In a few short months, the coronavirus has conquered the world. If this is World War 3, the coronavirus is the enemy.
It has been conceded in the corridors of power that the initial feet-shuffling and backpedaling on pandemic measures were ill-conceived — action was taken too slowly for an enemy this potent.
A common strategy was needed to defeat a common enemy.
Despite its many differences, the world did eventually come to a consensus view on pandemic measures. The strategy was two-pronged: for the state, it was to impose lockdowns when necessary and to enforce strict border control; for the public, it was to comply with social distancing measures, strict hygiene standards, and wearing a mask outside.
This pandemic strategy has been well-received in the Asia-Pacific, where lockdown measures were largely obeyed without protest and mask-wearing became an everyday habit.
However, things were different in the United States. When lockdown measures were first implemented, pockets of protests erupted across the United States. People gathered in the hundreds (often without a face mask) demanding that lockdown measures be lifted. The other point of contention is the mandate to wear face masks. Some people have flat-out refused to wear a mask in public, even resorting to burning face masks as an act of protest to ‘ignite freedom’.
Where does such vehemence to pandemic measures come from?
The answer is simple: The view of American freedom for some is fundamentally ill-suited to the orthodoxy of pandemic control that has emerged over the past few months. Let me explain.
American freedom, as the sum of her history, Constitution, and lived experiences, is a precarious thing to define. However, I will attempt to do so: at its core, American freedom is the belief and conviction that free peoples have the right to self-determination, free from undue coercion. This is evident in the thrust of US foreign policy, regardless of the administration of the day: No one tells the United States what to do; everyone else either fall in line or get out of the way.
This fundamentally American view of freedom can help explain the pushback against pandemic measures. Admittedly, the consensus coronavirus strategy defies easy partisan classification: conservatives may see them as a patriotic call to sacrifice in defense of the nation; liberals may see them as an intervention finally befitting the role of the state. Ultimately, the angst in the United States against coronavirus measures is not about partisanship, but a pushback against perceived encroachment on the spirit of American freedom itself.
To put this into perspective, we only need to examine a single clause in the US Constitution, namely the Freedom of Assembly clause found in the First Amendment. The text reads: “Congress shall make no law… abridging… the right of the people peaceably to assemble.” A lockdown is by definition a state-mandated restriction of the right of people to assemble freely. From this viewpoint, lockdown measures are in contradiction to the First Amendment, and by extension, the Constitution.
Reasonable people can, of course, disagree. As of writing, the lockdown measures have not been challenged on this specific point in the courts (although they have been challenged on the grounds of the Freedom of Religion). Why is that? Confronted with the alternative, which is death and disease running rampant, most people would rather live with the inconveniences of abiding by a lockdown and wearing a mask in public, regardless of ideological leanings.
Well, most people. Some people see pushback against state-mandated coronavirus measures as a righteous resistance against state overreach. For them, this is about a principled stand against the erosion of freedoms, regardless of the premise — including a pandemic.
Generalization is a dirty thing, and it is impossible to capture all the shades of reasons that cause someone to arrive at a worldview. However, it helps to listen and to understand, if just for the sake of crafting better public health policies and articulating them in a way that makes sense to people.
American freedom is not incompatible with sound pandemic measures; after all, there can be no real debate about the nature of freedom if the population is getting sick and dying. A winning argument for American freedom and its context in social responsibility is the answer. When that takes root, a true partnership between Government and People can begin, and the world will be all the better and safer for it.
