Why do some people have trouble with the idea that some things that are good should not be made mandatory?
Vaccines are the obvious example today.
I am pro-vaccine in general and vocally in favor of the COVID-19 vaccines. I got the Moderna vaccine. My wife got the Pfizer vaccine. I have encouraged my friends to get the vaccine. I have gone on television, radio, and panels and made public speeches encouraging people to get vaccinated. I have addressed the pro-life objections to the vaccine and written multiple articles encouraging people to get vaccinated.
Yet I get called anti-vaccine.
In fact, I qualify as the dictionary definition of anti-vaxxer. Yes, Merriam Webster, the dictionary that has decided to sell its credibility in order to make itself a shameless warrior in the culture wars, now defines “anti-vaxxer” to include a person who opposes “regulations mandating vaccination.”
The foundation of this worldview is that there can be no meaningful distinction between a person who believes vaccines are good and that people should get them voluntarily (me) and a person who believes that government and corporations should use their power to force unwilling people to get vaccinated.
Today on Twitter, I got tons of angry pro-mandators telling me I suck because I don’t support mandatory COVID vaccinations.
Given that the COVID vaccine, unlike the polio vaccine, is not a sterilizing vaccine and that vaccinated people can still get and spread the virus, the public health justification for vaccine mandates is relatively thin. That doesn’t matter.
The above argument by Richard Yeselson presumes that vaccine mandates will drive down hospitalizations. That’s far from proven. I do believe that the best reason to get vaccinated is to reduce by an order of magnitude the likelihood you will get hospitalized. I believe your duty to your family and your community is the main reason to take this step, but also, in a more diffuse way, it’s good to reduce the risk you’ll clog up a hospital.
That is, I don’t simply believe that I should get the vaccine. I believe that you, dear reader, should get the vaccine. As I said, I tell everyone that. But there’s something between “I only think about myself” and “everyone should be required to do what I do.”
I do not believe that firing someone for not getting vaccinated is just or reasonable in most cases — especially given the imperfection of the vaccine in preventing infection. I also believe that an extremely high threshold needs to be reached before the government can force us to undergo medical interventions.
There are a million reasons to oppose requiring something that is good. One is that enforcement could end up being very intrusive or violent. Another is an element of humility: There is a chance that the thing we hold good might not be good or might have far more downside than we currently know. There’s also the idea that the government owes it to its adult citizens to treat them as adults, even in their own errors.
Another problem I’ve witnessed with mandates: They actually stoke resistance. People who might be open to getting vaccinated or open to persuasion will bristle at being told they have no choice. That bristling can harden itself into an ideological opposition, especially when the mandators declare officially that you’re either for mandates or against vaccines. This is one reason vaccine mandates might not drive up vaccination rates in some circumstances.
That’s not all, but it also doesn’t seem the burden of proof should be on the people like me, who believe the vaccine is good but shouldn’t be mandated. It’s deeply ingrained in the American culture and system of government that the civil law be looser than the moral law. The burden is on the mandators to say why this particular nonsterilizing vaccine (which uses novel technology) should be the exception to the rule.
This failure of the progressive imagination isn’t just about the vaccine. Nor is it a recent thing. I have seen it my whole time in Washington.
One liberal writer back in 2006, in opposing George W. Bush’s regulatory oversight nominee Susan Dudley, was baffled that Dudley would drive a hybrid-electric car while opposing more federal regulations of fuel economy: “In Dudley’s worldview, there’s no inconsistency between making the personal choice to save on gas, while opposing standards to keep our air clean and our cars fuel efficient. Seems bizarre? It’s called Dudleynomics.”
The writer is the one with the bizarre mindset, obviously. And the mindset seems increasingly common.
