A quick response before my broadcast to a piece I read this morning. A level of big government philosophy animates this Politico piece: “Admit It: You Are Willing to Let People Die to End the Shutdown.” The piece works from Jake Tapper’s question to Democrat Colorado Mayor Jared Polis — Tapper asks Polis if he’s concerned that reopening the state according thE phase one guidelines may cost his citizens their lives. The piece suggests that conservatives have adopted moral relativism in order to justify their position on the economic reopening. That isn’t a fair, correct, or logical take. A few observations:
Polis was blandly indirect in his answer. While he might wish to have “next week’s information and next month’s information available to me today,” the Democratic governor said, “that’s not the world we live in.” During a pandemic that likely will continue for months, he’s looking for a path forward in “an ongoing sustainable way,” one that takes into account citizens’ interests “psychologically, economically, and from a health perspective.”
The murkiness of Polis’ reply requires translation. To my ear, he was saying something like this: Yes, some people are going to die of Covid-19 who wouldn’t if I keep a full lockdown in place. I hope not too many or too fast. But keeping the risk of death as low as possible imposes other costs that are too high, and my job is to balance competing goals.
Let’s suppose this is a reasonably fair interpretation. You could call Polis’s argument provocative: No wonder he speaks so circuitously when what he really thinks is so cruel. Alternatively, you could call his argument banal: There is no one on any side of the shutdown debate who has not made saving lives a top priority, but also no one in a position of authority who has made this the exclusive priority.
The real question is less philosophical (Are you willing to “cost your constituents their lives”?) than practical (What is your tolerance for some uncertain number of additional deaths against some certain benefits of resuming regular life?).
Those demanding an either/or approach think any combination of social distancing plus slowly reopening the economy is bad. Polis is simply balancing saving lives with ensuring society remains open and continues to function. This isn’t controversial. Throughout the piece it’s clear that the responsibility for saving lives is placed squarely on the government. This is a fine thought, if you believe people are not responsible for their own actions and you believe the government is competent and trustworthy, which many conservatives do not. This is the difference.
Yesterday I spoke with Edward Newton, the Texas mayor who was the first to reopen his town according to phase one guidelines (video here). “Government cannot stop you from getting sick,” Newton said, discussing free association and how if a business chooses to open a citizen can choose to not patronize that business, just as they can ultimately use senses by choosing to be mindful of germs and social distancing. The government has its role, but at some point, people need to manage their own risks, Newton suggested. This is presented by the left as callous and heartless, and personal responsibility in any form is to advocate for a government to abandon its people. It’s weird to me that anyone on the left can champion government as a nanny-figure considering any other day they’re blasting it for being the Third Reich.
There is no one on any side of the shutdown debate who has not made saving lives a top priority, but also no one in a position of authority who has made this the exclusive priority.
The real question is less philosophical (Are you willing to “cost your constituents their lives”?) than practical (What is your tolerance for some uncertain number of additional deaths against some certain benefits of resuming regular life?).
[…]
The fact that the governor—like his Republican counterpart in Georgia, Brian Kemp, like Nancy Pelosi or Donald Trump—doesn’t know specifically who will die of coronavirus makes their choice of how fast to open less excruciating but no less profound in its moral implications.
Again, it’s a loaded question. It presupposes two things: that reopening is death and that elected leaders are fine with sacrificing some at the alter of the economic reopening. It’s not a gracious argument; it’s an argument that immediately assigns the worst motivation and interpretation of actions to elected officials. Oddly, those making the argument in this piece don’t realize how they indict themselves. For those maligning business owners as murderous monsters because they simply want to pay their bills consider this — certain businesses were declared essential: Food delivery is essential but cancer treatment isn’t. So you’re fine with risking the lives of delivery drivers to avoid picking up your pizza yourself? Is it acceptable to risk the lives of restaurant staff because you don’t want to make your own food? Is it acceptable to risk the lives and health stability of cancer patients as well as the livelihood of medical staff being furloughed around the country to demonstrate a devotion to saving lives? If you want to discuss murkiness of intent, this is it. By declaring that some people are essential, haven’t you already decided that some lives are expendable? Is it OK to risk some lives for your convenience? This makes you better how? I find that truly callous — necessity and essentialness are defined by what works for them, not the people for whom they claim to care. At least be honest about it.
It’s also odd to me that an ideological group that typically protests the “police state” and Republicans exercising too much power is now blasting leaders for not being enough of a police state and for not exercising enough power. The principle has changed according to the situation’s political advantage. (Relativism — or just plain hypocrisy, perhaps.) Reopening public beaches so people could sit six feet apart in the sand and enjoy the sun and air is bad but subways (the order to clean those every 24 hours was literally just announced yesterday) are acceptable. Here is the ideological and geographical warfare you ordered.
And, yes, averting some number of tragic deaths from coronavirus is in tension with the need for a much larger number of people to resume life—sometime after it is no longer reckless to do so but sometime before it is perfectly safe.
Nothing in life is perfectly safe. Freedom isn’t perfectly safe — but it’s a lot safer than the statist systems so many leftists champion. For example: freedom hasn’t killed millions but communism has.
A dishonest brand of politics, of which we are wearily familiar, assumes a pose of superiority and certitude, and cares about evidence mostly as it can be deployed as weapon or shield in a partisan argument that began long before the issue at hand and will continue long after.
This is done by assuming that moms like Shelley Luther — who simply wants to pay her mortgage and feed her three kids — is a murderous monster pulling a stunt for money by reopening her salon? She isn’t essential because the need she serves is her own and her family’s.
It’s worth noting the shift in worldviews. During the pandemic, conservatives are much more likely to be relativists—everyone dies of something eventually so let’s keep this disease in perspective—while liberals generally are quicker to assume the absolutist stance—let’s stay shut down for as long as health experts tell us we need to save lives.
This is a reductive assessment absent nuance. The approach is to not create another, or potentially worse, tragedy with the “cure.” This isn’t an issue of relativism, it’s an issue of authenticity.
