Michael Van Beek, Mackinac Center for Public Policy
Four years ago, on March 24 at 12:01 a.m., Gov. Gretchen Whitmer put the entire state of Michigan into lockdown. She granted herself unilateral control of all social movement and activity, from Copper Harbor to Coldwater and everything in between. This was a grand and risky experiment, unprecedented in state history.
Today, the results are clear: Lockdowns were a grave mistake and should never be attempted again.
Lockdowns never made much sense. Whitmer said she would “beat the damn virus” and “eradicate COVID-19 once and for all.” But this was never going to happen. An easily transmissible, respiratory coronavirus is going to spread no matter what edicts governors order. The most lockdowns can achieve is to delay the inevitable spread.
This was the thrust of the governor’s original rationale for using these unprecedented powers. It was to “bend the curve” and “prevent the state’s health care system from being overwhelmed.” This never proved a serious risk, so the governor simply shifted her rationale to a wider variety of concerns. The list grew so long that, at one point, the governor declared her unilateral authority would extend until “the economic and fiscal harms from this pandemic are contained,” whatever that meant.
The costs of the lockdown — to people’s livelihoods, to children’s education, to our physical and emotional well-being — were swept under the rug. Every other disease, including the deadliest, took a backseat to COVID. The media mostly just cheered on the governor’s orders, rarely asking about the downsides or pressing for explanations of her haphazard decisions. The most popular social media companies censored or suppressed content that criticized or even questioned these actions.
Yet, the harms were obvious. Medical checkups and treatment were canceled. Elderly Michiganders died alone. Beloved local stores and restaurants went out of business. Children lost the benefit of attending school in-person.
Despite all the shortcomings of Michigan’s public school system, it offers most children a safe and stable environment where they are fed and cared for. Many students, especially those in poverty, don’t get that at home. The schools’ chaotic experiment with virtual instruction was never close to the real thing.
The lockdowns also made no sense in light of the plans the state had in place for dealing with pandemics before COVID-19 came to town. These plans were developed by state health officials in consultation with public health and legal experts. None of them recommend handing unilateral control to whoever happens to be the governor at the time.
But these plans were ignored, and Whitmer just made it up as she went. It’s no wonder her orders were confusing, inconsistent and, at times, contradictory. They were also unconstitutional.
The governor’s justification for exercising these unprecedented powers, which she repeated in each of her hundreds of orders, also never made sense. Whitmer found a 1945 statute enacted in response to an urban riot in Detroit that had not been used in 50 years. She claimed it granted her the authority to do whatever she wanted for as long as she said there was an emergency. Fortunately, that law is now repealed.
But Whitmer could, theoretically, turn around tomorrow and issue another statewide lockdown. That’s because there’s another state law still on the books that permits the governor’s handpicked and unelected state health director to “prohibit the gathering of people for any purpose” whenever he or she “determines that control of an epidemic is necessary.” The governor pushed this power to the extreme during COVID, claiming it allowed her to close businesses and schools, force toddlers to wear masks and make healthy teenagers test weekly for a disease that is not a serious risk to them.
No state official, governor or otherwise, should have such unilateral control. One key lesson from the failed response to the COVID-19 pandemic is that the government’s role should be to guide, not to dictate. Unprecedented exercise of unilateral authority and edicts made up on the fly are unlikely to succeed and may cause more harm than good. Public health and other government officials need to trust the public more — that is, if they hope to regain our trust.
—————
Michael Van Beek is director of research for the Mackinac Center for Public Policy.
Today, the results are clear: Lockdowns were a grave mistake and should never be attempted again.
Lockdowns never made much sense. Whitmer said she would “beat the damn virus” and “eradicate COVID-19 once and for all.” But this was never going to happen. An easily transmissible, respiratory coronavirus is going to spread no matter what edicts governors order. The most lockdowns can achieve is to delay the inevitable spread.
This was the thrust of the governor’s original rationale for using these unprecedented powers. It was to “bend the curve” and “prevent the state’s health care system from being overwhelmed.” This never proved a serious risk, so the governor simply shifted her rationale to a wider variety of concerns. The list grew so long that, at one point, the governor declared her unilateral authority would extend until “the economic and fiscal harms from this pandemic are contained,” whatever that meant.
The costs of the lockdown — to people’s livelihoods, to children’s education, to our physical and emotional well-being — were swept under the rug. Every other disease, including the deadliest, took a backseat to COVID. The media mostly just cheered on the governor’s orders, rarely asking about the downsides or pressing for explanations of her haphazard decisions. The most popular social media companies censored or suppressed content that criticized or even questioned these actions.
Yet, the harms were obvious. Medical checkups and treatment were canceled. Elderly Michiganders died alone. Beloved local stores and restaurants went out of business. Children lost the benefit of attending school in-person.
Despite all the shortcomings of Michigan’s public school system, it offers most children a safe and stable environment where they are fed and cared for. Many students, especially those in poverty, don’t get that at home. The schools’ chaotic experiment with virtual instruction was never close to the real thing.
The lockdowns also made no sense in light of the plans the state had in place for dealing with pandemics before COVID-19 came to town. These plans were developed by state health officials in consultation with public health and legal experts. None of them recommend handing unilateral control to whoever happens to be the governor at the time.
But these plans were ignored, and Whitmer just made it up as she went. It’s no wonder her orders were confusing, inconsistent and, at times, contradictory. They were also unconstitutional.
The governor’s justification for exercising these unprecedented powers, which she repeated in each of her hundreds of orders, also never made sense. Whitmer found a 1945 statute enacted in response to an urban riot in Detroit that had not been used in 50 years. She claimed it granted her the authority to do whatever she wanted for as long as she said there was an emergency. Fortunately, that law is now repealed.
But Whitmer could, theoretically, turn around tomorrow and issue another statewide lockdown. That’s because there’s another state law still on the books that permits the governor’s handpicked and unelected state health director to “prohibit the gathering of people for any purpose” whenever he or she “determines that control of an epidemic is necessary.” The governor pushed this power to the extreme during COVID, claiming it allowed her to close businesses and schools, force toddlers to wear masks and make healthy teenagers test weekly for a disease that is not a serious risk to them.
No state official, governor or otherwise, should have such unilateral control. One key lesson from the failed response to the COVID-19 pandemic is that the government’s role should be to guide, not to dictate. Unprecedented exercise of unilateral authority and edicts made up on the fly are unlikely to succeed and may cause more harm than good. Public health and other government officials need to trust the public more — that is, if they hope to regain our trust.
—————
Michael Van Beek is director of research for the Mackinac Center for Public Policy.
