LATIMES.COM/OPINION WEDNESDAY, MARCH 11, 2020A
OP-ED
W
ith the broaderspread of
the coronavirus now inevi-
table, the implications for
the homeless are becoming
more alarming. This is es-
pecially true for California, which currently
has more than one-fifth of the coronavirus
cases reported nationwide and half of the
country’s street homeless population.
Homelessness has long been framed as a
public health challenge. Encampments in
California have reported high rates of hepa-
titis C (spread by sharing needles) and dis-
eases such as typhus and hepatitis A. In
some encampments, life resembles condi-
tions in pre-modern eras, prior to the con-
struction of water and sanitation systems.
Contrary to the impression of many con-
servatives, governments in California regu-
larly move to dismantle encampments, with
public health being a leading justification.
Still, if dealing effectively with encampments
is a condition of containing the coronavirus
among the homeless, cities may face a tough
road ahead.
Despite increasing funding for programs
to fight homelessness, San Francisco experi-
enced an increase in encampments in 2019.
Civil liberties groups have sought strong
protections over matters such as the dispos-
al of homeless people’s personal property,
and cities’ powers to regulate sleeping on the
street were sharply limited by a 2018 federal
appeals court decision in City of Boise vs.
Martin. To prevent the coronavirus from
spreading faster, officials have to move as
quickly as possible.
COVID-19, the illness caused by the co-
ronavirus, is said to be most dangerous for
people with underlying health problems.
That certainly describes people living on the
street. Numerous studies have shown that
homeless individuals have more health
problems than other Americans, and many
of their serious health problems persist after
they are placed in shelters and even perma-
nent housing programs. A coronavirus out-
break in a shelter or supportive housing fa-
cility could prove as deadly as the crisis at the
Life Care Center facility in Kirkland, Wash.
At this point, protecting the homeless re-
quires a strong public education push. Most
Americans are getting hourly updates on co-
ronavirus developments on their phones
and computers. But that is not necessarily
true for the homeless population or the for-
merly homeless, many of whom are very iso-
lated. Their isolation also means they may
not be getting the message of the impor-
tance of aggressive hand washing and the
rest of the CDC’s coronavirus guidelines.
That means we should ensure that home-
less people become “high utilizers” of public
health resources. Despite already having
been in triage mode on homelessness for
years now, governments will need to make
extra efforts, and devote additional staffing
resources, to prevent and contain the spreadwithin the homeless population.
Necessity is the mother of honesty, or it
should be. Just as school closures are forcing
us to see the degree to which K-12 education
is critically important for working parents,
officials should scrutinize homeless services
to determine what could be redeployed
toward coronavirus care and prevention.
Some government spending on home-
lessness unquestionably has less to do with
effectiveness than showing the public you’re
“doing something.” Outreach to the street
population, for example, is substantially
public relations. The public appreciates see-
ing social workers out and about trying to
connect homeless people with services, but
most homeless people know how to locate
the nearest drop-in center without being di-
rected to it by an outreach worker.
Local governments should immediately
recommission their homeless outreach
workers to act as public health servants and
insist that homeless people raise their per-
sonal hygiene standards like everyone else is
being urged to do. In many places, the home-
less population has no ready access to bath-
rooms, showers and laundry facilities to im-
prove their hygiene. In the near term, gov-
ernments are going to have to focus on the
immediate and wide distribution of whatev-
er resources they have, such as hand sani-
tizer and portable hand-washing stations.
But even with more access to hygiene re-
sources, many in the homeless community
may be less disposed to follow public healthguidelines due to factors such as mental ill-
ness or plain stubbornness, despite it being
in their interest to do so.
Front-line social workers, experienced
with the challenge of “service resistance,”
will understand that priority must be placed
on ensuring that they use available re-
sources. Savvy social workers know how to
recruit the assistance of some of the more
functional members of the homeless popula-
tion, who are often better positioned to influ-
ence their peers than anyone associated
with the government.
