Preparations for War: The Struggle of the US

Dedicated to those who inspire

As of the time of writing the US is currently grappling with 1.36 million cases of the coronavirus (COVID-19) with over 80,000 deaths reported. Despite this, President Donald Trump has elected to ease ‘lockdown’ restrictions and kickstart the American economy via the ‘Opening Up America Again’ program. This has sparked debate on either side of the aisle concerning the necessity or folly, as appropriate, of the scheme, further polarizing an already divided nation at a time that calls for unity in action. The administration's rhetoric of indifference, far from merely downplaying the primacy of the COVID-19 threat, served to fragment American bureaucratic institutions and disillusion the wider body politic with mixed messaging signals. For instance, directors of the CDC, FDA, and National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases have all placed themselves under quarantine following the infection of Trump’s personal valet and Vice-President Mike Pence’s personal secretary undermining the ‘Opening Up America Again’ program as well as the centrality of executive power as bureaucratic institutions seemingly operate without concern to the messaging of the White House. Further, the administration’s refusal to endorse the CDC’s recommended guidelines for ‘opening up’ perfectly demonstrates the disconnect between the White House and the American bureaucracy at large. Far from the adverse impact COVID-19 has wrought upon the American economy and public health, the virus seems to be affecting the foundational dynamics of the American political system itself. The precedent set in the US by virtue of this pandemic may allow institutions and states to operate with more discretion and independence from the White House in the future whenever they disagree with the latter’s messaging. This could have dire consequences with respect to the stability of the state and the power of the executive branch of government. Putting aside the structural implications for now, I aim to consider the true impact of the US’ decision to ‘open up’ and what it truly means for the future both of the US and the world.

---

As a firm centrist, I like to look at issues in an ad hoc manner, which is why I particularly dislike the political pundits on both sides superficially considering the president’s decision within a narrow partisan framework. To date, no one has ‘truly’ considered the rationale underlying the president’s decision. This does not imply that I support the president’s decision, it is simply a statement of my belief that the president, whether intentionally or otherwise, has brought to the foreground a fundamental issue that the world will have to face eventually. Firstly, the pundits are right when they say that the issue revolves around the decline of the American economy, however, this discovery then transforms into a political debate surrounding the primacy each side places on the economy. Generally, liberals/Democrats place more emphasis on welfare and expansion of lockdown measures to effectively combat the virus whilst conservatives/Republicans advocate for economic recovery to prevent further unemployment, economic decline, and hence exacerbations in the conditions of living. However, both are missing the point. The issue underlying all of this is a balancing act between private and public support. What political pundits on both sides don't fully comprehend is that people and the economy aren’t independent conditions, they aren’t even mutually interdependent, they are one and the same. An economy is simply the totality of the interactions of people in a society. Therefore, whilst president Trump’s motivations to ‘Open Up America Again’ may be principally focused on selfish concerns of re-election, it also attempts to mobilize society out of their comparative immobility. It is a recognition that fiscal and monetary stimuli are ineffective if one half of the economic fabric is unable to elastically respond to it. It is in effect a tacit recognition that the economy and the populace aren’t separate. One must realize that ‘lockdown’ measures operate on the same plane of rationalization as partial economic ‘opening’ does. Fundamentally, a ‘lockdown’ is the sacrifice of democratic freedoms in the short run for long run normalization. An economic reopening is an acknowledgment that the current short-run sacrifice will not yield long term normalization unless certain conditions are changed. This is because of the recessionary threat* that looms over the world at large. Thus, an awakening of the private sector in these crucial times may provide the economic cushion necessary to enable said short-run sacrifice worthwhile, even if that means the sacrifice in the short run may exacerbate. Whilst one may criticize the White House’s plan of action to ‘Open Up America Again’ (namely the fact that workplace restrictions are dropped completely in merely a month and a half of decline in caseloads with no requirement for a threshold of cases in order for implementation; the fact that interstate travel is still permissible allowing for the unsustainability of decline in cases on a state by state basis; and finally, the fact that there is an insufficient supply of personal protective equipment as well as inadequate testing and contact tracing to reliably ascertain caseload decline), it has undeniably provided a model for avoiding long-run economic catastrophe and hence human catastrophe that other nations may follow. Malaysia has recently employed a similar line of thinking when it implemented its CMCO, partially opening up the economy to prevent long run chaos.

---

Despite its divisive nature and the political instability it causes (which can be seen as much as a product of economic reopening as a product of capitalization of public fear during a time of crisis), the ‘Opening Up America Again’ program has mobilized the US’ institutions for war, this time not against a definable enemy, not even against the “invisible enemy” that is COVID-19, but rather against time itself. Time is dancing over the US with chaotic menace, it infects more people and simultaneously puts more out of work every single day. This phenomenon occurs every day all across the globe, save in those countries that have already successfully dealt with one horn of this dilemma. Merely supporting one pillar (the economy or health) will lead to inevitable destruction. Thus, what is required is a two-pronged approach that both secures economic health and public health at the same time. Those who suggest one or the other are merely deluding themselves with opposing political tautologies that will only lead to further chaos. Obviously some may criticize me by saying that I am placing more primacy on the economy than on the lives of people, however, as I have said, the economy is an aggregate term for the lives of people. The recession to come is said to be worse than the Great Depression itself* and hence what I am measuring, in admittedly a very utilitarian manner, is the cost of present lives relative to the condition of the lives of people in the future. Whilst I am confident this is not the same process of thinking that the US and Malaysia bore when they adopted their respective economic ‘reopenings’, nevertheless, their doing so demonstrates the unconscious general will of the body politic crying out against the breakdown of their machinery. It properly defines what an ‘economy’ truly is and humbles central banking strategists that try to force the machinery to work with fiscal and monetary tools.