In the first edition of this magazine on April 20, 2020, we talked about the importance of knowing the truth, no matter where it might lead, as a prerequisite to making important decisions. As lawyers, we were trained in law school in the science of discovering the truth in our evidence classes and memorized the “Rules of Evidence” that we had to have on the tips of our tongues if we hoped to be successful in the courtroom trying law suits.
We were also taught the importance of integrity, which includes telling the truth, in all our professional conduct as lawyers and as officers of the court. A free and democratic society that depends upon justice and the rule of law must have lawyers, judges, and yes, politicians, who stand by and live by these principles. In Primerus, we go a step beyond which we call the Six Pillars.
Also, in that first edition of this magazine, we began this series of articles called “Blindsided” which was to report weekly on where the truth would take us regarding this extremely dangerous Covid-19 virus. We asked our readers to contribute credible facts which would help us, with obvious limitations, to best predict where this thing was going. Since lives, health, jobs, and the life savings of many depended upon the most intelligent management of this virus; truth, and nothing but the truth, about the facts regarding Covid-19 was of paramount importance to all. This is no place for politics or to play fast and loose with the truth here.
In the beginning, though some governments were a little slow on the uptake. We began the Blindsided series with the sincere hope that all governments would act in good faith and in the best interest of their citizens. Most governments across the globe did that and it appeared initially that the United States would do likewise. But as time passed, there evolved in the United States a major obstacle – politics at the highest level began to creep into the process. It started slowly at the White house’s daily Coronavirus medical task force briefings with differences of opinion on how to manage the pandemic between the medical experts lead by Dr. Anthony Fauci, Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, and the Trump administration lead by the President and his appointees.
Over time, that led to a polarization of views essentially along party lines, including the President and several state governors, commonly known as the “no mask, open early states,” and those following Dr. Fauci with a much more cautious strategy of wearing masks, social distancing, avoiding crowds, washing hands, more testing, and enhanced medical research for a vaccine.
The philosophical differences in these two opposing strategies seems to be driven by their respective priorities. The administration continues to minimize the danger and health risks of the virus, and instead of prioritizing reduction of new Covid-19 cases and deaths, has prioritized saving the economy and keeping the stock market from crashing again as its primary objective. The medical experts, and many others, disagree with this strategy, arguing that the virus is extremely dangerous, highly contagious, and will not go away without this cautious approach. They argue that until the disease is under control, people will not return to their normal lives which will seriously impact an economic recovery. Early on, before the second big surge of the virus hit, reasonable minds might differ on which approach is best. Then, when the cautious states, and many countries across the globe, saw results from this cautious approach in keeping the new cases and deaths down, and the “no masks and open states” went in the opposite direction, the preponderance of the evidence seemed to have clearly shifted toward this cautious approach.
It is not our purpose to get involved in the politics of these divergent views which are shaping up to be major issues in the next presidential election less than three months from now, but rather to nail the facts down through a careful and objective marshalling of the evidence in order to more accurately predict where this thing is going during the next several months or even years in a worst case scenario. Many of us have clients with business that are shut down, or they are out of work, or fast running out of money, and look to us, their trusted advisors, to help them make critical decisions. How many of us have been dealing with these kinds of questions from our clients during the past several months? As professionals, we certainly would not let our political bias influence our answers.
As I see it in analyzing the evidence, I would tell my clients not to expect any significant changes in managing this pandemic in the U.S. between now and the presidential election on November 3rd. One side will defend the great job they have been doing in fighting the virus and saving the economy, and the other side will argue their opponent’s gross incompetence and major blundering in managing this crisis. The voters will then decide whether we continue course or make a major course correction with a new administration. The way that both sides are posturing, the probabilities are high that the election will turn on this single issue. This could be further complicated if there is a significant delay in reporting election results, particularly if the results are close.
Please let us know your thoughts in the comment section below. We would appreciate your contribution.