Unsuited to the Purpose

My attention was captured today by two very different op-eds with one thing in common. Both reminded me of the definition of golf as a game in which an elusive ball is inserted into an obscure hole with implements singularly unsuited to the purpose. The first op-ed was by Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer and appears in the New York Times:

Wearing a mask is not a political statement; it is about protecting our loved ones from the spread of this deadly virus. I know the president has begun to understand that — he wore a mask on his visit to the Walter Reed military hospital this month. And on Monday, he tweeted that “it is Patriotic to wear a face mask when you can’t socially distance.”

I applaud his statement, and urge him to back it up by issuing a nationwide mask mandate like Michigan’s, requiring masks on public transport, indoors, or outdoors when a distance of six feet cannot be maintained. It allows exemptions for small children, when eating or drinking, communicating with a hearing-impaired person, officiating at a religious service and for those engaged in a public safety role. The president has the chance to save tens of thousands of lives. I am hopeful that he will seize this opportunity.

In the meantime, be smart, be safe and mask up, America.

Enforced how? My view is that laws or directives without even a good faith attempt at enforcing them weakens the law more generally, casting it into disrepute. Many states and local governments have declared their unwillingness to enforce federal law? I can see some jurisdictions declaring an inalienable right to bare faces. There are some things that the federal government and federal laws are good for. I don’t think that ensuring people wear facemasks is one of them.

In an otherwise unrelated op-ed in the Wall Street Journal Texas Sen. Ted Cruz pitches a law he has drafted:

Local leaders who allow rioters to destroy lives and businesses need to be held accountable. That’s why I’m introducing the Restitution for Economic losses Caused by Leaders who Allow Insurrection and Mayhem Act—Reclaim for short. The bill would hold state and local officials liable when they abdicate their legal duty to protect the public in cases where death, serious bodily harm or significant property damage have occurred.

Specifically, my bill would allow for treble damages, meaning a plaintiff could be awarded triple the amount of the damage done to his property. It would also establish a federal cause of action, which would empower victims of violence in autonomous zones to take legal action against senior local or state lawmakers who have tolerated or encouraged radicals to take over the area. Finally, when politicians refuse to defend innocent Americans, this bill would remove or limit federal funding under grant programs that supply important law-enforcement and crime-prevention programs for local governments.

Here in Illinois we do not have the power to remove elected officials at will. Barring some unforeseen accident Mayor Lightfoot will continue to serve until the next election, several years hence. How does punishing the taxpayers of Chicago protect property or business owners? If his law ensured personal liability I would support it wholeheartedly but that does not seem to be the case.