I think we’ve all observed that the COVID saga has been harder on some people than others.

I also think different parts of the saga have been harder on some than others.

Among the people the current moment is hardest on is one of my best pals. Which is particularly disturbing, because this is one of the most congenitally cheerful people I know, and also one of the most rational. He is a lawyer, and a good one. He is one of the most thoughtful and articulate liberals I know. And judging from the angry texts I’m getting in the middle of the day, he’s losing his goddamn mind.

Can’t believe we’re going back to blanket K-12 mask mandates. Offended by the safety theater, like having to wear a mask when standing up in a bar, but not sitting down. Infuriated at the ever-changing official guidance, beginning with the initial lockdown: “15 days to slow the spread. Then it was to keep hospitals from being overwhelmed. Then it was until there’s a vaccine. Then until everybody who wants the vaccine can get it. What now? We are never going to eliminate COVID. What’s the end point?”

He points out that “the odds of a vaccinated person being hospitalized with COVID are statistically zero,” and if I read him right, he believes everyone should get on with their lives, leaving it up to those who don’t get vaccinated, whatever their reasons, to protect themselves the best they can, and let COVID take the hindmost. (With the exception of measures to protect small children until they can be vaccinated.)

I think a lot of us feel that way. I know I do, a hell of a lot of the time. Members of my family who are in caring professions differ quite sternly when I start making Darwinian-sounding grunts. Of course, I respect that. Caring for other people is the reason they live. I also respect people who remind me—amid fulminations for which I do not apologize—that it’s always more complicated than I think, and I’m usually more self-involved than I know.

But it’s not protecting my own life that makes me feel so savage. I could easily clip my own wings for another year, another three years, another decade as our dysfunctional nation staggered stupidly along, beating back COVID this season and having it come back in waves and new variants next. I’ve already lived a lot of my good life, had a happy marriage and a wonderful child, enjoyed many friends, traveled in six continents and poured all that experience into a book that no one can ever take away from me. So if I never get in an airplane again, so what. Probably good for the environment anyway.

But that child of mine. We all say we’d lay down our lives to save our kids. But what will we do to give our kids a crack at a great life of their own? I won’t chain myself to a bulldozer to prevent my child from having to wear a mask (and try to learn from masked teachers) for her senior of high school, sad as that would make me. But I am afraid that another year or two of remote learning and major disruption could truly break her, and her generation. Stunt its learning, shatter its confidence in the future, scatter its focus and encourage it to trade in any remaining dreams for another TikTok video.

And to protect that, I’m inclined to be pretty callous toward the unvaccinated, and probably altogether too willing to accept the collateral damage that a “COVID-take-the-hindmost” policy would surely create. But collateral damage is a fact of war. And this really does feel like a war, to me. And not a war against Trump-loving anti-vaxxers, or incorrigibly suspicious Black Americans.

It’s a war against the particular dumbness of American culture, which has dulled all our minds, as one.

F. Scott Fitzgerald said the definition of intelligence is being able to “hold two opposing ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function.”

Opposing ideas, hell. Most Americans can’t hold any two ideas in mind at the same time.

And the two ideas we are least able to process, privately or publicly, are:

We want to protect life.

and

We want to live life.

In my lifetime, America’s three biggest blunders were made possible by Americans’ inability to hold these ideas in mind at the same time—and thus see safety and risk on a continuum:

Americans believed politicians who told them we went into Vietnam to keep America “safe” from the spread of Communism. As if “safety” was a yes-or-no proposition.

We invaded Iraq on the basis of keeping Americans “safe” from weapons of mass destruction that we were sort of pretty sure that Saddam Hussein had his hands on.

And now we are madly, drunkenly, stupidly over-steering from one policy to another on COVID—even now, with a president whose personal foibles don’t remind us of King Lear with a comb-over.

Why?

Not just because we’re politically crazed, each of us starring in a huge national political version of Who’s Afraid of Virginia Wolfe.

But also because for a very long time, “home of the brave” has been the land of, “If it saves the life of just one child.”

