The latest performance in the mystifying theater of the absurd to which we’ve all been privy over the course of the pandemic is an act of contortionism. The thing doing the contorting, however, is the English language, and it’s acting under duress.
A new concept that the perpetual pandemic now confronts us with is the idea of the optional mandate. We are now subject to behavioral inducements that are supposedly so vital that they must be imposed on you from on high. Yet, those inducements are so uncompelling that their enforcement is lax-to-nonexistent, and the likelihood is that those who observe these dictates will least benefit from them.
What I’m referring to are the indoor masking mandates that are making a comeback in the bluest of American enclaves. “I’ve been warning about this for months now,” New York’s provisional governor, Kathy Hochul, scolded. “We’re heading upward in a direction that I find is no longer sustainable.” Hochul, who preemptively ordered a halt to elective surgeries upon discovery of the existence of the Omicron variant (which now looks to be blessedly less severe than the knee-jerk reaction to it anticipated), revealed last week that she would also be “enacting a statewide indoor mask mandate unless a business has a vaccination mandate.”
But not every region of this Democrat-dominated state welcomed the new rule. Putnam County executive MaryEllen Odell called the order “unrealistic,” with the potential for serious negative economic consequences. Rensselaer County executive Steve McLaughlin dismissed the move as “overreach.” Rockland County executive Ed Day agreed, adding that the governor’s office hasn’t been forthcoming about the metrics that prompted the return of mask mandates nor those that would result in its rescinding. These and other counties suggested that there would be no new mask mandate in their locales, regardless of the governor’s pronouncements. So, what did Hochul do? She invented the concept of a voluntary mandate.
The governor conceded under pressure that enforcement of this so-called mandate will be up to individual counties. Presumably, those counties that have said they will not enforce this edict will be allowed to ignore Albany. To be fair, Hochul didn’t have much choice in the matter. There will be no enforcement mechanism applied to the implementation of this new mask mandate because mask mandates are unenforceable.
From the start of the pandemic, masking has been a social convention, not a legal one. The constabulary isn’t posted on every corner and in every business checking to make sure your nose and mouth are properly obstructed. When masking was all but universal, it was a result of a social compact that drafted individuals into the policing of their own communities. It was an organic response to a genuine panic around a disease that could not be mitigated pharmaceutically. That is no longer the case.
Masking as a social convention has withered away in the parts of the country where pandemic-related apprehension is low, and it cannot be reimposed from the top down. At least, that’s what California’s experience suggests.
The Golden State, too, is reinstating its indoor mask mandate for at least a month beginning on December 15. “We know people are tired and hungry for normalcy,” the state’s health and human services secretary, Mark Ghaly, conceded. And yet, this measure is vital to keep caseloads low. As the New York Times observes, cases are rising fast in parts of the state that have lower than average vaccination rates but also (as a corollary) less public masking. And yet, that isn’t entirely a function of the absence of mask mandates.
In Los Angeles County, for example, a “winter surge” is upon them. Cases are up by 33 percent, which has relegated LA back into what the Centers for Disease Control defines as the “worst transmission tier.” But LA has had a mask mandate on the books since last August. The efficacy of masking as a non-pharmaceutical intervention is debatable, but it is harder to evaluate as a public policy because it just cannot be enforced.
“Dr. Ghaly said that the mask mandate was meant to head off the need for any further restrictions, and he urged Californians to adhere to it, even in the absence of strict enforcement,” the Times report added. The dispatch concluded with a threat: If this unenforceable policy doesn’t do the trick to keep case rates low, “other measures, such as business capacity limits” could be reimposed. Good luck with that.
Even as New York and California position themselves as the most reactionarily governed states in the Democratic coalition, some of the party’s most prominent governors are forging another path. Colorado’s Gov. Jared Polis observed that the vaccine saturation is such that “the emergency is over,” and his administration would not “tell people what to wear” in reference to masks. Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, too, has expressed skepticism toward mandates—both vaccination and masking. “The tools are different now,” Minnesota’s Gov. Tim Waltz correctly observed. The scientific rationale for universal masking mandates doesn’t exist as it did in 2020. He sensibly added, “just get vaccinated.”
If New York and California’s governments are making a political statement, their endorsement of burdensome interventions into American social and economic life makes perfect sense. They’re appealing to constituencies that likes government mandates and wants to see more of them. But their policies are not justified by the existence of a public health crisis; indeed, they’re not even acting like it is a public health crisis. If they were, compliance wouldn’t be left up to the discretion of individuals, business owners, or county executives. But it is, and that should tell you all you need to know.
