President Biden’s speech and the executive orders he issued yesterday were the most authoritative directive that he intends to intensify efforts to bring the pandemic under control. The six-point program included vaccination mandates for all federal workers and contractors as well as for businesses with 100 or more workers. Biden was assertive and forceful but very late to act. Unlike President Trump, Joe Biden never has denied or sugar-coated the health crisis facing the nation. His problem is that these decisions and other virus-related orders announced yesterday should have been issued much sooner and quicker by his Administration.
There are also issues which Biden should have addressed and not deferred until a later round of pronouncements. For example, the President could have ordered that anyone travelling inter-state must produce evidence of having been vaccinated. All airplanes, railroads, and bus lines would be covered. The burden would no longer be the responsibility of the companies because it would be a federal government mandate. It would be a relief for the transportation industry and for the safety of the traveling public.
Similarly, the President should have insisted on federal identification cards for vaccinated individuals. Such documentation would have created a universal, much less forgeable documentation system. It could have been easily developed as already has been done in Europe.
The federal government will now undoubtedly face fierce pushback from some elected officials who already have announced they intend to move ahead in federal courts, challenging the President for acting unconstitutionally. The problem with these challenges is, that while most legal authorities agree that President Biden was well within his right to issues these orders, legal maneuvering may well further delay their implementation.
Other than Biden’s unnecessary delay in issuing these mandates yesterday, looms a larger and more fundamental question. The United States has reached a point where there is no longer any respect for the rule of law. The national good is determined by any elected governmental official, at any level, with no respect for fundamental democratic values. Majority rule is determined by whatever group one supports. Minority rights are only there if it is your minority. Precedent exists only if you agree, and the rule of law is only if it is your interpretation of the law.
This polarization exists on both the left and the right with one interesting distinction. Those on the progressive left are not major office holders. There are some Members of the House and a few Senators. At the end of the day, most of them are willing to accept a more moderate result now, to fight the battle another day. (If the $3.5 trillion “people’s” infrastructure bill passes in Congress, it will reflect precisely this type of willingness to accommodate or accept “half a loaf”, albeit begrudgingly, in the hope of obtaining the rest another time.)
On the hand other, many are beginning to sense that the classic model of political decision-making—conflict resolution and compromise—is abhorrent to the right. This faction is enjoined by far more governmental office holders and office seekers than those on the left. This includes governors, senators, and House members. With former President Trump leading this group, there is an entire array of public officials who appear not to believe in the art of compromise. They have also gained extensive legitimacy among their followers after the rattling of the American political system which occurred on January 6.
These groups appear to be prepared to reject unequivocally all governmental authorities that seek to make decisions with which they disagree. It is this group which represents the largest percentage of anti-vaxxers. Ironically, it is their resistance to vaccinations which is responsible for President Biden’s announcements yesterday. If there had been greater acceptance and compliance with the CDC guidelines and the rules on vaccinations, masking, and social distancing, America could have found itself in a much better place in controlling the pandemic.
The same anti-science values which have driven those to reject the vaccination process against the coronavirus, are already charging ahead waging an all-out effort to fight climate change and the environmental catastrophe which America and the world face. This could be the existential result of the COVID vaccination debate.
Comments