Which has forced it to also become the nation of, “To hell with your child, I’m going to live my life.”

Personal freedom and civic responsibility are not ideas easily juggled by the American mind, either. Which is a shame, because our entire system relies on their sensible interplay.

COVID is asking us, as a culture and as individuals, to be smarter than this. Anthony Fauci is asking us to be smarter than this. But he and the best-intentioned leaders and commentators are necessarily affected by this particular dumbness of American culture. Children need rules, and those rules must be cut and dried, and sometimes they feel draconian because, Am I really going to get a cramp and drown if I get in the pool 15 minutes after eating a hamburger rather than 20? I said 20 minutes!

And that’s the idea that I think my lawyer friend has a hard time holding in his large mind. He makes his living helping his client assess the risk of taking or not taking a certain action. He sees risk all day, every day, on a continuum, low, moderate and high. He makes million-dollar recommendations based on such thinking. He knows some of it is guesswork. And he helps his clients understand that, too. Taking some chances is just a part of doing business. (Lawyers really are good at thinking about this stuff even as it applies to the pandemic; I was impressed by the subtle, thoughtful approach a Houston law firm took, to keeping most of its employees in the office throughout COVID.)

So when my lawyer friend hears, “the odds of a vaccinated person being hospitalized with COVID are statistically zero,” that is a no-brainer for him. But to many Americans, that sounds like, “Oh God, there’s still a chance.”

I ride a motorcycle. I’ve ridden in the Andes mountains and, even more dangerous, on Ashland Avenue. I think that forces me to assess risk—and to accept some. And to constantly reassess, deciding which safety equipment to wear for which trips, in which conditions. When to let my daughter ride on the back, when not to. Motorcyclists wave to one another when they pass—whether they’re riding Trumpy Harleys or urban liberal Triumphs. I think one of the mutual understandings that wave communicates is that we’ve both thought a lot about risk in life, and come to similar conclusions.

Most Americans don’t think explicitly about risk, and so don’t talk explicitly about risk, and so can’t be talked to explicitly about risk—only about absolute “safety,” or reckless “danger.”

So they either stay away from motorcycles altogether. Or they ride stark naked in the rain.

Which is their personal right. Except the mindset got a lot of Americans (and countless others) killed or permanently crazed in Vietnam and Iraq.

And it’s making it absolutely impossible to deal intelligently and humanely with this pandemic, despite incredible medical science and all the resources in the world.

And it’s driving my lawyer friend out of his mind.

Me, too, it sounds like.

This week I read in The New York Times that many inoculated Americans are “losing patience with vaccine holdouts.”

That’s like saying that many parents are “losing patience with their adolescent children.”

That comparison may sound a little condescending, especially coming from the author of a new book called An Effort to Understand: Hearing One Another (and Ourselves) in a Nation Cracked in Half.

But I’m also the loving parent of an adolescent child.

I’m loathe to call millions of vaccine-resistant Americans arrested-development adolescents. Indeed, one section of my book is called “We, Citizen: American Patriots Don’t Call Their Fellow Americans Nasty Names.”

So I’m not going to call the tens of millions of my fellow citizens who have chosen not to vaccinate themselves a bunch of arrested-development juvenile delinquents. And I’m sure some have reasons I cannot fathom, but should not insult.

And yet: Most of these vax-resisters, despite the adult maturity and emotional discipline that allow them to hold down jobs and raise families and support their communities, are exhibiting one or more of these decidedly adolescent qualities when it comes to a decision that could make or break the nation’s next year.

Or, as I call it, vax-olescent.

• An immortality complex. Like teenagers, many of these folks seem given to magically believing that even at their most self-destructive, they are indestructible.

• Callow arrogance. They’re smugly dismissive of any information from conventional sources; the more marginal the source, the more credible, to the vax-olescent.

• An authority complex. They are gleefully defiant because making other people mad gives them the sense of power and control they crave but rarely feel.

