The masks are never going away, folks. Entire industries are growing around the Lockdown Forever ideology. Masking is politically and psychologically useful, in addition to being profitable. Vested interests will fight any effort to give a nationwide all-clear.
Even if the government stops pushing mask compliance - and I wouldn't expect that day to come for years, if ever, under the current administration - private companies will be persuaded to require or strongly encourage masks on their premises, and will require them for staff.
They'll say this is necessary to make everyone feel comfortable. Look at the people wearing masks while driving around alone in their cars. They're not going to feel "comfortable" without demanding everyone else wear masks for a very long time. They've been scared to death.
Masks have become a form of social signaling, a tribal identifier, a way for some people to feel superior and broadcast their contempt for anyone who doesn't play along. It could take a while for enough social pressure to build up and make them give up that identifier.
Politically, masks are useful because they're a tangible, visible reminder of panic and desperation. They teach people to feel like they live in a state of perpetual emergency, which is EXTREMELY valuable for opportunistic politicians and statists.
There are SO many other agendas they can't wait to push as "equivalent" to the pandemic, just as statists have long promoted their agendas as the "equivalent" of war. You'll see masks emblazoned with the slogans for other "crises" that supposedly demand the same commitment.
Where do large numbers of people display the level of submission and obedience desired by statists? In a military unit, in a prison, and in a hospital ward. They want you to see the entire country as one or more of those things, every day, always. /end
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
The argument that government has no responsibility to protect the free speech rights of citizens (MUH PRIVATE COMPANIES) is curious given that Big Gov spends trillions and uses huge amounts of coercive force to protect all sorts of ersatz "rights" invented by socialists.
We're told people have a "right" to health insurance, so government had to seize control of the entire industry, spending trillions to destroy the free marketplace, provide lavish subsidies for favored policies and groups, and outlaw insurance that didn't meet its standards.
We're not far removed from a vicious argument about the "right" to contraceptives, which was based ENTIRELY on the assertion that asking people to pay even a pittance for those goods was equivalent to denying them "access" to sacred contraception.
Another thing to ponder about Rush Limbaugh's legacy: He wasn't just good at skewering the Left. He was fantastically effective at presenting conservative ideas. He understood how important it was for each generation to rediscover those ideas.
There has long been a tendency among conservative intellectuals to hoard their treasures, keep their ideas hermetically sealed, impatiently point to the great works of the past instead of finding new ways to share their teachings with each new generation.
There's a whiff of snobbishness about it, a sense that well-educated people ought to know all of these time-tested arguments by heart, so it's beneath the highest rank of intellectuals to regurgitate them. Why waste energy finding new ways to teach old lessons?
One reason the Left hates Rush so much is that he was so effective at skewering their pretensions to moral and intellectual superiority. He made it okay to laugh at them, to judge the failure of their policies without ritually celebrating their alleged good intentions.
Rush did to the Left what they had done to the culture they destroyed in the 60s and 70s. He used humor to destroy their pieties and expose their hypocrisies. More than anyone in the post-Cold War era, he DISRESPECTED them, and he had a blast while doing it.
The Left strongly believes in forcing its subjects to show respect and piety. Your parents might have taught you respect must be earned, but the Left believes the opposite. If you force people to act like they respect you, it doesn't matter if they really do in their hearts.
I never got to speak to Rush Limbaugh, but he always seemed like a friend I heard from every day. He quoted my work on the air a few times, and it was a surreal delight, a joyous thing that could not possibly be happening. He helped us all become friends.
That's the real measure of Rush's impact. He helped so many people realize they were not alone, even as the mainstream media labored to make them feel isolated and hopeless. He understood that totalitarians overwhelm and dominate ordinary people by making them *feel* surrounded.
How often good and decent people felt isolated before Rush! They wondered why nobody could see what was so perfectly obvious to them. The secret of totalitarian success is to make ordinary people fear everyone around them is an informer or enforcer. Rush shattered that illusion.
The liberty and mobility granted to average people by cheap gasoline and home energy is absolutely infuriating to socialist central planners. They need you people to stop moving around so much. You keep scuttling their glorious five-year plans.
Socialism depends on keeping the value of labor down. When the common man's labor becomes too valuable, he starts seeing himself as liberated, a successful participant in capitalism. He becomes unwilling to give his valuable time to the State.
When the average value of labor increases too much, people start thinking social safety nets should be limited and temporary. They grow resistant to demands that every cost should be "socialized," meaning EVERYONE should be dependent on government programs.
Is it possible to fight against totalitarian statists without ever compromising conservative "principles?" Is it better to play "fair," and constantly lose? Can you grapple with monsters without becoming a monster? That's the question at the heart of the schism on the Right.
This schism long predates Trump, but it became much more heated during his 2016 campaign and presidency. It's a question asked in many ways on a variety of subjects. It launches endless accusations of hypocrisy, insincerity, opportunism, foolishness, and weakness.
One of the big problems with academic conservatism is that it acts like the great debate over how to order our society has only just begun, as if we can hold an enlightened conversation between Right and Left over how much freedom we should have and how big the State should be.