pexels-photo-3902881

Is COVID-19 Shifting the Faultlines in America?

It’s hard to say anything good about COVID’s impact. But I’m about to try.

It’s not an exaggeration to say that throughout history the relative peace and prosperity of the human family has been largely determined by who gets to make the rules that govern politics, economics, and social norms—all of which is informed, of course, by what moral principles are used to guide the making of those rules. 

The United States of America was revolutionary in changing the rulemaking process—the founding era changed the political rulemaking process forever. With its strong Judeo-Christian tradition, the founding era attached a well-known moral principle to the rulemaking process: The Golden Rule. It had been around for thousands of years but it was rarely practiced as the standard for rulemaking. A common rendition of the Golden Rule states “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” 

The founding therefore pushed other nations to see themselves as either Golden Rule states or states rooted in something else–nationalism, survivalism, supremacy, etc.

There is also an alternative to the Golden Rule, what I call the Proud Rule, that goes something like this: “He who has the gold makes the rules.” 

The Golden Rule has some corollaries such as turn the other cheek, go the extra mile, love your enemies, and lay up your treasures in heaven. The Proud Rule also has some corollaries, such as do unto others before they do unto you, greed is good, good guys finish last, and he who dies with the most toys wins. The first promotes peace and stable prosperity while the second promotes contention and destructive competition. 

With few exceptions, rulemaking throughout human history has been dominated by the Proud Rule. Over time, this created grave injustices and inequality, while inhibiting prosperity and growth. But governments leaning toward the Humble Rule—believing in freedom and that all are created equal—have through great effort and sacrifice been able to mitigate or change many of these negatives and improve the condition of humankind. 

This process continues even today. 

It’s fair to say that societies that live by and are governed by the Golden Rule, or what I call the Humble Rule, create a very different foundation for civil society than those governed by the Proud Rule. If people are not inclined to injure or take advantage of one another, they can be policed less than people who become more inclined to injure and take advantage of one another. 

The Humble Rule is winning the multi-generational battle.

Among the many unheralded (and heartening) changes taking place around the world right now, one of the most significant for the human experience may be a quiet movement among more and more people toward the Humble Rule. Yes, there are plenty moving in the opposite direction, but around the world, the Humble Rule is winning the multi-generational battle. And, perhaps counterintuitively, amidst all its painful and deadly effects, the COVID pandemic and the social upheaval around us may actually accelerate some elements of this development.

It’s a truism now to say that the COVID-19 pandemic is disruptive. And we still don’t know its full long-term effects, but it’s already creating entirely new fault lines in the shifting contours of the human experience. Social fault lines have often run along the political left and the political right; or the economically privileged and the disadvantaged; or among different issues around social justice, gender equality, sexual orientation, race, religion, or national origin. 

As evident on every issue, there is enormous conflict and competition around the question of who gets to make the rules regarding these points of conflict. This competition; this winner-take-all mentality is the Proud Rule at work. 

The expectation in the United States, for example, seems to be that whichever political party wins control of the White House in November will impose their will on the other party with impunity. The contention is escalating to a level where some wonder if the very fabric of civil society could be irreparably damaged. Even so, strangely, the disruption that COVID has imposed on our economics, politics, and social norms is simultaneously bringing together a new group of those who seek the Humble Rule.

In terms of economics and health, COVID is forcing us to see our collective dependence on one another. Whether it’s supply chain disruption or the speed at which our own choices impact the choices of others, the virus forces us to acknowledge our dependence on one another and our need to cooperate and mutually support each other to survive.

Some may strain to imagine a world where the traditional fault lines and fierce competition around economics, politics, or social issues might change or shift. But COVID is teaching a different lesson–it is causing more to bow before the Humble Rule. 

We are seeing businesses not as a means to eliminate or destroy industry competitors or to build fortunes at the expense of others but as means to supply basic stability, opportunity, and services; politics isn’t about imposing one will over another but could be about facilitating mutual cooperation, order, and reciprocal pluralism. 

COVID has already created this unimaginable reality in professional and especially collegiate level sports. Rivals are less worried about petty slights and competitive grudges and more concerned about preserving the existence of the sport as a human good. Thus, COVID presses us toward more fundamental questions and prompts a humbler approach.

Is the current pattern of bitter verbal and emotional warfare the best way to enhance the human experience, or is there a better way? Although you won’t hear it celebrated in the news, more and more people across the political spectrum seem to be turned off by all the vitriol—and yearning for a better way. 

Of course, at the same time all this positive movement happens, there is much of the opposite; increased anger and bitterness, rejecting new kinds of relationships and opportunities for bias-challenging engagement, and focusing on positions that divide more than what can unite. 

This is the Proud Rule, and, inevitably, it will increase conflict over time.  