• Adolescent narcissism. Obtusely refusing even to countenance the notion of civic responsibility, they retreat to breathtaking self-involvement, so that they’re reachable only by members of their most immediate tribe.

• Sociopathic tendencies. To defend their untenable positions and execute their dangerous plans (and deny their own disappointment and self-hatred), they are capable of the most brazenly disingenuous, manipulative avoidance, excuse-making, trolling, passive aggression and gaslighting.

To paraphrase the sheriff in No Country for Old Men, if vaccine refusers aren’t adolescents, they’ll do until some get here. 

How, then, to deal with these people?

Well, how do you deal with any adolescent behavior? You point it out, you hash it out and then you wait it out while you sweat it out. You use your memory and your imagination to walk a mile in your child’s impractical shoes. You remind your child (and yourself) that really, you’re not yelling because you’re angry, you’re yelling because you are afraid—for the child and for the family. You find ways to say and to show (and to remember!) that you love the child, no matter what. And you try, and try again, to appreciate Olivia Rodrigo.

And of course the actual adolescent finds all of the above enragingly condescending, phony and hypocritical.

Just as their like-minded elders childishly resent “all politicians,” the academic “elite” and the “lamestream media.”

Well luckily, our vax-olescent fellow Americans are not actually teenagers; they are only behaving that way. So we don’t actually have to wait for their brain chemistry to change, for their fuckhead behavior to change. 

But unfortunately, we might have to wait until something terrible happens to them, or to one of those precious peers of theirs, to wake them up.

And that might require waiting until something terrible happens to the rest of us, too. 

In An Effort to Understand, I write about communication—not just with adolescents, but with all people: “It requires listening as much as it requires speaking. And deep listening. And constant listening. And careful listening. And imaginative listening. And repeated listening. And in our own time, if we are going to have a society that is worth living in, we must learn to listen, to hear, to sense with the tiny cilia of our ears and the tenderest membranes of our hearts—not just the words of our friends and family, coworkers and leaders, but their intent—their deepest intent, and emotional source.”

I’m sure I’ve done an incomplete job of that, in the six months since the vaccines have been available—and perhaps a result of this post, I’ll gain a more nuanced perspective than the one I’ve mustered here. (As often happens in tense conversations with my own actual adolescent.)

But if you’re going to have communication, the other person at some point has to listen, too. And the vax-olescents seem more inclined to stomp off to their room.

In any case, it’s not patience I’m running out of at this point.

It’s ideas.

Goddamn if I didn’t get into it last week on Facebook about Critical Race Theory with Hal Gordon, the former Reagan White House speechwriter and also speechwriter to General Colin Powell. I’ve been trying to avoid CRT altogether, just as I managed to not bore you by adding my two cents about “cancel culture” or the 1619 Project. I like to bore my readers on my terms, not on Tucker Carlson’s.

But I’ve known Hal for 30 years. He attended the first conference I ever put on. I’ve put him on stage to talk at many speechwriting conferences over that time. And what he has always talked about is history. One of the most erudite people I’ve ever met, Hal can recite long passages from history’s speeches from memory. In terms of raw historical knowledge, he’s spilled more on his tie than I ever drank.

Hal is a little too much of a Great Man Theory guy for the taste I’ve developed as a Studs Terkel acolyte, and a lot more concerned about Marxism than me and he does love the British royalty. Still, when it comes to American history and rhetoric, Hal is pretty compelling, at the lectern or in print.

So when he became increasingly hysterical about the 1619 Project and then Critical Race Theory over the last couple of months, I found it particularly troubling. In a typical post last week, he said that public school teachers “are brainwashing children to become the Red Guards of today’s Cultural Revolution.” And when I questioned that, he replied, “I’m convinced that if present trends continue, five years from now we will be living in the People’s State of America. The government, the academy, the media, the corporations, the military and even the churches have all been infected with the Critical Race Theory virus. It’s the Invasion of the Body Snatchers.”

As my teenager would say: Wait, what?

Does Hal Gordon really equate Mao Zedong’s mad domination of China with Ta-Nehisi Coates’ influence on America?

