The COVID-19 pandemic has been causing radical short-term societal changes globally, but the impacts of this virus will last long after the pandemic has officially been declared to be over. Around the world, governing bodies have usurped power under the pretense of halting the spread of the virus, and history tells us that they will not be willing to give up their extended powers when everything goes back to “normal.”
Across America, stay at home orders have become all too familiar to the vast majority of citizens. Some states are slowly starting to reopen, but at the peak, 42 out of 50 states had statewide stay at home orders, meaning that “316 million people in at least 42 states, three counties, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico” (Mervosh et al.) have been told not to leave their homes for nonessential purposes. However, there is no consistency in the enforcement of these orders between different states. Penalties range from a simple warning to being fined with a criminal offence and even possible jail time (Mazziotta). Additionally, some states have openly stated what the penalties will be while others have been vague. For example, Maryland has stated that “violators face one year in jail or up to a $5,000 fee,” but Washington has simply said that violators “may be subject to criminal penalties” (Mazziotta). Personally, I find the stay at home orders to be quite troubling. The way I see it, the orders are in direct violation of the First Amendment, which grants the right to peacefully assemble. A pandemic is certainly no excuse for the government to strip rights from its citizens, especially without going through the democratic process. This utter disregard for the constitution has major implications for the future. During times of turmoil, the government typically seizes power so it can appropriately handle the situation in an effective and timely manner. This may seem logical, but the problem lies in the fact that the government typically tries to retain as much of its newfound power as possible once the conflict is resolved. For example, during the Great Depression, there was a “vast expansion of the federal government” into the social and economic affairs of the nation (Barabak). Even when the economy was booming at the conclusion of the second world war, the federal government kept depression era regulations and policies in place. Given the current situation, I fear that the government will use their successful implementation of stay at home orders as justification for stripping away other rights when they encounter challenges in the future.
This situation is not unique to America, of course. Globally, leaders have been trampling on the rights of their own citizens in an attempt to slow the spread of COVID-19. In Thailand, for example, “citizens and journalists who criticize the government’s handling of the crisis face lawsuits and government intimidation” (Brown et al.). Some countries, such as South Korea, are “using smartphone location data to track down citizens who may have been exposed to the virus” (Brown et al.). Authoritarian policies like these are becoming commonplace in many countries. To look at this situation through a historical lens once again, prolonged periods of global economic hardship and political turmoil have given way to some of the worst events in human history. Fascist dictators, such as Mussolini and Hitler, tend to rise from situations like this. While I wholeheartedly hope that something like that doesn’t happen, it easily could. All it takes is one radical regime to flip the world upside down.
.
Sources
Barabak, Mark Z. “News Analysis: The Coronavirus Crisis Will Change America …” Los Angeles Times, 6 Apr. 2020, http://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2020-04-06/coronavirus-crisis-historic-event-change-america.
Brown, Frances Z., et al. “How Will the Coronavirus Reshape Democracy and Governance Globally?” Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 6 Apr. 2020, carnegieendowment.org/2020/04/06/how-will-coronavirus-reshape-democracy-and-governance-globally-pub-81470.
Mazziotta, Julie. “From a $25,000 Fine to a Warning: Here’s How States Are Enforcing Coronavirus Stay-at-Home Orders.” People.com, 3 Apr. 2020, people.com/health/how-states-are-enforcing-coronavirus-stay-at-home-orders/.
Mervosh, Sarah, et al. “See Which States and Cities Have Told Residents to Stay at Home.” The New York Times, 24 Mar. 2020, http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/us/coronavirus-stay-at-home-order.html.
.
-Nick Whaley
I find this article really interesting. I never thought about the continuing policies that could occur even after this pandemic. Long term changes will occur past this event, however, I never thought about the negatives in policies. I was fixated on the economy and social changes that political never really was on my mind. I agree with the idea that a fascist-resembling government has the chance of coming out of this event especially in a heavier hit or poor country. Very cool and interesting read. Fantastic Job!
-Austin Grimm
LikeLiked by 1 person
I found the position you took in your article very interesting. It definitely made me think to compare this situation to the historical scenarios that you mentioned. I think that it is an important potential issue that you bring up. I agree that it may transition into a bigger problem of an overpowering government in the future because of the actions that have recently taken place. However, I also think that the concept of this taking citizens’ first amendment rights away is an interesting topic to debate (if we were able to be in class still).
Great job with the sources you chose to quote from as well!
-Bel
LikeLike
Nick!!
You have explored, in my opinion, what I would call the other side of the coin of the pandemic efforts. Like all governmental implementations, there is the good and the bad. I think you explore this side very well and eloquently.
“may be subject to criminal penalties”
I really like this quote above. It is a glaring vagueness in the law, something which should be quite explicit. Moreover, I agree with you. It can be scary when a government exerts a lot of power like it is right now. Similar displays have absolutely ended terribly for countries in the past.
I think it is wonderful that you are exploring the balance between government intervention and personal liberties. I think we can all agree that government should do something, BUT, how much is the question. I guess its kinda always the question.
Lastly, when it comes to peaceful protest I agree with you. I think during a time like this however, the idea of peaceful can be a bit hazy. I think this is the crux of the problem, actually, due to the nature of how a virus spreads. Are gatherings a threat to recovery? Its a tough moral question. Do rights have to be temporarily diluted for safety? …That can SURELY be scary. These are dire times.
Thanks for the awesome read man, keep up the great work.
PEACE,
Neil
LikeLike