Gordon L. Weil
Let's abolish the police.
That's just a modest proposal made
possible by the low crime rate. The police are a drain on taxpayers
when there's little for them to do.
Similarly, we should end social
distancing, masks and stay-at-home orders, because the number of
Covid-19 cases has peaked. It's time to get on with our normal
lives. It's possible that a few extra people would die, but not
many. Besides, they are mostly old people.
Not good ideas? The presence of the
police is the main reason crime is under control. Covid-19 cases
have slowed thanks to government-mandated protective measures that
are reducing its spread.
The real and growing problem is that
some people do not understand how this works.
The best case for opening would be that
people need to work and collect their pay to cover the basic cost of
living, and some people are simply bothered by prolonged stays within
the four walls of home.
But many protesting state government
requirements to reduce the spread of the virus say their reasons are
not mainly about personal economics or peace of mind. They resist
government action that they claim limits their freedom. They want to
self-liberate, not self-isolate.
Angry people in the streets protesting
actions to reduce the lasting effect of the virus are being organized
by a right-wing coalition, including the Trump presidential campaign.
Interestingly, among the demonstrations
against action by governors to limit the spread, a crowd gathered to
oppose the Republican governor of Ohio, the conservative leader of a
state essential to Trump's election effort.
The Ohio demonstration illustrates a
split persists between Trump Republicans and traditional Republicans
who support their governor. In some southern states that have been
Trump strongholds, governors are already easing anti-spread measures.
In understanding the drive to “open”
the country, there are economic and health realities. Even if
government anti-virus action came to a halt, opening the country
would not bring a quick return to the levels of health and the
economy that existed before the coronavirus arrived.
Any reopening will be gradual. Change will come to places with less
chance of people having undetected Covid-19. That may be less
densely populated areas, though that's not yet a certainty. It will
also come to those activities in which people are not in close
contact with one another. Playing golf may come ahead of dining out.
The economy will not boom to serve
unmet demand. The aftermath of World War II is cited, but the
national economy then had been subject to wartime rationing. When
the lid came off, people bought cars and millions of veterans wanted
new homes.
Now, the economy is coming off a
sustained boom. There is little unmet demand, so there is not likely
to be an explosion of purchasing. It's possible that people will
have picked up some new habits during the crisis, leading to more
saving and less consuming.
Government, the frequent target of
Trump and the GOP, may take a bigger piece of economic activity.
It's possible more funding will go to health protection. Greater
attention may be paid to older Americans and others who are
vulnerable.
As a result of these possible changes
from the country as it was before the crisis, the economy may not
return to the way things were as recently as January.
Even worse, if protective measures are
lifted too quickly, especially without adequate testing to determine
the true scope of Covid-19's spread, it is highly likely there will
be a new surge of cases and deaths. Re-opening then could take
years.
Trump and his supporters appear to
believe that reopening the economy will restore strongly positive
economic results quickly. If good times were restored and the virus
seen only as blip on the boom, that should improve Trump's
re-election chances.
If there were a new surge of Covid-19,
the economy would have no chance of a rapid recovery and it might
slow again. There might be a political price to pay for acting too
soon. Governors do not want to take those risks.
For Trump, the calculation is
different. The strong economy was his best argument for re-election.
He chose not to cast himself as the unifying national leader in time
of crisis, preferring to stick with his original plan of relying on
the economy. Politically, he has gambled and needs re-opening, even
with its risks.
Beyond the 2020 elections, opponents of
anti-spread measures insist that personal freedom should be set above
the common interest. Perhaps their demonstrations will focus popular
attention on deciding the right balance.
No comments:
Post a Comment