In a recent opinion piece, John Gloster-Smith, argues that neoliberalism will be replaced due to the
shock of the coronavirus pandemic, arguing that it is one of the factors driving the impact of the shock and how successful the response to it is. The main arguments made in support of this hypothesis in his piece are the degradation in capabilities suffered by the NHS, a failure to coordinate by the UK government with the EU on certain initiatives, a degradation of the social care system through privatization and how government response and collective effort have discredited neoliberalism itself.
Not only will I attempt to refute his underlying point, but I will propose an alternate hypothesis. It being: what seems to be a better predictor of success in the fight against the current epidemic is whether the political establishment is competent and whether the pandemic has been tackled in a timely and forceful fashion.
While the author points out that capacity in the NHS was reduced, this, by itself hasn’t been the cause
of the situation that the UK now faces. The healthcare system being overwhelmed is indeed the cause
of a higher mortality rate, but consequent and immediate action by through a high testing rate, social
distancing measures and keeping the public up to date would have allowed the government to gain
time to add the equipment and beds needed. The prime examples have been South Korea and
Germany, where abundant tests, contact tracing, quarantine of those infected and daily status updates
have allowed the governments avoid a generalized lockdown in favour of measures that limit the
spread of the virus while minimizing the pain felt by the population, even allowing Germany to support more affected countries like Italy, Spain, France and the Netherlands.
The author also points to the privatisation of social care providers as one of the circumstances
exacerbating the current situation. This ignores that the two aforementioned countries have a large
private component in their healthcare and social services, and yet their ability to cope with the
pandemic hasn’t suffered.
Another point made is the effect of Brexit as a dogma, which prompted the UK not to participate in
certain responses sponsored by the EU.This rather than an indictment of neoliberalism, is an
indictment of their government, its lack of pragmatism and wishful thinking.
Collective effort has been a ray of hope in this crisis, but this effort has quite often been a result of
individuals’ decisions to start producing essential goods, like face masks, disinfectant and ventilators.
The actions by governments to shore-up their economy and prevent a collapse have largely been
made necessary by previous inaction. That is, collective and government action are as much a proof
of a failure of neoliberalism, as the existence of entrepreneurs is proof of a failure of social-democracy.
I will now reiterate a point, the amount of ICU beds and ventilators, by itself, does not protect a countryfrom the pandemic. It only allows for those in charge to have more time before the healthcare system collapses. That is, if measures to limit the speed at which the virus spreads are not taken hastily, any healthcare system will collapse.
Since the focus of the original article lies on the UK it is a very appropriate example. The current british government had a strategy of herd immunity up until mid March and social distancing was then advised but not mandated until a week later when pubs, cafes and the like as well as schools were forced to close. The clearest example of mixed signals by the government being the PM commenting on shaking hands with possible covid patients.
The US is another example of a botched response. With the Federal Government acting, not in the
interest of all citizens within its borders, but only of those of states where their current president sees
an electoral advantage (see how Louisiana is being treated by the federal government in comparison
to the State of New York), pressuring republican governors not to impose stay-at-home orders (see
Florida) and disregarding the safety of its enlisted force (see the case of the USS Abraham Lincoln,
where cases of covid on an aircraft carrier were ignored by the DoD until the ship's captain blew the
whistle).
The final country I’d like to present as evidence is Spain. The first case was detected by the end of
January, with the first local lockdown happening on the seventh of March. On the next day a
government sponsored women's march went forward, including a cabinet member later found to be
infected, and the far right Vox party held a counter rally. By this time there were 650+ infected and 17
dead. In both cases the inaction was due to partisanship and political point scoring. To add insult to
injury, while the ICUs of Madrid, the most heavily impacted region, were collapsed, there were free
ICU beds in hospitals around Madrid.
These examples show that failing to respond in a timely and forceful manner, have been a stronger
predictor of the evolution of the pandemic, than the policy choices made by their governments
regarding healthcare and trade.
