would be an under-
statement. Despite the massive scale
of the outbreak that is raging through
major metropolitan centers throughout
the U.S., the decision to wear a mask
appears increasingly political. As the
U.S. handles tens of thousands of new
cases a day, the White House is planning
to block funding for test-and-trace funds
and other prevention measures. On July
19, Trump insisted in an interview on
“Fox News on Sunday” that the corona-
virus would eventually “disappear.”
Both countries’ leaders have publicly
minimized the pandemic. That matters.
A politician’s ineffective leadership can
affect the behavior of fervent support-
ers and casual observers alike as well as
make the difference between a minor
dip or a spike in cases. In the wake of
misinformation and new data around
COVID-19’s transmission and fatality
rates, this much is likely true for the U.S.
and Brazil: It’s going to get a lot worse
before it gets better. That’s something
we know based on scientific expertise
and thoughtful analysis of public health
outcomes from professionals who are
trained to assess risk to vulnerable
populations. Brazilians and Americans
alike should continue to practice social
distancing, wear a mask and encourage
others who are reluctant to do the same.
Fear is not the enemy. Carelessness
is the enemy. The willingness to sac-
rifice lives for economic and political
gain is the enemy. Reckless behavior
and misinformation serve as powerful
vectors for disease. When Gov. DeSan-
tis opens the public beaches — which
he will, sooner rather than later — we
should not take that to mean COVID-19
no longer poses a serious public health
concern. Instead, we should acknowl-
edge it means the very opposite.
4
Thursday, July 30, 2020
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
OPINION
420 Maynard St.
Ann Arbor, MI 48109
tothedaily@michigandaily.com
Edited and managed by students at
the University of Michigan since 1890.
BRITTANY BOWMAN
Editorial Page Editor
Alanna Berger
Zack Blumberg
Brittany Bowman
Emily Considine
Elizabeth Cook
Jess D’Agostino
Jenny Gurung
Cheryn Hong
Zoe Phillips
Mary Rolfes
Michael Russo
Gabrijela Skoko
Timothy Spurlin
Joel Weiner
Erin White
Unsigned editorials reflect the official position of the Daily’s Editorial Board.
All other signed articles and illustrations represent solely the views of their authors.
EMMA STEIN
Editor in Chief
EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS
ALLISON PUJOL | COLUMNIST
Allison Pujol can be reached at
ampmich@umich.edu.
The real enemy
O
ur nation’s military bases
should serve as a reminder
of the courage and bravery
of our country’s armed forces, not
as monuments to men who fought
to tear the United States apart. It is
time the U.S. government remove
the names of Confederate generals
from our military bases.
Some of the nation’s largest and
most well known military bases,
such as Fort Hood in Texas, Fort
Bragg in North Carolina and Fort
Benning in Georgia are named
after Confederate generals. In
total, there are ten major army
bases named after Confederate
generals. The recent Black Lives
Matter
protests
and
growing
national conversation about racial
justice have put this issue back in
the spotlight and reignited calls
for the bases to be renamed.
Support for the name change has
been channeled into action with
lawmakers adding a provision to
the National Defense Authoriza-
tion Act requiring that all Con-
federate names be removed from
U.S. military bases. A version of
each bill passed the House and the
Senate, however, the removal of
names is not yet set in stone.
President Donald Trump has
vowed to veto the bill if it includes
a stipulation to rename bases. The
House and Senate passed the bills
by a veto-proof majority of over
two-thirds in each house. How-
ever, if the president decides to
veto the bill, Republicans in the
Senate could switch their votes
to prove their loyalty to Trump.
Additionally, since the versions
of the NDAA passed by the House
and Senate were different, the
two chambers must negotiate a
final version to vote on, which
might not include a requirement
to rename the bases. Sen. Jim
Inhofe, R-Okla., a conservative
Trump supporter who has a great
deal of negotiating power as Sen-
ate Armed Services Chair, has
vowed to fight to remove this pro-
vision from the final bill.
It is simply unacceptable that
in 2020 we are still having this
debate. We should not have our
military bases serving as monu-
ments to men who actively fought
against the U.S. Army and were
willing to tear our country apart
in order to hold onto their slaves.
Instead, we should rename our
bases after true American heroes
who better represent our values.
Currently, there are no U.S. mili-
tary bases named after women,
despite the important role that
countless women have played in
various wars. There are so many
people to choose from, both male
and female, who deserve the honor
of having a base named after them,
whether it be Harriet Tubman,
John McCain, Ulysses S. Grant or
other deserving individuals for
whom the bases can be named.
Trump and some of his supporters
have opposed renaming the bases,
saying it is giving in to cancel cul-
ture and promoting a revision of
history. They also argue changing
the names takes away the honor of
these bases, which have been criti-
cal to past U.S. military success.
President Trump reiterated this
claim in a Fox News interview,
saying “We won two world wars,
two world wars, beautiful world
wars that were vicious and hor-
rible, and we won them out of
Fort Bragg, we won out of all of
these forts that now they want to
throw those names away.”
Arguments such as these cheap-
en the hard work and dedication
of those who served in the World
Wars and other military conflicts.
The successes that have come out of
these bases have nothing to do with
their names — it has to do with the
courageous men and women who
serve there. By making this argu-
ment, the president is demeaning
their commitment and sacrifice.
Our president should be focused
on commemorating the legacy of
true American heroes and patri-
ots, not Confederate generals.
The whole argument of keeping up
Confederate memorials to remember
our history is ludicrous statues and
namesakes do not serve as a reminder
of history — they serve as symbols
of white supremacy. We should not
honor Confederate generals who
fought to protect their right to own
other people and tried to tear our
nation apart.
Countries such as Germany have
shown us that you do not need statues
or monuments to remember history.
In Germany, there are no Nazi flags,
no statues to Hitler or elementary
schools named after Mengele. They
recognize their sinful history and
work to atone; they do not commemo-
rate the monsters of the past.
Removing the names of Confederate
generals from our military bases will
not fix everything. It is a small step in
the marathon of changes that we need
to make in this country. However, it is
an important step that must be taken
to ensure that we commemorate the
values and individuals who repre-
sent our highest American ideals.
Rename the bases
ISABELLE SCHINDLER | COLUMNIST
Isabelle Schindler can be reached at
ischind@umich.edu.