Are you saying we should stop blaming the other side because you think the other side isn’t to blame? What if there’s reasonable ways to explain how the other side is to blame? Or are you making an epistemological claim that the other side is never to blame? Or are you claiming that, even if the other side is to blame, we shouldn’t focus on that until we solve the problem?
>>even if the other side is to blame, we shouldn’t focus on that until we solve the problem?
Exactly! That is what is meant by not letting polarized politics drive the issue. We shouldn't care what 'side' is doing what, we should be focused on preventing an epidemic. Personally, IDGAF about assigning blame to any side, I'd rather that the petty bickering is dropped and effective measures are taken.
I realize the climate in the US isn't conducive to this, but assigning blame doesn't fix anything. Rather than blaming people, effective steps need to be taken. Focusing on assigning blame just puts the other side on the defensive; which is counterproductive to the kind of cooperation that will be needed to effectively respond to this crisis.
The problem is that this holds true regardless of who you consider to be “the other side.”
Here in Oregon, our governor is politically on the opposite end of the spectrum from the US president. Yet the messaging from both has been nearly identical: everything is fine, carry on, wash your hands.
Making this into a political issue in either case just creates conflict, and causes the target to dig in their heels. It does very little towards a more effective response.
