If the pandemic has taught us anything, it is that the line that separates the "haves" from the "have nots" is not fixed; and individuals who straddle the divide can find themselves on either side without warning. Financial stability is often used to determine whether you are a "have" or a "have not"; however most would agree that physical and mental health and wellbeing are equally as important to quality of life. That being said, we also know that physical and mental health are intimately linked to financial stability. It's one giant Venn diagram. Now why does this matter?
The pandemic has forced each of us to reflect on and define what it means to be a "have" or a "have not". Unfortunately, but not unexpectedly, our definitions differ, sometimes greatly. What I believe constitutes a "have", may not meet your "have" criteria; and likewise my definition of a "have not" may be more in line with your "have" criteria. These discrepancies create rifts in the, already strained, social fabric of our communities. They also give rise to a phenomena I call convenience advocacy.
Convenience advocacy, for the purpose of this post, means using an actual cause to further an agenda for individuals outside of the cause. I'm not saying that individuals outside of a cause cannot advocate for causes they don't personally identify with, absolutely they can and should. But! When people only seem to care when they have something to gain, that is not advocacy, that's opportunism.
The pandemic highlights where we have failed to support the most vulnerable as a society, including those experiencing homelessness, substance use disorders, those in for-profit long-term care homes, survivors of and those currently experiencing domestic abuse and anyone who needs to access to mental health services. However, what the media headlines often fail to include is the fact that these issues have plagued our communities since long before Covid, and without actual change, will continue to do so long after.
Convenience advocates often regurgitate these headlines as if they are breaking news, or a simple byproduct of the pandemic, and more specifically it's restrictions. They float out "increased rates of suicidal ideation" as an argument to open ski hills and "the tragic death of an individual due to a shuttered homeless shelter" as an argument to end lock downs. These arguments rarely include action beyond "opening the ski hill" or "easing restrictions". Most times there is no mention of addressing the root cause of these issues, which, spoiler alert, is NOT the pandemic or its restrictions. Rather, as a society we need to increase access to mental health services, safe and affordable housing and regulated long-term care beds. How do we do that? By properly funded them. That's the story. That's what needs advocating.
Anyone can make a post, paint a sign, circulate a petition, but until you start voting for people who prioritize the health and wellbeing of vulnerable populations and properly fund the services needed to prevent or eliminate disparities, you, my friend, are a convenience advocate; and your efforts do not help the vulnerable, the ones not straddling the line, the ones firmly on the "have not" side of society, the ones who will not benefit from elimination of Covid, or its restrictions.
While the pandemic did shift a large chunk of our population over the line to the "have not" side of society; there is a large group of people who equate a restricted lifestyle with living as a "have not". I acknowledge that the struggle, frustration and hardship that comes with living through a global pandemic is real; but the reality is, if the easing of restrictions or opening of ski hills can flip you back to the "haves", in my opinion, you are not truly a "have not". This is where differing definitions of "haves" and "have nots" can create tension. If someone truly feels they are a "have not" and advocate for change to remedy that, and change happens, is that opportunistic? No. I suppose not; but many of the causes being used to support these claims cannot be remedied by the gentle flicker of a neon OPEN sign.
All that being said, nothing would make me happier than for these "convenience advocates" to prove me wrong. I hope there truly has been a societal enlightenment about the importance of caring for our most vulnerable. I hope people continue to petition and rant and post and demand more of politicians and those in power when it comes to properly funding organizations that support the vulnerable members of our communities; because the pandemic will end, life will return to a semblance of normal, but inequalities and injustices will remain.