We would expect to see both of the Humble and Proud rules to naturally continue into the future. And, predictably, those fighting for the Proud Rule will seek to make the Humble Rule compete. In other words, the followers of the Proud Rule will try to pit themselves against those who seek the Humble Rule, using enmity and competition. 

The Humble Rule, and those that follow it, however, set up a different code. Indeed, in this emerging world across new fault lines, we might anticipate the Humble group to increase in mutual understanding and unity despite differences even as the followers of the Proud Rule are ever more divided along traditional faultlines. 

The Humble Rule will persuade others to their cause not by war or contention, but by demonstrating a different, cooperative way forward. This will, in turn, lead them to increased peace and prosperity. By contrast, it’s not hard to imagine the Proud group increasing in contention and conflict more and more because of their differences. This will, in turn, lead them to greater violence and decline.

It may be that what ultimately has changed is the creation of a sustainable and self-selecting separation between those who are genuinely inclined toward peace—the peacemakers—and those who are genuinely inclined toward conflict—the warriors. 

The social disruption we see around us is sharpening this divide. 

Meanwhile the collective response to COVID has thrust a large percentage of society into a new and unfamiliar “virtual” reality. This is based on breakthroughs in video conferencing and high-speed internet technologies that were only dreamed of a few years ago. Our networks and virtual “neighborhoods” have been changed along with our social interactions and our sources of instruction and entertainment. We are no longer tightly constrained by our immediate environment with its limitations and expectations.

This would bring together people on both the left and right who are seeking to cultivate conditions of lasting and legitimate peace.

COVID may turn out to be what shifts the fault lines away from ideological differences about politics or economics toward new fault lines between those who choose to believe and practice the Humble Rule and those who choose to believe and practice the Proud Rule. If so, those who embrace the Humble Rule would span race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, and socio-economic differences. Rather than left vs. right, this would bring together people on both the left and right who are seeking to cultivate conditions of lasting and legitimate peace. Whatever other trenchant differences continue to exist among these groups would be superseded by a naturally aligning force that is increasingly strong and powerful. That force would be more centrally focused on the underlying principles necessary for healthy pluralism and community rather than particular policy positions that had divided us in the past.

Of course, the jury is still out on whether the fault lines will shift in this way. But COVID is revealing a different kind of divide that’s not economic or political per se, but is between those who are committed to “walk the talk” of the Humble Rule and those who are not. Whether these like-minded, but remarkably diverse individuals, can now scale their numbers and influence to a critical mass able to truly transform the future is yet to be seen. 

About the author

Lynn Chapman

Lynn Chapman is the president of NVS, LLC, and President of the McCune Institute. He has worked as an interim editor for Deseret News and served on the MWAA board in Washington, D.C. He has a Public Policy Ph.D. from George Mason.
On Key

You Might Also Like

Better than Self-Esteem? + Today’s Digest

Our daily rundown of the articles from around the web that we feel our readers would enjoy and appreciate. We hope to highlight the best of what’s around. Public Square Bulletin recommends: Jesus’ Alternative to Self-Esteem H. Wallace Goddard—Meridian Magazine While the gospel has some similarities with the self-esteem movement, Goddard, a parenting expert, looks at the research, and suggests that there may be weaknesses to the self-esteem movement that the gospel can rectify. Religion and the American Constitutional Experiment John Witte Jr.—Canopy Forum An excerpt from the upcoming book of the same name, this fascinating take gives a whirlwind tour of religious freedom, the role the founders and courts have played in developing it, and what we might expect in the next decade. The Perils of Heterodoxy Adam M. Wakeling—Areo Increasingly the information we get is filtered through a smaller and smaller group of individuals, so being independent-minded is important. But this route also comes with dangers that, left unchecked, could prove problematic. Exercising the Virtues Allen Porter—Law & Liberty Physical fitness is an important expression of a virtuous life. The patterns we develop should be consciously chosen and acted on and should be done to shape our minds and bodies in accordance with a higher purpose. Six Theologians Every Thoughtful Person Should Read Bruce Riley Ashford—First Things Excuse the uncharacteristic click-bait headline. This article outlines some of the most influential thinkers in orthodox Christian thought. While none come from the Church of Jesus Christ, each makes thoughtful observations that can not only increase your inter-faith understanding but provide fresh insights into your own faith as well.

Abraham prays alone in the wilderness, visually portraying God’s staggering faithfulness in the Abrahamic covenant.

God’s Staggering Faithfulness to Us

Ancient accounts of the covenant are (mis)taken by modern eyes to be legalistic and punitive—rather than the grace-filled entreaty of a God to His beloved people.

