If Trump says it, does that mean it’s not true?

The widely and deservedly respected Dr. Anthony Fauci, head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, testified before the Senate last week that as far as schools reopening in September, there is still too much we do not know about COVID-19. “We don’t know everything about this virus,” he said, “and we really better be very careful, particularly when it comes to children, because the more and more we learn, we’re seeing things about what this virus can do that we didn’t see from the studies in China.” 

That was widely taken as a caution that schools should think twice before reopening and that, in turn, drew an unequivocal rebuke from President Trump the next day. “I was surprised by his answer, actually,” Trump said. “It’s just — to me, it’s not an acceptable answer, especially when it comes to schools.” And then, all hell broke loose in the commentariat and in my (and likely your) social media feed.

Trump was widely excoriated for waging a war on science, for showing once again that no one in the executive branch can say anything that doesn’t accord with what Trump doesn’t want said, and that by assuming such a high public prominence, Fauci had inevitably incurred the wrath of his narcissistic boss. Even many stalwart Republicans obliquely supported Fauci over Trump, with Rep. Lynne Cheney (R-Wyo.) stating, “We need his expertise and his judgment to defeat this virus.”

And so we do. But does that mean that Trump is wrong in saying that opening schools is a societal priority bar none and that creating obstacles to that is not acceptable and that the best course in a world of mostly bad options is to find a way to open schools safely enough?

The problem, as most of us have recognized, is that the partisan frame has become so rigid and purist that basic questions that affect all of us are forced into either-or alternatives that few of us actually inhabit. Take a recent poll of Republican versus Democratic attitudes about the economy and public health. According to the Morning Consult poll, 72 percent of Democrats say they are more worried about public health, while 55 percent of Republicans are more concerned about the economy. That was heralded as proof of the partisan divide that then exhibits itself baldly in reactions against Trump disagreeing with Fauci about how to approach school reopenings. 

But the real problem is framing the question as either-or in the first place. Everyone, it is safe to say, is deeply and legitimately worried about both public health and the economy. The economy is not just money and markets: It is daily life, schooling for our children, family time with our parents and relatives and friends, being able to afford the necessities of life that government can provide for a while but cannot provide for everyone forever.

Public health is obvious: No one wants early, preventable death or severe illness, for themselves or for loved ones. The idea that there exists a considerable portion of people who tilt wildly to one versus the other is a fiction of polling questions and partisan political language. One concern may feel relatively more crucial to one group or another, but no one is indifferent to either.

And few are indifferent to the question of reopening schools. In fact, opening K-12 education physically is a societal imperative and non-negotiable, everywhere the world. No society can function if primary and secondary schools remain closed. That is why countries in various levels of disease containment, ranging from China to Germany to the United Kingdom, already are opening or are about to reopen schools. Many of those are in no better shape than the Northeast of the United States. But opening schools cannot wait until we are all perfectly safe, which is why countries around the world are indeed reopening them. That should not be a Democratic versus Republican issue, and for most parents, it is not.

We have already seen in two months of experimentation that online schooling can supplement some learning but ultimately leaves students far behind the in-person equivalent. Yes, in an ideal world, every public-school district would have had online contingencies, curriculum, Chromebooks and high-speed internet at the ready for students in disadvantaged economic circumstances.

We don’t live in that world, and we can’t create it by the fall. And keeping schools closed will, as in so many other areas, hit hardest those already hit hardest: The working class, African-Americans, Hispanics and those without access to daycare. The ones demanding perfect safety are, for the most part, the ones most able to afford it.

The discussion should start with, “How do we open schools in the fall as safely as possible?” and not with, “Should we open schools in the fall or even the spring if the disease is still in circulation?” That should have been Fauci’s answer, and it should have been Trump’s — and it should be all of ours.

It certainly is the guiding principle in numerous other countries, not all of which have done a superlative job with public health and disease management. Fear of the disease is rational, but the response of “Stay home until there is no fear” is not. We need to start solving this problem — and opening schools, regardless of who says what.

Zachary Karabell is founder of the Progress Network, under development at the think tank New America. He is president of River Twice Research and River Twice Capital, and the author of 12 books, including “The Leading Indicators: A Short History of the Numbers That Rule Our World” (2014).