It's become readily apparent there are about three positions available on the COVID restrictions; Total disbelief of everything we're told on one hand, total acceptance of everything we're told on the other and those in the middle... unsure of what we're told, knowing there's a disease out there we don't know enough about, knowing you have about a 1 in 20 chance of getting very dead if you catch it, knowing there's no vaccines as yet and knowing that no sure, absolute cures have been found; but also heartened by the progress that's been made... or that we hope has been made.
But that's not really the point of this post. The point is to ponder how these things seem to break down along political lines.
For the most part, in my experience, the labels go as follows:
Leftists are true believers. They want things to continue to be shut down. They want to destroy the economy because that guarantees Trump's defeat this November. They see what's going on, they understand some intuitive truth (The less you're out, the less you're likely to contract this virus.) and they want as much shut down as possible to reduce contact. And they hate Trump with a passion that, for its breadth and depth, even has a doggedly admirable trait to it. To the right, they hate Trump so much and want him defeated so badly, they would destroy this country to achieve that goal.
They understand the nature of this Stay Home order is not a civil rights grab; it's only temporary; and yes, closing businesses can be tough on those who own them and have worked so hard to succeed and who will, in some cases, lose everything. But that's collateral damage and businesses can be rebuilt while lives can't be.
Rightists are true deniers. They want life to instantly return to the way it was this time last year. They want everything opened up because our economy is permanently destroyed otherwise. They see what's going on, but act like antivaxer types, disbelieving what they see and everything government tells them, no matter what it is. And they simply don't care how many die in the process... though rest assured, they CLAIM otherwise.
They rely on absolute lies to push their positions; i.e., you have a better chance of being struck by lightning than you do of dying from COVID 19, and they attempt to verbally crush anyone who disagrees with them. They (falsely) claim all of this is unconstitutional. The Wisconsin Supreme Court, for example, recently overturned their Governor's lock-down order, reopening Wisconsin like there was no epidemic of this stuff at all; therefore, they (wrongly) believe that ALL efforts to control this outbreak are unconstitutional, everywhere.
Wisconsin, of course, has its own set of laws and its own state constitution. I'm no expert on their laws and don't claim to be... and neither is anyone else I've read... but the deniers don't care. They take Wisconsin as a small blanket and turn what happened there into a football-field sized quilt. But the problem we here in Washington have is that our laws are not Wisconsin's. And, of course, the deniers conveniently forget all about where the people of this state who just voted many of these powers to the Governor via SJR 2800 just last November.
Now, I marked "no" on that ballot, but it passed overwhelmingly, by a 2:1 tally. I opposed it. I lost. I got over it.
Then, there is the middle. The middle has formulated few actual conclusions. Some inescapable facts are clear: SOMETHING is going on. There is an unknown disease going on out there, and it can kill you. They have concerns about the impacts on the economy, to be sure. They miss certain aspects of life in the immediate past, but they don't see this as a permanent power grab where our rights are shredded like so much confetti.
They pay attention to the extent they can. They watch business news and see/hear frequently conflicting stories. Many, rightfully, have a built-in distrust of the media, which has long since forgotten their actual mission of reporting news and letting the people decide to one they acknowledge is merely an effort to formulate the news in such a way that the people will do what the media wants.
They remember a government of lies under Obama, and frequently wonder how much they're being lied to now... while they wonder what the point of all of this is, if it's some sort of set up for something else.... something less readily apparent.
These are, as I see, the broad strokes of the three main categories. Both the left and the right are following the dictates of former Representative, former White House Chief of Staff and former mayor of Chicago Rahm Emanuel, who famously is quoted as saying to "never allow a crisis to go to waste."
And oddly, I find myself in a situation where the card seems to have flipped.
I question the deniers. I point out the US Supreme Court had approved many of these same measures 115 years ago in Jacobson V. Massachusetts 197 U.S. 11 (1905):
The Executive, which enforces the law;
The Legislative, which makes the law, and
The Judicial, which interprets the law.
The deniers would immediately suggest that the laws in this matter are anything BUT "reasonable."
The Court responds:
And found myself at the receiving end of vitriol unlike any I've ever seen... from former political allies.
And I've seen some. See, when I express my concerns, I don't find it necessary to engage in playground bullshit like name calling. I've "gone to the dark side," or I've morphed into some sort of "troll." In some instances, some coalflakes even claim that my disagreement equates to harassment.
In other words, they want to engage in the previously leftist practice of silencing, hurling invective, labeling, ridiculing.... you name it... those who don't agree with them.
Because if you do disagree with them, the deniers become a version of antifa.
Those who disagree with them know nothing. Those who hold the denier's position know everything.
Well, guess what?
They don't.
With a BA in Government and 6 years on legislative staff, I'm willing to match my knowledge to pretty much anyone.
And in my experience, those resorting to name calling and casting aspersions are those possessed of the weaker argument.
