Weicheng Shi

vchshi@gmail.com

U.S. Senator and Republican Tom Cotton from Arkansas has made changes to his irresponsible rhetoric after he was criticized for spreading a conspiracy theory about the novel coronavirus outbreak. His updated rhetoric uses the word “hypothesis” in place of his previously debunked term “conspiracy theory” when stating that the coronavirus could have been created in a laboratory in China.

Cotton’s delusions have been dismissed by scientists, including Americans, for lacking evidence.

However, the “hypothesis” theory reflects rooted biases against China by some American politicians. Prejudiced political views are frequently and easily cast over facts in such a polarized era. Every time such politicians mention a China-relevant issue, they also tout their so-called theories full of misleading bigotry.

Such talk reminds us of the travel order issued by the Trump administration that bans non-U.S. citizens who recently visited China from entering America. In this respect, the U.S. apparently neglected to take into account suggestions from the World Health Organization that “bans might do more harm than good.”

As the restriction was announced, it aroused much criticism and concern from experts in fields ranging from sciences to economics in the United States. The epidemic is not only about the spread of the virus but a comprehensive package of issues, including disease treatment, containment and economic-social governance. It is dangerous to focus only on one perspective.

In fact, Jennifer Nuzzo, a senior scholar at Johns Hopkins University’s Center for Health Security, expressed her concerns about the travel ban. “These measures may exacerbate the epidemic’s social and economic tolls and can make us less safe,” she said during a hearing before the U.S. House’s Committee on Foreign Affairs on Feb. 5.

Meanwhile, the ban immediately aroused a series of market reactions and concerns, mainly about its negative impacts on the U.S. economy. For instance, a number of flights between China and the U.S. have been canceled, especially by big U.S. airline companies. It will definitely hit the U.S. employment market, tourism industry and consumption.

In addition, the order may trigger unnecessary public panic and potential discrimination against Asians in the United States. The restrictions may also lead other countries to misjudge the situation, which is not helpful toward handling such a global public health crisis.

It seems the trade-offs of the travel restriction will not meet the Trump administration’s expectations. The cost will be far bigger than the benefit. Those concerns have already been heard from different fields in the United States. With these potential harms, however, why does the Trump administration still hold this policy?

Here are some analytic threads. First, this is an election year. The foremost priority for U.S. President Donald Trump is to be re-elected. Trump needs to shape his expected image, a resolute president with credibility. Therefore, the logic of issuing such an order seems to match his style. Trump believes that his decision shows his governing ability.

Second, involved in numerous political struggles right now, Trump wouldn’t like to take more political risks. Accordingly, it has become easier to just carry out a simple executive policy to control a potential threat, even if it is an over-reaction. From Trump’s perspective, it seems effective, but cutting ties is actually an ineffective measure in the long run.

Thirdly, there are always conservatives advising Trump, successfully peddling their conspiracy theories and presenting radical policy options. A lot of cases have proved the conservative powers have somehow dominated the Trump administration’s policy. It is harder to say that Trump’s view wasn’t influenced by conservatives like Cotton.

The coronavirus outbreak poses a public health threat to not only China but also the world. In terms of the U.S. policy, if the travel ban is a choice, it isn’t apparently a wise one. All countries are in the same boat. In such a critical moment, it should be the priority of all countries to look for a reasonable and executable policy to fight the virus together. The virus can only be conquered by cooperation.

(The author is a visiting scholar at the Department of Political Science, University of Iowa.)