Or is he just fighting fire with foaming at the mouth?

Depending on the answer, a guy known for historical perspective has either lost his, or is willfully throwing it away.

In either case—seems like a bad sign!

Because of course a common historical perspective is what we desperately need in America—and it’s what we’re all fighting about—so we can figure out what in hell to teach our kids. And even in the most constructive spirit, it’s a hard thing to do, to tell a nation’s children a fair version of centuries of truth, in blood and water and metal and flesh. Any nation’s children, let alone the rescue mutts that make up America’s children.

So how do you go about doing it?

I’ve been struggling with this one since my own daughter Scout was in first grade, 11 years ago. For Black History Month, she was assigned a profile of Jesse Owens. It was supposed to be a family project. So her mother and I taught her about Owens’ victory at the 1936 Olympics, at the famous displeasure of the man Scout kept referring to as “Rayolph Hitler.” We took her to Owens’ grave, on the South Side of Chicago. And over lunch at Army & Lou’s Soul Food restaurant, we tested her knowledge. Her take on white supremacy was totes adorbs. Her Black teacher’s aid cried at the video we made.

I was frustrated at the prospect of starting Scout’s education with a tidy, inspirational American myth and then gradually adding further complexities and come-downs, as she got older. At the time, I wrote here on Writing Boots: “I reckon we’ll wait until next Black History Month to tell Scout that Owens actually felt more egregiously snubbed by President Roosevelt, who ‘didn’t even send me a telegram.’ Third grade? That’ll be the time we talk about how Owens was unfairly stripped of his amateur status and had to scrape together a living hustling for black exploitation films, racing against horses and running from IRS agents.” Is that what history is going to continue to be in this country? Happy myth, spoiled?

So when Hal Gordon complained that history teaching is becoming political, that seemed like the least of the problems, and the most obvious:

Wasn’t teaching political, I wrote, when I grew up, “learning how George Washington could not tell a lie. It seemed like we spent three years on Helen Keller and four minutes on Harriet Tubman, let alone the Tulsa massacre, etc, etc. I agree that the re-‘centering’ of history teaching in America that the 1619 Project insists on is a difficult problem, intellectually and even logistically. I also agree that America, as much as it is an ‘idea,’ is also a ‘story.’ And if this particular nation can’t agree on a common narrative (or at least acknowledge the truth of parallel narratives), then it strains to find a common civic ideal to hold it together. I agree these are things to be concerned about. But WORKED ON, not screamed at or wished away in hopes we can go back the that old saw about the cherry tree. Come on, man. Dig deep.”

And those were going to be the last words of this post. Until, after a pause in our conversation, Hal wrote back: “I have been giving some sober thought to what you said about making a good-faith effort to teach American history in a way that gives young people ‘a properly profound sense of the complexity of this nation’s story.’ I think that that is a noble sentiment—one with which I can agree. In fact, I think I already have. When I read what you said, I found myself thinking about a post that I wrote exactly one year ago about a way to resolve the controversy over the Emancipation Memorial in Washington, D.C.”

In this post, Hal brings his old scholarly rigor to bear to come up with “Frederick Douglass’s Solution to the Emancipation Memorial Controversy.” Read it for yourself, but it strikes me as an absolutely perfect example of the kind of honest history revision—and narrative integration—that a thousand historians of all backgrounds and perspectives need to set about doing, the best way they know how.

And I told Hal so.

And Hal replied, “You and I certainly do agree that a society like ours needs a shared sense of history. I think that a shared sense of history is one of the few things that holds us together as a nation. If you think about it, we have no monarchy, no national church, and no common racial or ethnic identity. It is our commitment to our shared ideals and our common experience that makes us one. As I said in my post, what thrilled me about the proposals to modify the Emancipation Memorial is that if implemented, these proposals would give us a memorial that would go a long way towards ‘telling the whole truth’ and would be one in which all Americans could take pride. Surely that would be a helpful step in bringing us together.”

There is much for the helpful to do, as long as helpful, we are willing to consistently be.