Instead of defending their positions, such as they are, they attack the messenger on a personal level.
I'm reminded of the old lawyer saw:
My response is encompassing:
Simple really.
But in the mean time?
Live with it.
But that's not really the point of this post. The point is to ponder how these things seem to break down along political lines.
For the most part, in my experience, the labels go as follows:
Leftists are true believers. They want things to continue to be shut down. They want to destroy the economy because that guarantees Trump's defeat this November. They see what's going on, they understand some intuitive truth (The less you're out, the less you're likely to contract this virus.) and they want as much shut down as possible to reduce contact. And they hate Trump with a passion that, for its breadth and depth, even has a doggedly admirable trait to it. To the right, they hate Trump so much and want him defeated so badly, they would destroy this country to achieve that goal.
They understand the nature of this Stay Home order is not a civil rights grab; it's only temporary; and yes, closing businesses can be tough on those who own them and have worked so hard to succeed and who will, in some cases, lose everything. But that's collateral damage and businesses can be rebuilt while lives can't be.
Rightists are true deniers. They want life to instantly return to the way it was this time last year. They want everything opened up because our economy is permanently destroyed otherwise. They see what's going on, but act like antivaxer types, disbelieving what they see and everything government tells them, no matter what it is. And they simply don't care how many die in the process... though rest assured, they CLAIM otherwise.
They rely on absolute lies to push their positions; i.e., you have a better chance of being struck by lightning than you do of dying from COVID 19, and they attempt to verbally crush anyone who disagrees with them. They (falsely) claim all of this is unconstitutional. The Wisconsin Supreme Court, for example, recently overturned their Governor's lock-down order, reopening Wisconsin like there was no epidemic of this stuff at all; therefore, they (wrongly) believe that ALL efforts to control this outbreak are unconstitutional, everywhere.
Wisconsin, of course, has its own set of laws and its own state constitution. I'm no expert on their laws and don't claim to be... and neither is anyone else I've read... but the deniers don't care. They take Wisconsin as a small blanket and turn what happened there into a football-field sized quilt. But the problem we here in Washington have is that our laws are not Wisconsin's. And, of course, the deniers conveniently forget all about where the people of this state who just voted many of these powers to the Governor via SJR 2800 just last November.
Now, I marked "no" on that ballot, but it passed overwhelmingly, by a 2:1 tally. I opposed it. I lost. I got over it.
Then, there is the middle. The middle has formulated few actual conclusions. Some inescapable facts are clear: SOMETHING is going on. There is an unknown disease going on out there, and it can kill you. They have concerns about the impacts on the economy, to be sure. They miss certain aspects of life in the immediate past, but they don't see this as a permanent power grab where our rights are shredded like so much confetti.
They pay attention to the extent they can. They watch business news and see/hear frequently conflicting stories. Many, rightfully, have a built-in distrust of the media, which has long since forgotten their actual mission of reporting news and letting the people decide to one they acknowledge is merely an effort to formulate the news in such a way that the people will do what the media wants.
They remember a government of lies under Obama, and frequently wonder how much they're being lied to now... while they wonder what the point of all of this is, if it's some sort of set up for something else.... something less readily apparent.
These are, as I see, the broad strokes of the three main categories. Both the left and the right are following the dictates of former Representative, former White House Chief of Staff and former mayor of Chicago Rahm Emanuel, who famously is quoted as saying to "never allow a crisis to go to waste."
And oddly, I find myself in a situation where the card seems to have flipped.