While neoliberalism and the globalised world that it has resulted in, have their faults, it’s not there
where the response to our current crisis was mismanaged. It’s been us, the electorates of our
democracies which have failed. It’s been us who have let partisan politics seep into our identities,
who have forgotten that when we elect our leaders, we are, first and foremost, electing those who
might be leading the country when disaster strikes. We grew accustomed to fair weather politics, as
near misses buzzed past us, where ideological affinity mattered more than leadership. When you vote
during whatever may be the next election you participate in, remember to ask yourself, how will they
react if disaster strikes.
of the situation that the UK now faces. The healthcare system being overwhelmed is indeed the cause
of a higher mortality rate, but consequent and immediate action by through a high testing rate, social
distancing measures and keeping the public up to date would have allowed the government to gain
time to add the equipment and beds needed. The prime examples have been South Korea and
Germany, where abundant tests, contact tracing, quarantine of those infected and daily status updates
have allowed the governments avoid a generalized lockdown in favour of measures that limit the
spread of the virus while minimizing the pain felt by the population, even allowing Germany to support more affected countries like Italy, Spain, France and the Netherlands.
The author also points to the privatisation of social care providers as one of the circumstances
exacerbating the current situation. This ignores that the two aforementioned countries have a large
private component in their healthcare and social services, and yet their ability to cope with the
pandemic hasn’t suffered.
Another point made is the effect of Brexit as a dogma, which prompted the UK not to participate in
certain responses sponsored by the EU.This rather than an indictment of neoliberalism, is an
indictment of their government, its lack of pragmatism and wishful thinking.
Collective effort has been a ray of hope in this crisis, but this effort has quite often been a result of
individuals’ decisions to start producing essential goods, like face masks, disinfectant and ventilators.
The actions by governments to shore-up their economy and prevent a collapse have largely been
made necessary by previous inaction. That is, collective and government action are as much a proof
of a failure of neoliberalism, as the existence of entrepreneurs is proof of a failure of social-democracy.
I will now reiterate a point, the amount of ICU beds and ventilators, by itself, does not protect a countryfrom the pandemic. It only allows for those in charge to have more time before the healthcare system collapses. That is, if measures to limit the speed at which the virus spreads are not taken hastily, any healthcare system will collapse.
Since the focus of the original article lies on the UK it is a very appropriate example. The current british government had a strategy of herd immunity up until mid March and social distancing was then advised but not mandated until a week later when pubs, cafes and the like as well as schools were forced to close. The clearest example of mixed signals by the government being the PM commenting on shaking hands with possible covid patients.
The US is another example of a botched response. With the Federal Government acting, not in the
interest of all citizens within its borders, but only of those of states where their current president sees
an electoral advantage (see how Louisiana is being treated by the federal government in comparison
to the State of New York), pressuring republican governors not to impose stay-at-home orders (see
Florida) and disregarding the safety of its enlisted force (see the case of the USS Abraham Lincoln,
where cases of covid on an aircraft carrier were ignored by the DoD until the ship's captain blew the
whistle).
The final country I’d like to present as evidence is Spain. The first case was detected by the end of
January, with the first local lockdown happening on the seventh of March. On the next day a
government sponsored women's march went forward, including a cabinet member later found to be
infected, and the far right Vox party held a counter rally. By this time there were 650+ infected and 17
dead. In both cases the inaction was due to partisanship and political point scoring. To add insult to
injury, while the ICUs of Madrid, the most heavily impacted region, were collapsed, there were free
ICU beds in hospitals around Madrid.
These examples show that failing to respond in a timely and forceful manner, have been a stronger
predictor of the evolution of the pandemic, than the policy choices made by their governments
regarding healthcare and trade.
While neoliberalism and the globalised world that it has resulted in, have their faults, it’s not there
where the response to our current crisis was mismanaged. It’s been us, the electorates of our
democracies which have failed. It’s been us who have let partisan politics seep into our identities,
who have forgotten that when we elect our leaders, we are, first and foremost, electing those who
might be leading the country when disaster strikes. We grew accustomed to fair weather politics, as
near misses buzzed past us, where ideological affinity mattered more than leadership. When you vote
during whatever may be the next election you participate in, remember to ask yourself, how will they
react if disaster strikes.
