On Liberty During The Coronavirus

Declan Tomlinson, Undergraduate Research Fellow

American Progress is a distinctly American painting by John Gast, envisioning American expansion across the North American continent. The image portrays a woman clad in white, flying over groups of settlers who make their way west. The painting itself became an eternal symbol of the Manifest Destiny, an American ideal of divine greatness and abundant opportunities. This trailblazing frontier mentality disseminated into all American life, the realization of individual potential being the bedrock of American identity. This year, the American machine has been forced to slow due to the novel Coronavirus. As this virus spread into a worldwide pandemic, nations across the globe contrived shutdown plans to minimize the horrific toll it produced. Some implemented these plans quickly and effectively, while others — including the U.S. — still face dire consequences for allowing the virus to ravage their countries. For America, a shutdown plan means putting a pause on the individual progress promised in the American identity. America’s response to the Coronavirus is a product of both the erosion of this American identity and the identity crisis that ensues. Both liberal and conservative ideologies outline the proper actions to be taken by the U.S. government, but these come at a cost of losing the strict American individuality that has been conditioned to beware tyranny — or any form of government at all.

Image for post

The foundation of the American identity is highly individualized, stemming from a rejection of tyrannical rule by Great Britain. Because of this, America was built on a staunchly liberal identity that guarantees individual rights, unsuppressed by government. Thomas Paine published a collection of writings titled Common Sense, which describes government as a necessary evil that is intolerable if it does not uphold individual rights (Paine, 96). Understanding this individualistic mentality where the individual should be free of government illuminates the current identity crisis in American politics. Many Americans see government issued quarantine as an invasion of fundamental rights, primarily economic freedom — a cornerstone of American liberalism. However, this idea ignores an important aspect of the liberal tradition. The political philosopher John Stuart Mill warned of the tyranny of the majority in his work On Liberty. He advocated for expanding liberties to those who would be enveloped by the tidal wave of majority thought (Mill, 119). With a virus that kills, while still a disparaging amount, only a small fraction of the American public, many Americans in the majority see it as a minute matter in the grand scheme of daily life. Those with compromised immune systems and poor health are rendered defenseless to an uncontrolled virus, hence the need for the government to protect their liberties. While this may infringe on the rights of individuals to work and do as they please, Mill would argue that under his Harm Principle, their “American freedoms” are harming others (Mill, 115). When deciding whose rights to hold higher, the Harm principle would make it quite simple in determining the proper course of behavior to stop contagion. Adhering to this principle would require most Americans to put a pause on their pursuit of prosperity. To do this requires a rewiring of the American identity. This choice between individual prosperity and the lives of others has been tested before, yet the Coronavirus has become a new beast that will require Americans to definitively define their values.

Under the conservative tradition, a shared identity is an integral part of a well-established society. In America, there is a definitive shared identity, one reveling in the tradition of freedom and individuality. Under the conservative idea, it is easy to understand the choice of individuals to reject government-mandated stay-at-home orders, as it changes the social order previously established. Michael Oakeshott, an English conservative scholar, has observed this logic in the past, concluding that humans are risk averse and creatures of habit (Oakeshott, 204). While Americans see coronavirus as a risk, they also see no reason to make drastic changes in their day to day lives. This resistance to change is understood in the law of unintended consequences, as Americans see temporary changes to individual autonomy as a possible loss of freedom, both economically and politically. However, Oakeshott also argues that through conservatism, society will use resources to meet change, reconciling it and minimizing it (Oakeshott, 205). There is no doubt that Coronavirus has brought unavoidable change, and recognizing that this change must be minimized is a distinctly conservative value. Reframing the issue of change in the context of human life makes government mandates seem much more conservative than previously considered. The unintended consequences of letting the virus ravage families across America are too grave to passively let this lethal disruption of social order take place. It would be inherently conservative to resist these changes by making orders to stay at home or wear a mask. This has not taken form in American conservative thought because of the destructive neo-conservative ideas in American politics. Government is seen as an intruder on social order, while free market liberalism is held as the prominent tradition. It is easy to see this individualistic mentality is profuse in the American tradition. It becomes the center of American society, incompatible with the attempts to coordinate a governmental effort to stop the virus, or government efforts to bring any positive change across the board.

