Only the Weak

US President Donald Trump yet again employed his mediocre showmanship skills in his infection – or lack thereof-with the Corona virus. The issue of whether this was a publicity stunt or a reality is debatable, but what is not is the underlying message that is being sent: welfare states are for the weak.

In the first scenario of this whole charade, Trump might have actually caught the virus. He stayed in the hospital for less than four days, during which he claimed that he was carrying out his duties as president. In addition to the sympathy gained among voters, and the glorification of his image as a hero who defeated this dreaded virus, his message was clear: the virus not deadly, do not close down businesses, do not fund the health system, and do not reinforce any of the pillars of a welfare state that provides and cares for its citizens. He craftily failed to mention that the virus does not affect everyone in the same intensity, and that being a billionaire in office with entire hospital facilities and medical teams at his service, as well as assistants to support his family and run his business whilst away contributed to his rapid healing.

In the second scenario, he lied about the virus to gain support and to fool the public into believing that the corona measures are excessive. Again, with this scenario, the welfare state is ridiculed.

The US and the rest of the world have inadvertently faced an incredibly important question amidst the Corona virus lock-down and the mayhem it brought with it. The question concerns the form of governments that are best equipped to deal with a catastrophe. When faced with hardships, which course of action should we choose? Is it survival for the fittest? Is a social response based on shared responsibility? Should the working class subject itself to threats of a looming viral infection whilst the capitalist class remain protected behind disinfected glass? Should the centre reign and the periphery abide?

Opportunists such as Trump seize any opportunity to push their agenda and influence public opinion. In this case, the welfare state with all the disadvantages it has on the wealthy class came under direct attack by a system that equates equality with weakness, and support with defeat. It feeds primitive urges of believing in the survival of fittest, whilst dithering before the helplessness of the weaker. The real threat that this virus is posing is not its infection of our bodies, but of our morals. If the slightest sense of victory is sensed by the healthy, blessed, or rich, then the opportunists have indeed won.