The Ordinary Saint’s Guide to Under the Banner of Heaven: Episode 4, “Church and State”

Summary — The episode begins with the detectives checking in on Bishop Low’s home, which they find ransacked and deserted. Pyre finds a letter written by Ron’s wife to the Prophet expressing concern about her husband’s refusal to pay taxes. The detective contacts the Church about the letter and is told the letter was handed down to one of the bishop’s counselors, LeConte Bascom, who works at the bank. Brother Bascom says he had to turn Ron down for a loan because his brother’s refusal to pay taxes made him a liability, though it’s heavily implied that the real reason is that his wife’s letter was seen as an embarrassment to the Church. In flashbacks, we see Dan marching in a Pioneer Day parade, shouting about the government’s illegal taxes, as well as smoking and kissing a woman who isn’t his wife. Dan’s father says he’s ashamed of his immoral behavior and anti-tax nonsense and advises him to study the scriptures to set himself back on the right path. This unfortunately drives Dan into researching more obscure history of the Church, including information on polygamy.  He makes a business trip down to Colorado City to visit the breakaway polygamist sect there and manages to get the name of a pro-polygamy pamphlet called “The Peace Maker.” He reads this pamphlet and brings up the idea to his wife Matilda, telling her she’s limiting his spiritual power if she doesn’t let him marry a second wife.  During this conversation, Dan is pulled over for speeding and refuses to cooperate with the officer, leading them on a police chase that ends with his arrest. At the jail, Dan’s brothers try to convince him to stop his resistance to the government. Ron feels it’s his responsibility to show Dan the error of his ways, but instead, Dan runs circles around him, leaving him speechless and admitting that he’s going to lose his business and home. Dan somehow turns this fact into evidence that his views are correct and ends up winning over Ron to his side. In the present, Detective Pyre is being leaned on by the Laffertys’ stake president to release them into his custody but refuses. The detectives have identified the car the killers were probably using and plan to hold a press conference to ask for tips when the police chief returns from vacation and demands that all mentions of fundamentalism Mormonism be scrubbed from the press briefing. (It’s implied he’s being leaned on by the Church.) Pyre tries to toe the line at the conference but eventually caves to a persistent reporter and admits that he thinks that the murders may have something to do with fundamentalist beliefs. The next day at church, the ward is shunning the Pyres, and a specific couple is assigned to keep an eye on their faith. Meanwhile, a police officer has located Bishop Low fly fishing in the mountains and safe. Church History — During Dan’s explanation of polygamy, we get flashbacks to the infamous scene where Emma finds out about the doctrine of polygamy for the first time and throws the revelation in the fire. Though church members will be familiar with this story, the tone is portrayed very differently than we are used to. Emma is shown as being absolutely skeptical of Joseph’s translation of the Book of Mormon and other prophetic acts, even though she firmly testified of the truth of these things even after her break with the Church after Joseph was murdered. Joseph is portrayed as proclaiming the doctrine of polygamy only for his own physical gratification, which is a common anti-Mormon trope with little evidence behind it. While it is true that one of Joseph’s wives was only 14, the facts behind the situation are more complex than portrayed in the show. The pamphlet “The Peace Maker” is portrayed by Dan Lafferty as an “essential LDS tract” written by Joseph Smith, and no one in the show ever corrects this perception. In fact, the tract was not written by Joseph Smith, and he repudiated it during his lifetime. This episode presents a slanted view of church history, giving only one side of the conversation and showing the modern church as trying to hush it up rather than having its own interpretation of events. Shibboleths — Pyre claims that writing a letter to the prophet is like writing to “Heavenly Father himself,” which is absolutely wrong. While members of the Church do revere the prophet and listen to his teachings, he is not God, and this equivalency is not one Saints would make (though outsiders think we do). The idea that doing business with fundamentalists is like “doing business with the mafia” is totally alien to me. They are regarded as somewhat of an oddity in Utah, but not dangerous like organized crime. One unusual phrase occurs when the stake president claims that the Laffertys need to be released into his custody for “healing prayer.” I honestly have no idea what this phrase refers to and have never heard it in an LDS context. And the formal type of shunning portrayed happening to the Pyres is not something we do. Though obviously, wards vary in their culture, there is no formal instruction not to talk to those who have questions. Rather, we are encouraged to keep being friends with those who are struggling with faith and support them however we can. Changing History — It is interesting to note that in the actual chain of events, it was Sister Low, not Bishop Low, who was on the Lafferty hit list. Sister Low was a Relief Society President who supported Dan’s wife as she sought a divorce. Why does the show change this? Perhaps the idea that the Church has female leaders doesn’t fit well with the show’s depiction of the oppression of women in the LDS church. Brenda Lafferty’s sister has also expressed her disappointment with the way the show is misconstruing her sister’s murder in pursuit of an