After COVID-19

Henry Kissinger weighs in on the COVID-19 outbreak in an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal:

The coronavirus has struck with unprecedented scale and ferocity. Its spread is exponential: U.S. cases are doubling every fifth day. At this writing, there is no cure. Medical supplies are insufficient to cope with the widening waves of cases. Intensive-care units are on the verge, and beyond, of being overwhelmed. Testing is inadequate to the task of identifying the extent of infection, much less reversing its spread. A successful vaccine could be 12 to 18 months away.

The U.S. administration has done a solid job in avoiding immediate catastrophe. The ultimate test will be whether the virus’s spread can be arrested and then reversed in a manner and at a scale that maintains public confidence in Americans’ ability to govern themselves. The crisis effort, however vast and necessary, must not crowd out the urgent task of launching a parallel enterprise for the transition to the post-coronavirus order.

Ever the consummate courtier. Much of the op-ed focuses on what should happen after the crisis is over:

Drawing lessons from the development of the Marshall Plan and the Manhattan Project, the U.S. is obliged to undertake a major effort in three domains. First, shore up global resilience to infectious disease. Triumphs of medical science like the polio vaccine and the eradication of smallpox, or the emerging statistical-technical marvel of medical diagnosis through artificial intelligence, have lulled us into a dangerous complacency. We need to develop new techniques and technologies for infection control and commensurate vaccines across large populations. Cities, states and regions must consistently prepare to protect their people from pandemics through stockpiling, cooperative planning and exploration at the frontiers of science.

Second, strive to heal the wounds to the world economy. Global leaders have learned important lessons from the 2008 financial crisis. The current economic crisis is more complex: The contraction unleashed by the coronavirus is, in its speed and global scale, unlike anything ever known in history. And necessary public-health measures such as social distancing and closing schools and businesses are contributing to the economic pain. Programs should also seek to ameliorate the effects of impending chaos on the world’s most vulnerable populations.

Third, safeguard the principles of the liberal world order. The founding legend of modern government is a walled city protected by powerful rulers, sometimes despotic, other times benevolent, yet always strong enough to protect the people from an external enemy. Enlightenment thinkers reframed this concept, arguing that the purpose of the legitimate state is to provide for the fundamental needs of the people: security, order, economic well-being, and justice. Individuals cannot secure these things on their own. The pandemic has prompted an anachronism, a revival of the walled city in an age when prosperity depends on global trade and movement of people.

Sadly, I think it’s superficial. Is is possible that people have little confidence in our institutions because of their repeated failures? And that failure along a single plane—the benefit of those in charge. What I think we have witnessed is a panic among political leaders and what we should have learned is that we cannot afford to allow supply chains for vital goods to run through large, powerful authoritarian countries. It isn’t even that difficult. All that would be required in the case of health care, for example, is for the only goods eligible for compensation through Medicare or Medicaid would need to be made in the United States from components with completely American supply chains. Strict liability for fraudulent claims. Yes, it would increase costs and probably cut margins. You’d probably be surprised at how quickly production can be repatriated.

Enlightenment values do not require us to sacrifice our populations and our security on the altar of globalism.

13 comments… add one
  • TarsTarkas Link

    The current POTUS has been making this argument for divesting from the Han before he was President. But because he is Orange Man Bad it was all BS and lies and corrupt self-interest. And sadly there will be those who still argue for continued outsourcing to tyrants because they’d rather continue to be wrong than admit it (not to mention some are wholly owned subsidiaries).

    Self-sufficiency isn’t a walled city or a hermit kingdom. That route ends in mass poverty except for the 0.001. But staples and safety necessities need to be produced and manufactured here. Much of the outsourcing was also due to the hypocrisy of greenies who fought and fought to stop mining and logging and manufacturing here because of environment destruction here but were quite happy to ignore it when it was out of sight. Chickens have come home to roost now.

  • GreyShambler Link

    Enlightenment values do not require us to sacrifice our populations and our security on the altar of globalism.

    You see, even using the word “us” is problematic, nativist, exclusionary. Americans can’t agree on who’s in and who’s out. Leftists are using the emergency to advance their agenda.
    https://nypost.com/2020/04/03/aoc-calls-for-coronavirus-reparations-for-minorities/.
    Guns and ammo are flying off the shelf. And I’m not sure it’s an over-reaction. True fear is in the air. Merchants in New York and new Orleans are boarding up against looters.
    Hoarders may be right.

