Read on Twitter
I've been thinking a lot about how the GOP/Trump response to the pandemic compares to the GOP/Hoover response to the Great Depression. Same issue: Does government have a duty to actively address widespread suffering?
In 1932, lots of intelligent, well-educated people believed a depression should be allowed to burn itself out, consuming the deadwood of surplus capacity and surplus labor until a new stronger economy emerged from the ashes.
The economic equivalent of "herd immunity."
The economic equivalent of "herd immunity."
In 2020, some intelligent, well-educated people apparently believe a plague also should be allowed to burn itself out until a stronger immune population emerges from the ashes. All efforts at mitigation are useless, they claim. Let the virus do its worst and then move on.
In 1932, the nation decided its leaders did, in fact, have a duty to address widespread suffering. The GOP/Hoover position was soundly rejected then, but it never died out. The issue still stands: What is the government's duty in the face of widespread suffering?
Today's pandemic skeptics claim "realism" is on their side. For FDR, realism was this: A functioning democracy can't survive amid widespread suffering. The suffering millions will vote out a system that doesn't even try to relieve their distress. Was he right? We'll see.
