In the Time of the “China Virus,” Another Contagion: Intolerance

As the coronavirus spreads across the United States, so too will anti-Chinese sentiment.

President Donald Trump’s description of a “China virus” was immediately subject to criticism, both from the left and the right, but I think the critics are missing the point. Aggressively placing the blame for a crisis on another group whose imminent rise has been a major concern isn’t problematic because it is baseless, but because it is natural.

The narrative, however false, has practically written itself: A Chinese person ate something they shouldn’t have, and now thousands of us have a deadly disease. On top of that, they have the audacity to blame us for the virus! Boo them, go us!

What is important is that statements like these erode the great bulwark of American democracy, classical liberalism’s value of tolerance. It is in times like these — when democracy’s greatest defense is most vulnerable — that its maintenance is most necessary.

The foundational idea of liberalism is that the individual, not the family or society, is the main moral and political decision-maker. But this is not the way our brains are wired to think.

Humans are very good at parsing out “us” and “them”, disliking one another for no good reason; our instinct is to treat the individual solely as the embodiment of a group. We create “others” as naturally as we breathe.

I am not, after all, discussing the individual guilt, or lack thereof, of the first person who contracted the coronavirus, precisely because we tend not to focus on individuals. It is the “China” virus that plagues America, and the 5 million Chinese and Chinese Americans living in the United States who will become “other.”

Because of its emphasis on the individual, however, liberal democracy claims that group affiliation is only one facet of the individual’s existence. I am a Chinese American, a Hong Kong resident, and a Leverett House member. My affiliation with any of those groups does not make me responsible for the spread of the coronavirus. It doesn’t matter whether my affiliation is voluntary or not, or even if it is clear that some members of these larger groups have done wrong, because in American liberal democracy we decide moral blame and guilt on an individual basis.

This idea of individual culpability is not only codified in our own laws but is the hallmark of international relations. Article 33 of the fourth Geneva Convention declares collective punishment, punishing a group for individual transgressions, to be a war crime.

I’m not trying to equate President Trump, or anyone who has or will blame everything Chinese for the coronavirus, with war criminals. My point, if anything, is to remind us that angry, frustrated, ordinary people can easily act in a regrettable manner against a group of people they perceive as “other”. Trump is not an anomaly; a successful liberal democracy is.

Liberal democracy doesn’t try to suppress our human instincts and reactions, but builds “hedges” to guide them. A successful liberal democracy isn’t about unseeing the other, but institutionalizing ways for tolerating differences.

However, these institutions of tolerance within liberal democracy in turn depend on a basic commitment from its citizens. The promises of liberal democracy cannot be upheld by illiberal individuals.

The danger to liberal government is greatest during times of crisis, conflicts, and mass fear because that is when we tend to default to our illiberal attitudes. When times are good, it is easy to tolerate the tolerable, or even condemn our past transgressions against groups. The question is how we will act when the chips are down.

During these times of crisis we need to cherish tolerance because our natural tendency for intolerance will only make things worse. John Locke, one of the greatest intellectual fathers of classical liberalism, wrote his “A Letter Concerning Toleration” at a time when bloody religious warfare was the norm, and being religiously other was a death sentence. His novel claim was that the best way for a religious sect to both spread its message and deal with the imminent threat of violence was not to take control of the government and prosecute a hostile group first, but to actively adhere to, and even preach, a doctrine of tolerance.

Today when we learn about Locke, liberal democracy, and tolerance, we think about (or debate) its potential: the vast amount of progress, or lack thereof, that we associate with a government dedicated to protecting “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”. We should remember that tolerance is not just about our prosperity, but also about preventing us from destroying each other. Tolerance itself won't stop the virus, but it is the bare minimum of any successful solution.

America is such an advanced, liberal democracy that we are tolerant even of the hatefully intolerant. Indeed, you have every right, political or natural, to give in to anger, fear, and frustration; spew hate; or propagate any amount of us-versus-them rhetoric you like. But know this: It is you who are destroying what makes America great, not a China virus.

Eric Yang ’22, is a History concentrator in Leverett House. His column appears on alternate Tuesdays.