Is freedom a “luxury” America can no longer afford in the face of the coronavirus pandemic?
Must we permanently change our culture to embrace “the strongest laws and strictest punishments” and accept “a high degree of [government] monitoring” to save lives?
Thomas Friedman’s column in the March 23 Peninsula Daily News might have us think so.
Friedman cites Professor Michele Gelfand’s contention that “tight” societies developed in response to experiencing frequent disasters, and are thus better positioned to deal with pandemics, while “cultures that have faced few threats—such as the United States—have [had] the luxury of remaining loose.”
Is that a valid conclusion?
Has the United States, in fact, “faced few threats”?
Are “tighter” cultures reacting more effectively to the current threat?
China — where doctors who raised alarms about the virus as early as last October, were silenced by their controlling government — is certainly a “tight” society, but hardly one we should emulate.
Conversely, a “tight culture” might be the very thing that generates more frequent disasters, such as famine and warfare, while free people may fall prey to fewer disasters precisely because they are free.
Friedman concludes his anti-freedom screed by predicting, “the more we simultaneously tighten our culture and loosen our purses, the stronger and kinder society we’ll be…”
“Stronger and kinder” like China? Like Iran?
Freedom is not a luxury, and repression is not a cure for or protection against disaster.
Martha McKeeth Ireland
Sequim
EDITOR’S NOTE: Martha Ireland was the District 1 Clallam County commissioner from 1996 to 1999 and wrote a column for the Peninsula Daily News from 2000-2013. She now serves as the secertary of the Clallam County Republican Party.