The Washington Post blares under its masthead that “Democracy Dies in Darkness.” That alliterative tag line for The Bezos Post is intended as a not-so-subtle jab at Donald Trump, as “democracy” for The Post and the rest of the Mainstream Media means “letting overcredentialed grad students and aloof experts run everything while ignoring the proles.” Apparently, a businessman who has slashed federal taxes and regulations and devolved power back to the States is a would-be authoritarian.
Leave it to Tucker Carlson to diagnose the problem far more effectively than any medicine man mad with power:
In the clip above, Carlson discusses an interview with an American businessman so steeped in China’s slippery, dishonest culture that his desire for Wuhan-style lockdowns—where the Chi-Coms welded doors shut, starving people inside their apartments—went totally unremarked upon, even after he said such measures were desirable on Carlson’s show!
Apparently, nobody batted an eye at the suggestion that it might worth starving healthy citizens in order to “flatten the curve” of The Virus. Anecdotally, I’ve spoken with friends who think that any curtailment of liberties and destruction of economic activity is worth the cost of saving a handful of lives. They are shockingly blase about such a dire prescription, likely because they themselves (or so they presume) would not be subject to any unpleasant side effects.
These are the same folks that would balk if the government decided to crack down on marijuana sales in Colorado (which, I believe, still violate federal law) or wanted to overturn Obergefell, decrying them as “a violation of civil liberties” and the like, but think that indefinite, draconian shutdowns and arresting churchgoers is necessary to save—what?—maybe a few thousand already-sick people?
I’m not suggesting we shouldn’t take The Virus seriously, or that elderly lives aren’t worth saving. They certainly are. But every grown-up understands the nature of trade-offs: that the misery inflicted by an extended economic depression will far outstrip whatever misery The Virus can cause.
But even more importantly, liberty is worth preserving, even if there is a plague. We’ve turned dancing nurses and doctors into de facto technocrats, willfully suspending basic constitutional liberties in exchange for… staying at home?
The counterargument boils down to “you can’t enjoy your liberty if you’re dead.” What a shortsighted, foolish, arrogant bit of ass-holery. Thousands upon thousands of Americans have sacrificed their lives to secure and maintain liberty for the rest of us to enjoy. They did so knowing that their deaths meant that others could enjoy the fruits of liberty.
Again, I don’t want to get sick and die, nor do I want anyone else to do so. We should certainly be mindful about washing our hands, keeping a respectful distance from folks, and cleaning thoroughly. That’s just the respectful, kindly thing to do—we should care about other people in our society.
But there’s a world of difference between that and letting a handful of doctors displace the Constitution. If people want to go to church, let them go to church. If healthy individuals want to take the risk of going to work, let them work.
Somehow smoking pot and watching Netflix has become a basic human right, but freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and the right to assemble peacefully have become illegal. In a sane world, we’d put the torch to pot farms* and take the growers to church.
Thank God for the South, which continues to approach The Virus with commonsense and perspective—and with an understanding that there is more to this life than watching television and being comfortable.
*Don’t sperg out on me, Libertarian autists; it’s what we adults call hyperbole and satire.