Well, Biden's speech on COVID has now allowed sane and rational conservatives to stake out a position -- in favor of vaccines, but against mandates. It is depressing to read columns by Jonah Goldberg or George Will because they drive home just how far we are apart. On the other hand, I do believe that disagreement is healthy for democracy, so let me offer a little healthy disagreement here. Both men agree that Biden's anger and frustration with people who won't take the vaccine is understandable and justified, but does not justify a national mandate.
Will begins by denouncing the idea that rights are granted by government and can be revoked by government and says:
This nation’s Founders thought otherwise: Governments are, as the Declaration of Independence says, instituted to “secure” preexisting rights. To this end, the Constitution’s Framers gave the federal government finite, enumerated powers and reserved police power to the states.
Do I have to point out why that makes no sense at all? If "governments" secure pre-existing rights, then presumably that rule applies to all government, whether federal or state. Yes, there are plenty of arguments for limiting federal power and leaving plenty of power in the hands of states. Regulations that are appropriate to one area may not be appropriate to another. People in one area may have different values, different ideas of what is appropriate, etc.
But the basic idea that any action by the federal government, outside of a few narrowly enumerated powers, is inherently tyrannical, while identical actions taken by states are inherently not tyrannical amounts to a view that the states can do no wrong. That view has been subjected to extensive testing in the field and decisively proven wrong. Or, to put it more directly, Will's argument here is exactly the same one segregationists used to oppose civil rights.
Obviously Will is right that it would be lawless for the President to unilaterally order such a mandate at the snap of his fingers. But that is not what is happening. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) is going to issue such a regulation through the normal regulatory process. OSHA has been issuing such regulations since the 1970's. Workplace safety regulations sound very much like the sort of "police powers" that were originally reserved to the states. Will does not say that he considers OSHA unconstitutional, only that he considers this particular regulation unconstitutional. But he never explains why this regulation is different from other workplace regulations. So Will should have to answer, what makes this regulation different from normal regulation? Or, if he cannot explain that, does he consider OSHA to be constitutional at all?
As for Goldberg, it is hard to say exactly what he favors. His view appears to be that now that anyone who wants a vaccine can have one, whether to have a vaccine is a personal choice. If people who oppose the vaccine prefer 150,000 new cases and 1,500 new dead per day, that is their business. There are three problems with this view. The first is that people under 12 are not yet eligible for the vaccine and somehow have to be protected. The second is that the vaccine is not 100% effective. Countries with much higher vaccine rates than ours are having serious secondary outbreaks as a result of breakthrough infections. Pre-delta variant, we could treat the vaccine as close enough to perfect, but with the delta variant that is clearly not the case. And finally, even if a 100% effective vaccine was available to people of all ages, there is still the problem with an outbreak on the scale we are seeing now overloading the healthcare system and limiting healthcare available for other conditions as well.
Goldberg correctly comments that Biden made a mistake in declaring victory, only to see it swept away by the delta variant, and that we will never fully defeat COVID, that it will be here to stay. Yet he concludes by criticizing Biden for saying just that. His grounds for criticism appears to be that acknowledging that COVID is here to stay fosters a chronic crisis mode and encourages arbitrary power grabs, a fair concern. But he also seems to consider treating 150,000 new cases and 1,500 dead per day as a crisis to be mere pandering the crisis-mongers. "The most pro-vaccine voters and voices are often the most pro-mask, pro-school closure and pro-shutdown."
Well, yes, but do we have to point out the opposite? The most anti-shutdown voices became anti-mask when masks became a less intrusive alternative to shutdown, and then went on to be anti-vaccine. Being pro-all of these is a consistent view to take to halt the spread of a dangerous contagious disease. Being anti-shutdown is to point out very real social and economic costs of the resulting isolation and loss of community. But any rational anti-shutdown viewpoint would want to find some sort of less intrusive way to curb contagious disease. Instead, people who are anti-all of these seem to be driven by mindless, reflexive opposition. Herein lies the problem with denouncing Biden's speech as culture wars. Of course it is culture war. Absolutely any action to curb the pandemic is culture war.
No comments:
Post a Comment