Obviously, governments must provide
quarantine options for those who can’t self-
quarantine at home and pressure will have
to be brought to bear to make sure people
use those options if deemed necessary by
public health authorities. In much of the de-
bate around the coronavirus and the home-
less population, progressive commentators
have emphasized the need for affordable
housing, while conservative commentators
have focused on reducing public disorder.
Both points are legitimate, but neither is
particularly germane to the immediacy of
this health crisis. The government’s ability to
prevent COVID-19 from taking hold in the
vulnerable homeless population will be a
test of how much it can, at least for the time
being, dial down the ideology.Stephen Eideis a senior fellow at the
Manhattan Institute and contributing
editor of City Journal.Homelessness during the COVID-19 crisis
By Stephen Eide
A
re Americansready
for a woman presi-
dent? The Demo-
cratic primaries sug-
gest the answer is
“no.” Despite an initial field in-
cluding four distinguished wom-
en, all senators with strong favor-
ability ratings among Demo-
cratic voters, the field has already
coalesced around two white men
in their late 70s.
There is good reason to as-
sume this outcome results from
gender bias. Indeed, research
consistently finds that Ameri-
cans’ views of who should lead are
deeply influenced by gender, with
people generally viewing men as a
better match for leadership than
women. This sort of stereotyping
shapes perceptions of leadership
in companies, schools and fam-
ilies and is likely to extend to
views on who should lead the
most powerful nation in the
world.
But the whole truth is more
complicated. While there is abun-
dant evidence that women face
barriers in American politics, an-
other significant obstacle is con-
vincing voters that other Ameri-
cans would vote for a woman.
Throughout the primary sea-
son, the belief that Americans
would not elect a woman presi-
dent weighed on many Demo-
cratic voters. Many were torn be-
tween their own preferences and
their strong desires to support a
candidate who can beat Presi-
dent Trump. Despite their own
support for a female candidate,
many reported that they were
hesitant to vote for a woman be-
cause of an underlying anxiety
that too many other Americans
would be unwilling to also sup-
port a woman.
This reasoning creates a self-
fulfilling prophecy: If primary
voters believe other Americans
won’t vote for a woman, then they
themselves won’t vote for a wom-
an, and so a woman will not win.
The result is an “electability trap”
for the female candidates: The
very belief that a woman cannot
win has the power to make it true.
There are, however, ways to
defeat this trap. Our new study
found that when Democratic pri-
mary voters learn about women
winning in other elections in the
U.S., they are then more likely to
support a female candidate.
The problem of people under-
estimating the prevalence of
their own views in a broader
population is not uncommon. For
example, a 1975 study found that
white Americans who supported
racial integration incorrectly be-
lieved their view to be in the mi-
nority, when in fact it was the ma-
jority view. A 1993 study found
that a majority of Princeton Uni-
versity undergraduates reported
feeling uncomfortable with levels
of binge drinking on campus. But
when asked about the views of
other students, they wrongly
guessed that their peers were
comfortable with drinking levels.
More recently, various studies
have found that Americans
greatly underestimate levels of
belief in global warming, even
when they themselves believe in
global warming.
The common thread here is
that people’s sense of what is pos-
sible often lags behind reality. A
nationally representative survey
of 2,052 registered voters, con-
ducted by LeanIn.org, found a
similar kind of thinking affected
the Democratic race.
In the study, 53% of voters said
they personally were either “very
ready” or “extremely ready” for a
female president. Yet those same
voters thought that only 16% of
Americans would offer a similarly
enthusiastic response. Other re-
cent research shows that Ameri-
cans overestimate the opposition
to women as well as candidates
from other traditionally under-
represented groups.
Yet survey studies on the
question of electability do not
find that voters prefer men, and
occasionally have even found
that voters prefer women. Analy-
ses of election results generally
mirror these surveys, with wom-
en performing as well as men in
U.S. congressional races. This is
not to say that bias against wom-
en in politics is a thing of the past.
