Politics and public policy are about priorities and trade-offs. Right now, the choice seems to be between an open economy on the one hand and protecting the lives of vulnerable populations on the other.
But sometimes you can do two things at once. Here in Utah, we’ve seen it done it before.
Between 1951 and 1962, the federal government detonated 86 above-ground nuclear explosions at the Nevada Test Site as part of its Cold War testing program. This resulted in massive radioactive fallout that led to tens of thousands of cancer cases and hundreds of premature deaths — particularly in parts of Nevada, Arizona and Utah.
The situation involved a familiar trade-off. Even though the federal government lacked complete information, there were strong indications that radiation sickness could have long-term negative health effects and even be fatal. But the need to protect the nation’s security during the Cold War was considered paramount.
The fact that the government treated its citizens as expendable was a violation of their right to remain alive — the most fundamental right of all. In due time enough outrage was registered that the U.S., in conjunction with other nuclear weapons states, agreed to pay the additional cost of conducting nuclear tests underground. While creating some problems of their own, these new types of tests succeeded in dramatically reducing sickness and death from radiation. Furthermore, 30 years ago the government accepted the blame, apologized and provided a fund to compensate victims. Roughly 35,000 people have received over $2 million collectively so far.
The language of the legislation is profound and clear: Congress “apologizes on behalf of the nation” to individuals who were “involuntarily subjected to increased risk of injury and disease to serve the national security interests of the United States.”
Today, we are facing a somewhat similar trade-off. People’s health is being jeopardized by COVID-19 in ways that we can only begin to understand and almost entirely without their consent. The burden falls disproportionately on the poor, people of color (particularly Hispanics and Native Americans in Utah), the elderly, pregnant women and other health-minorities.
Some government officials around the country have adopted policies that increased the likelihood that the virus would spread and that more people would sicken and die. They have furthermore denied the scientific evidence about how the virus is spread, and even impugned the motives of physicians and researchers, with the result that many well-intentioned people have ended up doing things that are harming their neighbors. This has been strategic, because these officials and their supporters have placed the health of the economy above the health of vulnerable people.
This type of cold utilitarian thinking is fundamentally flawed in a free society. To begin with, the preferences of the majority do not negate the rights of the few. Majority rule does not erase personal freedom, particularly the right to life. Second, utilitarian thinking only makes sense when we take a broad view of “utility” — one that includes not just dollars and cents but also a sense of community, harmony and well-being, all of which are under threat when vulnerable people are considered expendable. Finally, no one should be tricked into making sacrifices for the greater good through misinformation and deception.
I am not saying that national security and economic growth are not important policy objectives. Of course they are. But I think we can all agree that when they come at the expense of the lives of involuntary victims fundamental democratic principles and freedoms are at risk. Entrepreneurs should not be expected to build their businesses on the graves of their neighbors.
The good news is that, just as in the case of nuclear testing, the need to protect individual American lives and rights while securing the broader needs of the society as a whole is not an either-or problem. Creative solutions are available. Moving nuclear tests underground allowed the U.S. to continue to develop its nuclear arsenal while at the same time dramatically reducing health risks.
Likewise, the vast majority of businesses can stay open and the economy can even thrive if everyone in the community is expected to wear masks, create some space between people and practice good hygiene. This is not an “either-or”, but a “both-and” situation.
Kendall Stiles is a professor of political science at Brigham Young University.