The editors of the Washington Post have their own ideas about what should be done next:
There is no room for a patchwork response. Without restrictions in place, what’s happening in New York City today will be in Miami, Detroit or Chicago tomorrow. A few irresponsible politicians can undermine recovery for everyone. The only way to break the chains of coronavirus transmission is for the entire country to engage in physical distancing until the pandemic abates or an effective vaccine or therapy is ready. A piecemeal approach invites a raging, rolling pandemic.
While I agree that the federal government should restrict interstate travel temporarily (that is within its power), otherwise I think that a patchwork response is exactly what we need. Centrally controlling the production of a new test for COVID-19 is precisely what put us behind the 8-ball where we find ourselves. Why repeat or continue that mistake? What is necessary for New York City is probably not needed in Marfa, Texas.
The federal government should focus its efforts on the areas of its legitimate authority. It will have enough to do there. Governors and local officials need to step up to the plate, too. Under our system of government the states are where the action is. Simply because COVID-19 can infect anybody and everybody will not change that.
The feds can regulate interstate travel, but the only viable policing body is state and local, and particularly with policing its state and local priorities that are paramount.
The advantages the feds have are that they can print money, they have research and planning institutions in place, they can control air and water transportation, and they can lift regulatory restrictions.
Exactly. These editors are wishing for a federal government that doesn’t exist and implementing the one they want would take years against enormous headwinds.
It’s unusual where I totally agree with a post. The one above is an exception, especially with the example of how awkward and bogged down they were, in quickly reforming policies to meet the immediacy of providing accurate numbers of quality test kits.
In theory, the Federal Government (esp the President) has the bully puppet to persuade institutions and people to do what is needed. Is that being used to its full potential?
By the way, this article written by lawyers who are not fans of Trump has good points about why things would have been difficult no matter who was in charge in Washington.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/03/isnt-all-trumps-fault-he-isnt-helping-either/609052/
It is interesting they point out South Korea was “lucky” to have experienced MERs and created a legal regime in response that could be adapted for Coronavirus quickly.
What we’re seeing is the beauty of a federalist form of government coupled with a strong flavoring of free enterprise.
For those in favor of a command and control top down structure, just remember: To err is human. Those in command are human. If one governor out of fifty screws up, he hasn’t screwed up the other forty-nine states. If POTUS screws up, he’s screwed up the whole country. Central Control is what is called a point failure threat. If the top dog is wrong, or is taken out, it’s a catastrophe.
“otherwise I think that a patchwork response is exactly what we need. ”
I would vote for an approach based upon the best available science and experience.
Steve
It might surprise you but back in the 1950s and 1960s both the Soviet Union and the United States pursued the “space race” using strategies that can hardly have been more different but both based on the best available science and experience.
Unfortunately, by the time we have that much knowledge the crisis will be long past. In the absence of certitude that is frequently only available post hoc pursuing one single course of action, directed bureaucratically from the top, is a very high-risk strategy.
Letting some idiot who is running some state or city make decisions because he reads stuff by conspiracy theorists is also a risk. I am just suggesting that people should make informed decisions.
That doesnt mean that everyone makes the same decisions. As you have probably noticed every doctor thinks they are kind of special. We sometimes disagree, but then we cant both be correct. AS long as the decision the reach is based upon literature and/or best practice, I am ok with what they do, even if it isn’t something I might not do. I could be wrong too.
Steve
I agree with that.
LMAO, is the WaPo admitting that NYC leadership “fucked up”?