Understanding the nature of American individualism might provide insight on why Americans are so against any central attempt to contain the coronavirus. King Henry of England was a formidable despot who the English colonists in America feared. Machiavelli articulates the actions of powerful leaders and the need to be weary of their motives. In his book, The Prince, he illustrates the need for princes to use any means necessary to hold power. Here, he famously illustrates that the ends justify the means. However, in his next book, Discourse, he highlights why a group of people rule better than princes due to their emphasis on public good instead of individual interest (Machiavelli, 31). Weary of the same ideas as Machiavelli, Americans were — and are — inherently cautious of overarching powers of government. Much in the same way Machiavelli advocates for a framework of laws, the American people turned towards liberalism engrained in the Constitution to protect their individuality. Compared to this history of true tyrannical danger, Americans today are unwarranted in their fears of tyranny in the midst of the Coronavirus. Many hold onto this identity of individualism as a safeguard against an overarching government but will gladly welcome corporate interests in determining when to reopen the economy. In a Machiavellian understanding, this individualistic identity is being exploited by a “prince” or “princes.” In many ways, Donald Trump consistently looks out for his own interest — and the interest of his party, disputing science to rush a reopening of the economy and not minimizing the catastrophic losses of life. Companies like Amazon use power in their self-interest, maintaining profits at the expense of workers’ health. Airline companies are bailed out, defying the neo-conservative identity of small government, while millions of Americans are laid off. With the decentralized state-led approach to Coronavirus, some states have their own “princes” who lie to the public and execute orders that contradict science. An extreme example of this is the refusal to mandate mail-in-voting, as a prince’s best weapon is to keep power from the masses. It is in the American identity to be weary of the government, but Machiavelli would point out that it is not wise to assume American leaders are the only princes attempting to gain power.This highly individual focus by the American people may help the truly powerful folk’s self-interest more than an expanded government.

With a society that regards individualism so highly, is it right to assume that there is no hope in coordinating public resistance to the Coronavirus? In the eyes of welfare liberals like Franklin D. Roosevelt, it is perfectly in range to put these practices in place. While maintaining the idea of individual freedoms, welfare liberalism swings the pendulum from government resistance to welcoming government intervention. By protecting the disenfranchised through an expanded government, welfare liberals would see government stay-at-home orders as the first step to tackling the coronavirus. During the Great Depression, Roosevelt put into place a series of social programs under the New Deal that ensured economic security for countless unemployed Americans. Today, the Coronavirus has taken an enormous toll on the economy, producing the most unemployed Americans since the Great Depression (Long, 2020). Using the same strategies as Roosevelt, the current government could ensure Americans have economic security by creating relief for those who cannot work from home. Government itself does not necessarily mean the end to individuality and autonomy. When realizing the commitment to individual identity that welfare liberalism holds, it is not hard to find it a compelling solution to the Coronavirus problem in America. In fact, Coronavirus itself has highlighted human activity in environmental conservation. By staying at home through government orders, the environment has shown massive improvements due to less human traffic. It gives America yet another chance to reevaluate the benefit of a highly individual system. If, as it was argued in conservative thought, conservatism meant conserving life in the face of the Coronavirus, it may change how society views conserving life in the face of environmental destruction.

The American tradition is distinct in its oath to freedoms and its resilience to change. However, the Coronavirus has exposed its unsustainable tendencies. At the expense of highly individualist traditions and ideals, federal, state, and local governments have had to make decisions to temporarily shut down the country and reduce the contagion. The American identity has been put in check, as it must reconcile a life of freedom with the risk of losing human life. The virus has shown that America can again progress forward, but it will need to reorient the liberal and conservative ideologies with which it has stood for so long. When faced with this challenge, many Americans are at a crossroads of holding onto their intimate idea of individuality, or departing from strict individuality and wondering if the American identity is really all that special.

Declan Tomlinson is junior international relations and economics student. Declan previously worked with the Idaho Democratic Party and organized events during the 2018 gubernatorial election. Prior to this, Declan worked on multiple award-winning documentary productions. With his experience in media, Declan believes blending political research in a visual medium is vital to sharing politics to the general public. Declan is passionate about the climate crisis and human rights in the Middle East. Declan volunteers with Young Life youth ministry and LMU Campus Ministry. He enjoys long runs, surfing and street photography.

References

Long, Heather. 2020. “U.S. now has 22 million unemployed, wiping out a decade of job gains.” Washington Post, April 16. https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2020/04/16 /unemployment-claims-coronavirus/ (May 7, 2020)

Machiavelli, Niccolo. 1531. “The Discourses” In Ideals and Ideologies A Reader Tenth Edition, ed, T. Ball, R. Dagger, D. O’Neill. New York: Routledge, 29–32.

Mill, John Stuart. 1859. “On Liberty.” In Ideals and Ideologies A Reader Tenth Edition, ed, T. Ball, R. Dagger, D. O’Neill. New York: Routledge, 113–120.

Oakeshott, Michael. 1962. “On Being Conservative.” In Ideals and Ideologies A Reader Tenth Edition, ed, T. Ball, R. Dagger, D. O’Neill. New York: Routledge, 202–212.

Paine, Thomas. 1776. “Common Sense.” In Ideals and Ideologies A Reader Tenth Edition, ed, T. Ball, R. Dagger, D. O’Neill. New York: Routledge, 95–98.