I question the deniers. I point out the US Supreme Court had approved many of these same measures 115 years ago in Jacobson V. Massachusetts 197 U.S. 11 (1905):
“The Constitution,” Justice John Marshall Harlan wrote for a 7-2 majority, “does not import an absolute right in each person to be, at all times and in all circumstances, wholly freed from restraint.” Instead, “a community has the right to protect itself against an epidemic.” Its members “may at times, under the pressure of great dangers, be subjected to such restraint, to be enforced by reasonable regulations, as the safety of the general public may demand.”The Court then went on to say:
We come, then, to inquire whether any right given, or secured by the Constitution, is invaded by the statute as interpreted 26*26 by the state court. The defendant insists that his liberty is invaded when the State subjects him to fine or imprisonment for neglecting or refusing to submit to vaccination; that a compulsory vaccination law is unreasonable, arbitrary and oppressive, and, therefore, hostile to the inherent right of every freeman to care for his own body and health in such way as to him seems best; and that the execution of such a law against one who objects to vaccination, no matter for what reason, is nothing short of an assault upon his person. But the liberty secured by the Constitution of the United States to every person within its jurisdiction does not import an absolute right in each person to be, at all times and in all circumstances, wholly freed from restraint. There are manifold restraints to which every person is necessarily subject for the common good. On any other basis organized society could not exist with safety to its members. Society based on the rule that each one is a law unto himself would soon be confronted with disorder and anarchy. Real liberty for all could not exist under the operation of a principle which recognizes the right of each individual person to use his own, whether in respect of his person or his property, regardless of the injury that may be done to others. This court has more than once recognized it as a fundamental principle that "persons and property are subjected to all kinds of restraints and burdens, in order to secure the general comfort, health, and prosperity of the State; of the perfect right of the legislature to do which no question ever was, or upon acknowledged general principles ever can be made, so far as natural persons are concerned." Railroad Co. v. Husen, 95 U.S. 465, 471; Missouri, Kansas & Texas Ry. Co. v. Haber, 169 U.S. 613, 628, 629; Thorpe v. Rutland & Burlington R.R., 27 Vermont, 140, 148. In Crowley v. Christensen, 137 U.S. 86, 89, we said: "The possession and enjoyment of all rights are subject to such reasonable conditions as may be deemed by the governing authority of the country essential to the safety, health, peace, good order and morals of the community. Even liberty 27*27 itself, the greatest of all rights, is not unrestricted license to act according to one's own will. It is only freedom from restraint under conditions essential to the equal enjoyment of the same right by others. It is then liberty regulated by law." In the constitution of Massachusetts adopted in 1780 it was laid down as a fundamental principle of the social compact that the whole people covenants with each citizen, and each citizen with the whole people, that all shall be governed by certain laws for "the common good," and that government is instituted "for the common good, for the protection, safety, prosperity and happiness of the people, and not for the profit, honor or private interests of any one man, family or class of men." The good and welfare of the Commonwealth, of which the legislature is primarily the judge, is the basis on which the police power rests in Massachusetts. Commonwealth v. Alger, 7 Cush. 53, 84.As a brief aside, there are three branches of government:
The Executive, which enforces the law;
The Legislative, which makes the law, and
The Judicial, which interprets the law.
The deniers would immediately suggest that the laws in this matter are anything BUT "reasonable."
The Court responds:
The liberty secured by the Fourteenth Amendment, this court has said, consists, in part, in the right of a person "to live and work where he will," Allgeyer v. Louisiana, 165 U.S. 578; and yet he may be compelled, by force if need be, against his will and without regard to his personal wishes or his pecuniary interests, or even his religious or political convictions, to take his place in the ranks of the army of his country and risk the chance of being shot down in its defense. It is not, therefore, true that the power of the public to guard itself against imminent danger depends in every case involving the control of one's body upon his willingness to submit to reasonable regulations established by the constituted authorities, under the 30*30 sanction of the State, for the purpose of protecting the public collectively against such danger.I point these things out. I refer to the recent vote that overwhelmingly gave the Governor of this state, who I have frequently stated is a blithering idiot consumed by partisan politics, the power to make these decisions with the acquiescence of the 4 legislative caucus leaders.
And found myself at the receiving end of vitriol unlike any I've ever seen... from former political allies.
And I've seen some. See, when I express my concerns, I don't find it necessary to engage in playground bullshit like name calling. I've "gone to the dark side," or I've morphed into some sort of "troll." In some instances, some coalflakes even claim that my disagreement equates to harassment.
In other words, they want to engage in the previously leftist practice of silencing, hurling invective, labeling, ridiculing.... you name it... those who don't agree with them.
Because if you do disagree with them, the deniers become a version of antifa.
Those who disagree with them know nothing. Those who hold the denier's position know everything.
Well, guess what?
They don't.
With a BA in Government and 6 years on legislative staff, I'm willing to match my knowledge to pretty much anyone.
And in my experience, those resorting to name calling and casting aspersions are those possessed of the weaker argument.
Instead of defending their positions, such as they are, they attack the messenger on a personal level.
I'm reminded of the old lawyer saw:
"When the law is on your side, argue the law. When the evidence is on your side, argue the evidence. When you have neither, attack the other guy's lawyer."I read a great deal from many people who WANT the Constitution to mean certain things in a certain way, but their positions are out of fear and ignorance of both that document and the Law. And when you point out the law, their response is almost inevitably to trot out the 1857 Supreme Court decision that declared human beings actually CAN be property (Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1857), and therefore, when the Supreme Court disagrees with them, what do THEY know?
My response is encompassing:
I find it kinda odd that we demand that Inslee respect the will of the people and implement I-976 ($30 car tabs) and then we demand that he IGNORE the will of the people by ignoring the vote on SJR 8200 (Emergency Powers) that the PEOPLE of this state passed by a 2 to 1 margin just last November.If you don't like the law, change the law. If you don't like The Constitution because it doesn't say what you think it says, then change the Constitution. And if you don't like Supreme Court decisions, then get the Supreme Court to overturn their past decisions. They have, on occasion, done just that.
Simple really.
But in the mean time?
Live with it.
No comments:
Post a Comment