Women do as well as men in part
because only the most qualified
women succeed in getting on the
ballot.
While research tells us that
many voters underestimate
Americans’ willingness to vote for
women, would Democratic pri-
mary voters have been more will-
ing to go with their personal pref-
erence for a female candidate if
they thought a woman would be
considered electable to others?
To answer this question, we
conducted an experiment in late
February on a sample of about
3,000 likely Democratic primary
voters. Participants were ran-
domly assigned to read either a
short report summarizing re-
search showing that voters were
equally likely to vote for women
as for men in U.S. elections or a
generic essay about the Ameri-
can electoral process. Compared
with participants reading the ge-
neric essay, those who read the
report on women were signifi-
cantly more likely to say they
would vote for Elizabeth Warren
or Amy Klobuchar in their state’s
upcoming Democratic primary.
This experiment shows that
Democratic voters’ perceptions
of women’s electability very likely
had an effect on how they cast
their ballots. It also shows that
educating voters on how women
perform as candidates can help
address the electability trap.
Many Democratic voters say
defeating Trump is a top priority,
so their concern with electability
is understandable. That’s made
this primary season as focused on
electoral pragmatics and candi-
date viability as any in American
history.
Going forward, Democrats
should get out the message that
women running for office can win
and do win. If Democrats don’t
dispel misconceptions about
electability, they may inadvert-
ently perpetuate the antiquated
beliefs that they have fought so
hard to defeat.Robb Willeris a professor of
sociology, psychology and
organizational behavior at
Stanford University. Marianne
Cooperis a sociologist at the
VMware Women’s Leadership
Innovation Lab at Stanford
University. Christianne
Corbettis a PhD candidate in
sociology at Stanford University.Elizabeth Warren
was caught in the
electability trap
By Robb Willer,
Marianne Cooper
and Christianne Corbett
There is alot to
love about “Hilla-
ry,” the sympa-
thetic new Hulu
docuseries about
the life and times of
one of the most
polarizing women
in American political history.
Clinton critics, naturally, have
found much to hate.
But love it or hate it, the series
makes clear that Hillary Clinton
really understands herself — her
strengths, her vulnerabilities, her
mistakes. “I’m a really good public
official,” she says, but “a less-than-
ideal politician.”
Unlike the Bushes, who, in their
lack of introspection, are just
boring, the Clintons are endlessly
fascinating.
They have dominated so much
of recent American political life
and had so many bizarre ups and
downs that they have captured a
permanent place in our national
psyche.
Because Hillary came of age in
the late 1960s, a moment when
American women were making
unprecedented professional
strides — and encountering un-
precedented backlash — she has
come to be a kind of living, breath-
ing Rorschach blot. Americans
look at her and see all the positive
and negative feelings they have
about feminism, gender equality
and, yes, even marriage.
“What a burden,” she says in
“Hillary,” joking about the amount
of time she has to spend on hair
and makeup. She might as well
have been talking about her place
in history.
Two moments from this docu-
mentary have captured the public
imagination in ways that under-
score that, no matter what they do
or say, the Clintons just can’t seem
to win.
They are scorned for lying, and
scorned for telling the truth.
They are scorned for being too
private, and for talking too much.
They are scorned for not taking
responsibility, and scorned when
they do.
The first moment involves
Hillary’s dim view of Bernie Sand-
ers, her fierce Democratic rival in
the 2016 presidential primary.
“Honestly, Bernie drove me
crazy,” she says. “Nobody likes
him, nobody wants to work with
him, he got nothing done. He was acareer politician. It’s all just
baloney and I feel so bad that, you
know, people got sucked into it.”
So many Democrats were
offended: How dare she criticize a
fellow (nominal) Democrat during
an intense primary season!
Well, why not?
“I thought everyone wanted my
authentic, unvarnished views!”
she tweeted in January, after “Hil-
lary” debuted at the Sundance
Film Festival.