  • Andy Link

    Trump doesn’t want to divest from the “Han” – he wants a “better deal” whatever that means. The man’s been in office for three years and our situation vis-a-vis Chinese supply chains has not changed much.

    I do think Trump deserves a lot of credit for putting China on the table and at least speaking against the globalist narrative that enables their mercantilism, but actions have been, to put it charitably, insufficient.

  • Andy Link

    “Guns and ammo are flying off the shelf. And I’m not sure it’s an over-reaction. ”

    A good friend of mine just bought their first gun because of uncertainty about Covid. This guy isn’t a Pollyanna – he’s a retired officer and Iraq combat veteran.

  • Guarneri Link

    Well, Dave and Tars, you just covered a decent portion of my worldview.

    Andy – come down to Florida during and after a hurricane. No electricity, limited water or gas; food supply in jeopardy. Many, many have a firearm, because they are realists and its the law of the jungle. Just in the last three weeks, go to a gun store just to observe – lines an hour long. This is the reality of mass economic shutdown, not academic musings about quarantines and social distancing.

  • steve Link

    Not really convinced that Trump’s not just using China as an issue to get elected. As Andy notes nothing much has changed. Also, lots of our critical supplies are in other countries. We had significant shortages when the hurricanes hit Puerto Rico since we had a number o medical products concentrated there. Bitching about China is easy and gets you elected. Solving supply chain issues? Actually having jobs come back to the US? That would take a much more coordinated, planned effort than we are seeing and would hurt many of Trump’s strongest supporters. Wont happen.

    Steve

  • Andy Link

    Drew,

    I lived in Florida for many years and evacuated for hurricanes three times, including the 2004 season. I know Florida and its peculiarities well.

    And yes, quite obviously in times of uncertainty people do and buy things they wouldn’t in normal times, to include firearms. The dealers here are doing a very brisk business.

  • jimbino Link

    The gummint needs to establish a policy favoring arbitrage in pricing of all kinds of critical supplies like masks, PPE and respirators and disfavoring laws against “price-gouging,” in order to facilitate price signalling to producers and to ensure that the goods go to the persons who need them most. The present rules represent pure Marxism in action.

  • Greyshambler Link

    “Critical supplies”
    Stores in Lincoln that have it are limiting toilet paper to one package per customer. I have six people in our house.

  • GreyShambler Link

    Is the altar properly named “globalism”? Or is that a euphemism for profit? We defend our system: “Greed is good”. But that’s losing believers by the day. Why does my spouse have to die because foreigners bought up the equipment and medicine needed to save her?
    Is it to “save” capitalism? Capitalism is more and more clearly a rigged game.

  • Capitalism is more and more clearly a rigged game.

    The problem isn’t capitalism. It’s big government, along with other big organizations. Whether laissez faire, socialist, or authoritarian, the larger the government, the more it will turn against you.

    You could hardly have been greedier than the robber barons of the 19th century but even they would have stopped short of selling out to foreign governments. They were more likely to have been isolationists.

  • steve Link

    Dave- You are having trouble criticizing big business and capitalism. It is not big “organizations” it is big businesses. It was government that kept us from having business in China to begin with. It was government relaxing those restrictions, at the request of big businesses, that lead to our companies moving over there. Capitalism without regulation gets us exactly where we are now anyway. Markets are based upon price. Markets dont account for what happens if all the producers of critical widgets are piled into one country. As long as it is cheaper that is where the widgets will be made.

    “You could hardly have been greedier than the robber barons of the 19th century but even they would have stopped short of selling out to foreign governments. ”

    Go visit an old coal mine and se and hear how miners were treated. When they tried to strike they brought in police and troops to kill the workers. Stricter safety rules for mules than people. I think they would have been happy to make even more money having stuff done in China but transportation costs were higher and communication sucked so it wasnt practical. Note that they couldn’t send the railroads to China so they brought the Chinese here.

    Steve

  • Steve, I have seen the operations of big businesses, big government, big labor unions, and big not-for-profits from the inside. Bigness itself creates problems.

    As to capitalism, there are only two choices: markets and command economies. The defects of command economies are obvious and well-known. Our problem is not markets. It’s too few markets and that’s a problem that can only be fixed by governments determined to do so.

    How we get that I don’t know. The incentives for politicians to foster big businesses rather than breaking them up or restraining them are just so great.

    Big banks are a serious problem. They shouldn’t exist and we know how to prevent them from becoming big. We just aren’t willing to do so.

Leave a Comment