By Kevin D. Williamson
Friday, March 13, 2020
One detects a pattern in American politics: Every
challenge is a crisis, every crisis is the Moral
Equivalent of War, and winning that war, we are told, means giving the
Left everything it demands, without opposition and generally with no regard for
the Constitution, process, or democratic norms. “Never let a good crisis to go
waste,” as Rahm Emanuel famously put it.
And so it is with COVID-19.
The novel coronavirus outbreak — a genuine crisis and a
real emergency — already is being exploited by Democrats with an eye on the
upcoming presidential campaign and political contests beyond that. The
emergency demonstrates, they say, the necessity of everything progressives have
been demanding for the past 20 years.
That begins with a “universal” health-care system along
lines generally described as “European.” The most obvious problems with that
are there is no such thing as a “European”-style health-care system; Europe has
many different kinds of health-care systems, and very few of them are, in fact,
the British-Canadian national-monopoly model that ensorcells our Democrats. The
system in Switzerland is different from the one in Sweden which is different
from the one in the United Kingdom.
Another shortcoming of that line of argument is that
Europe’s health-care systems are not performing especially well. Italy, once
ranked the second-best health-care system in the world by the World Health
Organization, is overwhelmed by the epidemic. The New York Times
reports: “The mayor of one town complained that doctors were forced to decide
not to treat the very old, leaving them to die. In another town, patients with
coronavirus-caused pneumonia were being sent home. Elsewhere, a nurse collapsed
with her mask on, her photograph becoming a symbol of overwhelmed medical
staff.”
One country over, the Swiss canton of Ticino has closed
its border with Italy, and the rest of the country is preparing emergency
quarantine measures. Switzerland is a reminder that it matters how programs are
designed and also matters — perhaps more — how they are implemented. The
so-called Affordable Care Act was based in part on the Swiss health-care
system, which has a rigorously enforced individual mandate — compliance is
practically 100 percent. The U.S. attempt to enforce an individual mandated
failed but was never seriously attempted to begin with. Similarly, Switzerland
is preparing to hand out CHF5,000-per-violation fines (about $5,300) to enforce
its quarantine. In France, the mayor of Landerneau is still defending his
town’s decision to host 3,500 revelers, painted blue and frolicking, as part of
the world’s largest Smurf celebration.
If you think the United States in a public-health
emergency is going to be more like Switzerland than Italy — have you met
Americans?
Governments are built on top of cultures and societies.
Point to the deficiencies of Italy’s universal health-care program and American
progressives will say, essentially, “Well, that’s a bad one, and we want a good
one, instead.” Well. Presumably, we’d also like to have better police
departments, a better Department of Agriculture, better drivers’-license
bureaus, etc. — but the fact that we have the ones we have ought to be of some
interest to policymakers on guard against utopian delusions.
Government is not a theater for moral performance — it is
a convenience, something we use to solve problems that are difficult to
solve in other ways. If we wish to be effective in doing that, then we must
begin by understanding and identifying the problems, one at a time.
It is entirely possible to maintain a system that has the
capacity to respond to discrete emergencies without building a program of
universal permanent benefits. Not only is it possible to do so, it is necessary
to treat these as separate projects: Even if you believe that programs of
universal permanent benefits are desirable (not only in health care but in paid
leave, child-care subsidies, etc.) you should understand that building
emergency-response systems and building quotidian social programs are
fundamentally different enterprises. A bigger welfare state is not insurance
against unpredictable events.
(None of the above need be taken as a defense of current
U.S. health-care practices.)
It is the nature of epidemics to be unpredictable in the
specifics. What is needed, then, are agencies that are liberally empowered to
act within well-defined parameters, with sufficient capacity and expertise to
respond adequately to a wide range of related threats.
How to achieve that?
Begin with two cheers for the so-called deep state:
Communities of expertise of the kind we rely on to respond to crises will necessarily
be autonomous (to a degree not expected of, say, the FDIC), which will make
them resistant to some policy changes demanded by democratically elected
officials, who have a predictable habit of raiding the budgets and staffs of emergency-preparedness
organizations when they themselves see no emergency on the horizon. (Which they
never do.) Donald Trump’s 2021 budget proposal would cut the CDC budget by 15
percent, including a $35 million cut to the Infectious Diseases Rapid Response
Reserve Fund’s annual contribution. Trump’s budget chief was in Congress
defending those cuts on Tuesday. Meeting short-term budget goals by reducing
annual contributions intended to fund future requirements is familiar enough:
Democrats have been doing that with government-employee pension funds for
decades — another financial crisis in the making. There is nothing new under
the Washington sun.
An epidemic is a specific problem in a specific class of
problems. If your response to that problem is “Do exactly what I wanted you to
do before there was a problem,” then you have not thought about the problem
carefully enough.
No comments:
Post a Comment