Lessons from the Pandemic

As is tradition, I purchased some books for Nora this Christmas.  One of them was Ten Lessons for a Post-Pandemic World by Fareed Zakaria.  I have occasionally watched his weekly show, and saw him on a talk show during which his book was mentioned.  Curiously, Nora must have also found his perspective from that show interesting as she bought me the same book for Christmas which made for a good laugh. (We also each bought for the other an Obama book, but not the same one!)

I recently finished my copy of Ten Lessons.. and found it very interesting.  Zakaria presents some rather complex issues in relatively plain language, but avoids simplistic statements.  He acknowledges what he is unsure of, in terms of what might happen as we emerge from the pandemic, yet also provides well thought out instructions for how we might use the negative aspects of the pandemic to craft a better future.

I can not possibly do the book justice by summarizing it in this post, so I thought I might pique your interest in reading it by listing the ten lessons and then discussing the one I found the most relevant.

https://www.amazon.com/Lessons-Post-Pandemic-World-Fareed-Zakaria/dp/0393542130

Ten Lessons

Buckle Up

What Matters Is Not the Quantity of Government but the Quality

Markets Are Not Enough

People Should Listen to the Experts - and Experts Should Listen to the People'

Life is Digital

Aristotle Was Right - We Are Social Animals

Inequality Will Get Worse

Globalization Is Not Dead

The World Is Becoming Bipolar

Sometimes the Greatest Realists Are the Idealists

While there is much to say about all of these "lessons", I am most drawn to the 2nd one - What matters most is the quantity of government not the quality.

It seems that one of the biggest debates in American politics, at least since the 1980's, has been the size of government.  I don't think I am exaggerating when I say that smaller government is one of the mainstays of the Republican platform along with their call that Big Government equates to Socialism.  On the other hand, while Democrats don't necessarily proscribe to bigger government, we do believe that good government can address many of the problems of our times, which generally leads to a bigger government presence in our daily lives.  

While it may seem obvious, Zakaria illustrates very clearly why both sides are right, and wrong, and that the real question, the real focus of the electorate should not be size but quality.  A small government that does nothing for the people is just as bad as a big government that does nothing for the people. Conversely, a small government that advances opportunity, rewards hard work, acts as referee to prevent rampant inequality, and safeguards the rights and safety of its citizens is just as good as a large government that does the same thing, perhaps better.

One might say that we should seek the best quality of government first, and worry about the size second, but it seems we have been doing just the opposite.  

Zakaria gives poignant examples of how both small and large governments handled the pandemic well, to date, and how both small and large governments have handled it poorly.  In fact, his analysis seems to indicate that size did not matter in the least (sorry ladies), but only competence, clarity in setting priorities, and execution of stated goals with accountability when goals were not met.  Seems pretty straight forward, almost common sense, yet the debate since early last year when the virus was first detected, centered more on who was at fault, when it would disappear, and, to me, the worst false equivalency of them all, how much we should wreck the economy in our battle, as opposed to how can we defeat the virus with the least damage/most economic support for those most effected. And, sadly, how wearing a mask somehow marks one as a sheep, while not wearing one equates to patriotism.

No great problem was ever solved in isolation, yet the current global trend to put one's country first, to circle the wagons and name scapegoats, played out to the detriment of all those souls who died, especially here in America.  Paradoxically, it was the concerted effort of the pharmaceutical companies, on a global scale, that is beginning to bail us out, now that we have a number of efficacious vaccines.  One of the very big drivers of the populist movements, resistance to globalization, exacerbated the spread of the virus, yet it is the globalization of medical knowledge in the area of epidemiology that will make this pandemic far less deadly than the one which ravaged the world 100 year ago.

The real question is when will we alter the debate to focus on quality rather than quantity.  Certainly, it is much easier for the political message which equates size with Socialism to be marketed, not so much when the message is, how do we best involve government in our lives.  For far too many it has become an all or nothing proposition, which is both sad and false, since we accept (and require) government in our lives to reach the ideals to which we aspire.  

It is not that hard to realize that equality may be a God given right, but without a government that values it, that endorses it, that establishes laws to guarantee it, it is not possible to achieve it.  Just look around at all the tyrants, dictators and despots that control, literally, the lives of billions of people, and it seems pretty obvious that we must work together to fashion the best government.  We need to change the paradigm that suggests that no government is best, since history and present day optics tell us that countries without a strong government are violent and/or poverty stricken, just as we need to change the paradigm that advocates for a government solution for all problems, as history also demonstrates that when everything is controlled by the state, there is little place for the innovators and difference makers.

All government programs are not productive, but all government regulations are not intrinsically negative.

Wisdom comes from knowing which ones work, which ones are needed, which ones can be reduced, which ones are not necessary. 

Do we really want to eliminate Social Security, the biggest and costliest "social" program in our government?  Perhaps if people stop living past the age of 70, we could stop taking their money with the promise that when they can't work they will have a basic income to help them live, with less worries, but since we need to make sure those that the average working person who toiled for 50 or more years, can have some sense of security that they will have some choices, some control, over how they spend the last 25% of their lives, we need this safety net.  But, just as important, we need our government to secure that money, make sure it is there, as promised, and not use it as if will magically reappear when needed.  Good government.

Do we really want to allow the business community to self regulate?  Or do we need the nameless and faceless government worker who makes sure those businesses produce safe food, properly dispose of their waste, treat their employees fairly, and punish those who would use bribery and lies to eliminate their competition or cheat the consumer.  Good government.

Do we really want to return to the time when the color of your skin or the make-up of your genome or the god you choose to worship or the person you fall in love with, is a factor in where you can pee, where you can live, where you can work, where you can shop?  Good government.

Can you imagine a world where competency is the main attraction for a politician seeking our votes?  

I have voted in 12 presidential elections in my life.  If I really thought about it, I am not sure any were elected based on their competency to run the United States Government, at least not as the primary reason.  We voted for change, we voted for a soothing demeanor, we voted for consistency in party, we voted for even more change, we voted for a known name who we might have a beer with, we voted for history, we voted for a return to the past, we voted for calmness in a storm of disruption. Were there some votes for competency, perhaps, but no one runs with the slogan "I am the most competent" and wins. 

Perhaps we have concluded that all politicians are the same, that party over country is the real poison, so it doesn't matter in the end how we vote. Perhaps we even think that we want competence and leadership, yet we somehow always fall victim to abandoning that desire for a catchy slogan, or worse, someone willing to tell us who to blame for our problems.

I enjoyed Fareed Zakaria's book immensely, and I encourage you to read it.  You may find one of the other lessons more poignant or thought provoking than I, but my money is on the hope that if we can learn and internalize lesson 2, if we can vote with just that one priority in mind, then we might not need to learn the other lessons.

Stay safe, stay masked.