Subscriber Benefit
As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe Now
“The more things change, the more they stay the same.”
I don’t read much fiction, but “The Great Gatsby,” written in the throes of the Roaring ’20s, is one of my favorite novels. Like most great works, it underscores a critical feature of the human condition: Collectively, we rarely encounter new experiences.
Of course, sometimes situations occur so infrequently that they feel unprecedented, or—what happens most often—we in the present fail to properly prepare or apply the lessons of our ancestors. Or—as is the case now—both.
It’s no secret the entire world was caught off-guard by the coronavirus pandemic. Because of that, it will be some time before we know whether the government’s initial response was proportionate—that is to say, could we have “flattened the curve” to roughly the same degree with fewer restrictions? With states beginning to slowly open back up, we might be able to make some extrapolations based on what happens.
Whether this information will make a difference to anyone is dubious. I wrote last month about how this experience might provide the impetus to begin breaking down the partisan roadblocks, if for nothing else than to pretend that some things are more important than landing a political punch. So far, the opposite has happened.
If a virus cannot unite us, then perhaps China can. When the time comes, China must face severe consequences. For whatever progress China has made over the last decades, it is still governed by despots and tyrants more interested in trying to prove their might than preventing the slaughter of countless individuals and causing a seismic economic downturn. As Margaret Thatcher said in a different context, “If you have to tell people you are, you aren’t.” Make no mistake about it: The hundreds of thousands of deaths caused by COVID-19 rest squarely on the shoulders of the Communist Party of China.
In the weeks and months to come, many around the world will confront a fundamental question: When confronting China, do they want their leaders to be a Churchill or a Chamberlain? Even if it turns out that the virus originated solely and entirely from the antiquated wet markets in Wuhan—and not, as some reports suggest, developed in a lab—this should serve as notice of the devastation an intentional biological weapon could unleash, and the need for courageous leadership.
Similarly, closer to home, Americans must grapple with a crisis of self-identity. What kind of government do we want, and how much power should it wield? Ironically, the possibility of the specter of socialism has increased since Bernie Sanders withdrew from the presidential race. As a couple of friends pointed out recently, the trillions of dollars in what amounts to free money recently doled out by the federal government walks right up to the line.
Of course, perspective is also useful. History shows us that people tolerate, for a time, certain actions during times of national emergency that they ordinarily would find repugnant. But in the meantime, we should be wary of those who would use this crisis as an excuse to foist a much more expansive government upon us.
That is not to say things will be as they were before. They will almost assuredly not be. To some extent, that is probably a good thing. A story I read the other day cataloged the possible changes that could befall higher education. That will not be the only industry to face scrutiny in the years to come.
Whatever might change, we can find solace in knowing that generations before us faced many of the same obstacles. As the saying goes, they turned out all right.•
Click here for more Forefront columns.
Please enable JavaScript to view this content.