Break the Chains
Is it time to plan our escape from pandemic prison?
Pandemic policies are distorting our politics and eroding our freedoms.
We need a new way to protest that respects other people and holds politicians to account.
The first step is to identify ourselves, show common cause, and support positive change.
“Nor was [Augustus] deceived in his expectation, that the senate and the people would submit to slavery, provided they were respectfully assured that they still enjoyed their ancient freedoms. A feeble senate and enervated people cheerfully acquiesced in the pleasing illusion, as long as it was supported by the virtue, or even by the prudence, of the successors of Augustus.”
Edward Gibbon, The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, 1776–1789
Social Crisis
We have been in a profound social crisis across the world since mid-March and the declaration of mandatory lockdowns for all.
A public health emergency has morphed into an incredibly deep economic recession, the suspension of traditional freedoms of movement and association, controls over what we wear and what we do, and a fracturing of our social relations.
And the unimpeded creeping progress of the pandemic from one region to another has acted as a catalyst to extend and entrench these unprecedented government decrees.
Anyone can now see that we are going to have a phalanx of restrictions on our rights as free citizens for years to come. What seemed to be a quick lockdown and recovery scenario in March, then imagined against a two week incubation period benchmark, is now being mentally extended to the winter, next year, and beyond.
Just as the aftershocks from 9/11 and the War on Terror have now lasted for almost two decades, it is only logical that the even more profound coronavirus shock will have deeper and longer-lasting significance to our lives.
There is no “new normal” because we are still going through a long transitional period.
There is also no going back to the “old normal” either, as accepted goals for public policy have shifted from “flattening the curve” and “hope for a vaccine” to “suppress the virus” and even “complete elimination”.
Instead, the continually shifting regulatory regime has created an “unnormal”, a state where we are off balance and unable to get our bearings and are therefore trapped in the present rather than planning for the future.
And just wait until this year’s flu season in the northern hemisphere, when millions will confound cold and flu symptoms with the Covid equivalent, thus inflating the current widespread state of anxiety by several orders of magnitude and prompting even more restrictive controls.
Always Eastasia
Governments exhort us to back these anti-pandemic policies, most of which have been issued as emergency executive decrees without intensive legislative oversight or prior public debate, with uniform acceptance and good cheer.
A general fear of contagion amongst the populace helps to enforce this abnormal conformity, with a mixture of in-person hectoring of dissidents and anonymous on-line confrontation.
For those few still inclined to push back against the party line, the police are only too ready in most places to issue warnings, fines, and arrests against malcontents.
A global survey of state propaganda, used to hard sell the policies to believers and unbelievers alike, ranges from positive (we are all in this together, andrà tutto bene, be kind) and aspirational (control the virus, sauvez des vies, be strong, lo paramos unidos) to belligerent (battle the invisible enemy, fight the people’s war), accusatory (stay home, don’t kill granny), and even nonsensical (staying apart keeps us together).
Who could honestly disagree with the plain meaning of such phrases (except the last, which is a form of Newspeak)? As a result, the messages co-opt us with their banal meaninglessness, even as they deliver a less laudable subliminal message: everyone must agree and all must toe the line.
The common purpose of these slogans is to generate an ersatz social approval in place of the real thing, which has been permanently lost in the mad rush to “do something” in the face of a health menace that was and is seen by our political elites as “humanity’s greatest threat”.
On top of this deliberately skewed spin, a further sign of our dysfunctional politics is that public discussion and consent have been replaced with command and control measures, backed up by a social shaming street tyranny delivered by some of the frightened majority.
This politics is democratic in form but not substance, since there is little room for dissent or conscientious objection, no room for minority opinions, and no place for protest or political action (aside for those with officially approved messages like Black Lives Matter).
The only policy difference from one place to another is in degree and not type, even including radical no-lockdown Sweden, since there is no truly unencumbered free place left on earth, aside from the relative safety of your own home and the private thoughts of your mind.
George Orwell in his writings thought that political repression would come with deliberate malice; we can see now that it enters on the best of intentions, stretches its legs, and settles in for a good long stay.
Face the Mob
You may think that these words are exaggerated and that our situation is not anywhere near as dire as outlined above.
The reality test is whether you are brave enough to stand up to society’s sanctions, as they arrive in person in any public place in the form of confrontation, hard glares, harsh words, and possibly physical force.
It is one thing (and difficult enough) to challenge authority figures and quite another to take on an outspoken elderly lady, backed up by the rest of a gathering crowd, who has decided in some public place that your face covering is subpar or that you are standing too close.
Are she and the rest going to listen to reasoned argument, or accept your differing point of view on the efficacy of paper masks versus N95 respirators?
You know the answer: she has already won through raw outrage and you had better skedaddle, or not take on her (or any other stranger) in the first place.
Likewise, since no one can prove a negative, is there any way to convince someone that an invisible imperceptible virus is not only not plausibly in their breath or on their hands, but is not likely within miles of their current location?
Standing up to others without real concrete proof is no way to take on a mindset that is determined to see the virus anywhere and everywhere.
