I consider myself a free-speech absolutist. But like most absolutists, I’m not that absolute. You shouldn’t, for instance, use speech to incite violence, a position long supported by the U.S. Supreme Court. Certain speech acts, such as whipping a crowd into a Nuremberg Rally-style violent froth, leave the realm of “speech” altogether and cross into the realm of “action”; and actions are frequently regulated, for good reason. For a more detailed analysis, see Mick Hume.
We’re witnessing, right now, an example of what happens when we consider the right to free speech too absolute. The debate, or more accurately “debate,” over whether cloth masks prevent the spread of COVID-19, has dragged on for seven months, while American statistics show over eight million diagnoses, and nearly a quarter-million avoidable deaths. Sadly, this is no longer a debate. We’re only arguing about how to minimize casualty counts aboard the Titanic.
Anti-mask advocates drag the debate on indefinitely, using squishy tactics. They drag up orphaned quotes from Anthony Fauci and other public health officials, some from as early as March, keeping ideas alive after the science has developed. They recycle Cold War claims of Marxist evils, claims easily debunked by anybody who watched Chernobyl and saw the bureaucrats send miners into harm’s way without PPE. Anything they can imagine to keep the debate alive, they’ll deploy.
Because, as long as Americans keep arguing, nothing gets done. As Rampton and Stauber point out, defenders of the status quo don’t need to win debates to achieve victory; they only need to preserve the illusion that the debate remains unresolved. If a critical fraction of the population believes there are still questions unanswered, they’re unmotivated to participate in meaningful solutions, or to demand collective action from the people we’ve elected to represent our interests.
Nebraska, where I live, currently has the fifth-highest Coronavirus infection rate in America. Despite this, Governor Pete Ricketts persists in refusing to issue a statewide mask mandate. Historically, he’s stated that he sees mandates as “the big, heavy hand of government,” indicating he believes freedom from government interference outweighs the biggest public health crisis in our lifetimes. (He has, however, endorsed America's most restrictive abortion laws, so his anti-government sentiments are apparently contingent.)
COVID masks have become a thumbnail sketch of why America, and the world generally, can’t organize to address the major, crippling crises of our age. We persist in believing we need to resolve every debate, permanently and definitively, before taking any collective action. Public pundits continue arguing about whether anthropogenic global warming is real, even as the entire western United States is on fire, because the science is still evolving. Let’s just wait and see.
Except, that’s literally not how science works. Nothing is ever permanently resolved. Isaac Newton published his theory of gravity in 1687, and physicists continue testing and refining his principles over 330 years later. Gravity, a concept so ubiquitous that it seems impossible to question, a force so axiomatic that “what goes up, must come down” is fundamental to Western philosophy. If that’s still subject to question, a disease that didn’t exist twelve months ago won’t be resolved in one sitting.
At this point, somebody will inevitably bring Michael Crichton into the discussion. The American science fiction author gets exhumed whenever discussions like this happen, particularly his famous quote: “Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.” Personally, though, I’d prefer to see Crichton banned from these discussions. His entire premise consists of hating everything and impeding every discussion. Philosophically, Crichton is a liability.
So, keeping debates alive, while perhaps an admirable Socratic effort in theory, does immeasurable harm in practice. Sometimes, as with COVID masks and global warming, we should declare the fundamental debate closed, and move onto action. Sure, we can continue arguing over the fine details: how often does my mask need washed? Is carbon dioxide or methane a worse greenhouse gas? But the core facts are so robust, that the debate needs to just stop.
However, in reality, this opens other questions. Who gets to declare debates closed? The President? This President would happily declare all debates closed, and all progress unfair, rolling back society to whenever he thinks things were good, which is apparently 1964. Scientists and doctors might declare debates closed on their side, but run up insurmountable bills, while bean counters would do the opposite. Some debates need to close. But who gets to close them?
No comments:
Post a Comment