Oh, they do.
But only when it suits them.
Don’t get me wrong; I am a fan
of Sanders, of his idealism and
commitment to dragging the
Democratic Party to the left,
where it belongs. But I can see how
Sanders’ angry, aspirational rhet-
oric annoys the hell out of a prag-
matist like Clinton. Not to mention
his less-than-stellar interpersonal
skills.
There is a totemic scene in the
documentary, where Clinton and
Sanders are standing a few feet
apart, shifting on their feet, not
really looking at each other, as
they prepare to take the debate
stage.
Sanders, channeling every
clueless man who has used a wom-
an as his mirror, turns to Clinton
and, gesturing at his jacket, says,
“Whaddya think? Buttoned?”
You know she wants to say,
“What am I, your wardrobe con-
sultant?”
Instead, she says, “Well, you
can start buttoned, and then when
you get wound up, you can unbut-
ton.”
Sanders grunts, barely ac-
knowledging her, and looks away.
In that obnoxious moment, I
totally got why he drives her crazy.
The second scene that has
gotten people worked up is Bill
Clinton’s attempt to explain why
he engaged in a destructive sexual
relationship with White House
intern Monica Lewinsky, which led
to his 1998 impeachment, and also
very nearly to the end of his mar-
riage.
Critics, like Bill Maher, have
been appalled that Clinton speaks
of his “anxieties” as an impetus for
such dreadful behavior.
“Can I, for one second, channel
Monica Lewinsky?” Maher asked
his “Real Time” panel Friday. “I
just gotta say, the blindness of a
man saying that I had this affair
with this person to manage my
anxieties — how does that make
her feel? It’s a terrible thing to say.”Is it, though?
“Everybody’s life has pressures
and disappointments and terrors,
fears of whatever,” Clinton says.
“The things I did to manage my
anxieties for years.... I am a totally
different person than I was.”
You don’t have to be a fan of Bill
Clinton to understand that he was
trying to explain, not excuse, his
state of mind when his sexual
liaison with Lewinsky occurred.
“You feel like you’re staggering
around,” he says. “You’ve been in a
15-round prize fight that was ex-
tended to 30 rounds, and here is
someone who will take your mind
off it for a while....”
If that seems callous, it also
seems perceptive.
Lewinsky was exploited, no
doubt, and has paid far too great a
price for someone else’s (and her
own) monumentally wrong choice.
“I feel terrible about the fact that
Monica Lewinsky’s life was defined
by it, unfairly, I think,” he says.
But it has always been a mys-
tery why Clinton would risk so
much. “I have no defense,” he says.
“This is inexcusable what I did.”
And, he said, he just didn’t think
about the implications of getting
caught.
Even Jennifer Palmieri, assist-
ant to Clinton’s chief of staff who
assigned Lewinsky to deliver
memos to the president during the
fateful government shutdown,
says in the documentary that it
never occurred to her to worry
about the obviously smitten Lew-
insky’s proximity to Clinton, be-
cause she never thought that
Clinton could be that stupid.
I think his explanation is en-
tirely plausible; he has come to
understand — through counsel-
ing, he says — the forces in his life
that led to his reckless sexual
behavior. Most extramarital af-
fairs, I daresay, are less about
sexual gratification than they are
about meeting emotional needs,
and acting out childhood scripts.
The claim that he has not
apologized to Lewinsky is wrong.
He publicly apologized in 1998.
Perhaps he has not apologized
enough. Perhaps he can never
apologize enough.
And perhaps Hillary Clinton
should keep her mouth shut (while
also doing everything in her power
to support her party, naturally).
After watching “Hillary,” I’m really
glad she didn’t.@AbcarianLATPRIMARY RIVALS Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton in a 2016 Democratic debate in Las Vegas.John LocherAssociated PressA new film explains it —
why Hillary hates Bernie
ROBIN ABCARIAN