Especially since arguments put forward for exceptional responses to the virus often rely on one of a number of unprovable qualifiers: “just in case”, “with an excess of caution”, “it can’t hurt”, “what if this”, “what about that”, “could be”, “might be”, or “maybe”. The land of possibility and imagination is apparently a fertile place to justify real world actions when it comes to a pandemic.
Again, how does one argue against such nebulous concepts in order to convince others and restore our recently forfeited freedoms?
And if all of this is not sufficient to justify and defend the new state diktats, there is always an old reliable to count upon, namely shaming people out loud and in front of others with accusations of ignorance, selfishness, meanness, stupidity, or cupidity.
After all, moral outrage is the ultimate in shutting down people and potentially viable ideas that could threaten the emerging status quo.
So, if we cannot communicate with each other, if belief and emotion trump discussion and logic, if people simply will not listen, how can we hope to turn back the building wave of social restrictions that are turning us from free citizens into fearful and excessively compliant servants to the state?
The Plan
My answer is quite modest but could be effective if it caught on.
I think we need a new way to protest, one close to civil disobedience but without conflict or violence, one that informs others without scaring them or turning them off, one that promotes dialogue and does not shut down open debate.
Confronting people is not going to work because so much of the argument for and against anti-virus restrictions relies on unknown, intangible, unprovable, and imaginary elements.
What are the real facts when masks may or may not work, lockdowns may or may not be effective, and social distancing may or may not be sound? Honestly, no one really knows because the evidence is so unclear, except to note that the unintended consequences of these policies have been far greater (and worse) in each case than the direct effect.
Besides, logic and discussion do not work when many people have made up their minds and some have decided that this new world might actually suit them.
Public protests and private disobedience will likewise not work out.
We can see already that governments everywhere do not countenance disloyalty, and so protests are broken up and refusal to follow orders leads to tangible legal and financial penalties. These days, individual dissidents will get nowhere by directly taking on the state and its commands.
What is needed instead is a quiet challenge to received wisdom, a way to help people to think twice about their beliefs. This is best done by having people actively listen to the alternative message and that can only happen with their acceptance and cooperation. A curious, willing and receptive audience is required.
First Step …
So, we could start by simply identifying ourselves and our cause to each other and to the rest of society.
And by “we”, I mean those people who share a common conviction that we need to:
· Re-establish the freedoms that have been restricted,
· Stop forcing people to follow government edicts and rely instead on voluntary cooperation,
· Open up the decision-making process to consider the full implications of policy,
· Broaden the public debate and encourage respect for every viewpoint, and
· Fully restore our democracy by empowering the legislature and citizens to hold our political leaders to account.
By openly identifying ourselves in a common cause, we could create an opportunity to show strength in numbers and also encourage others to ask why we are challenging the present state of things.
This sort of quiet protest, displaying dissent but breaking no laws or social practices, will not directly threaten true believers in the current set of restrictive policies.
It could shift the conversation, however, as a show of united support erodes the notion that everyone wants to carry on in the direction we are going. As attention is drawn to the movement, a broader and more productive policy discussion could ensue.
Spread over the internet and social media, it does not require a physical presence or anything that would contravene social distancing protocols. All it requires is individual action that is recorded and widely distributed to other people. A sense of unity and solidarity would be created as the movement grows.
… In Detail
Getting practical, this approach needs an identifying symbol and a color for shared identity, much like any other social movement in the past.
The symbol should be immediately visible, meaningful, memorable, easy to disseminate, and easy to replicate.
I do not like the idea of patches or badges (too militaristic), hats (already taken by Trump), or face coverings (we certainly want to avoid something unnatural like that!). Items of clothing (like T-shirts or jackets) are restrictive because they are not interchangeable.
What about a twirled bandana tied around the arm or hand as one suggestion? A colorful kerchief tied in a knot and worn by many people is easy to make and wear and, seen often on the streets and social media, is unusual (prompting questions and therefore discussion). As far as I know, it is not currently associated with other political or social movements.
As for the color, red and blue are out (too politically partisan), as well as white, yellow, or black (sadly and likely to be attacked as racist). Orange (personally meh!), violet (possible), and green (also possible) are the next secondary colors. The rest are blended colors and may not have the attractive vibrancy needed.
My suggestion is that bright green could be used, a nod to the fact that we are very much part of the natural order and can only end this social crisis by accepting our place as co-dependents in the living world, but I am open to other views.
You Decide
Change can only happen when we convince our political leadership that their policies are not working and, more importantly to them, are unpopular. That is a communications job and it is doubly difficult to do right now because of the lack of the very freedoms we are pledged to support.
However, with enough people participating, we could reveal the true support for freeing ourselves, now hidden by our separateness, and the democratic process would begin to work in the direction of positive change and reversion to our traditional and hard-won freedoms.
Ultimately, we can break our chains, which right now are made of pretty formidable stuff: government decrees, police enforcement, community disapproval, and counterproductive ideas in many people’s minds.
With that great challenge, what do you say? Is it time to plan our escape?
