The headache with letting one person wave the pandemic wand and shut down the nation until further notice is that his refrigerator is always full.  What I am trying to say is that when someone in power makes decisions that cause material loss to those not in power, he really cannot grasp the true issue.  When Dr. Fauci said he did not understand why more people were not just staying put, it was clear that he did not have any idea of the pain caused by this shutdown.  Could he really be qualified to call the shots regarding balancing the risks of allowing the normal spread of a virus-borne illness versus the risks of unleashing poverty-borne depression making the nation ill, such as what is happening now that is leading to increases in clinical depression, food disorders, anger management issues, child abuse, and likely criminal behavior?

People generally expect their refrigerators to be well stocked.  But what about the bank account?  When you reach for the milk, you know that it is right there.  For those in positions like Dr. Fauci, the bank account is just like a well stocked refrigerator.  He expects money to be there.  What is he worth?  Seems as though the search giants may have hidden that information.

When people make decisions to stop one sort of pain but bring about another sort of pain, they need to weigh the consequences of each course of action.  Every year, people die from seasonal illnesses.  Those who are ill, overly weak, or very old may become severely ill and perish from these annual illnesses.  My dad once told me that when a person is born, he is issued a death sentence; he just does not know when it is going to be executed.  We do not like it, but that is life.

What do we do about this?  What is our response?  I am wondering if we could have a change in the way we permit appointed people to hold power and make decisions.  Consider Figure 1 below:

 
This chart is patterned after the system that Steven Covey used to examine aspects of management.

You can see that for someone in Quadrant III, like the meter maid, there is some authority to issue citations for parking violations, but the social impact, while not trivial, is fairly limited.  For the mayor, in Quadrant I, there is considerable authority in his domain, but the scope of social impact is limited.  Looking into the square where social impact is high but authority is low, Quadrant IV, a group that stands is the entertainment industry.  Entertainers have little or no authority but can have tremendous social impact, such as when an actor who plays a scientific role is consulted as a scientist.

Then there are those operating out of Quadrant II, with high authority and high social. impact.  Roles in Quadrant II, such as the president, are those with the highest authority and the greatest social impact.  Federal judges were placed in this quadrant because they have been seen to exercise great power resulting in significant impact.  There are highly placed appointees, such as Dr. Fauci, who have great authority and daunting social impact.  Yet these people do not answer directly to voters.  Is this the right way to do things?  I say no, it is not.

The decision to shut down has had a strong impact.  Some say it may cripple the nation for years to come.  Should this role be shielded from voter decision-making?  Such are the nebulous swamp creatures, of whom Dr. Fauci seems to be a charter member.  He is just not qualified to make the kinds of decisions he has been making.  He is not trusted by voters and sane folks.  Seriously, Dr. Fauci successfully mandated a national shutdown.  I can hear you saying "But he is smart."  Point taken — maybe he knows all about genetic code for viruses, immunology, and cures, as long as they are well proven cures, nothing off label, you understand.  This medical knowledge does not transfer to globally impacting macro-economics.

Dr. F will likely never really get it, nor will he suffer dire consequences at the polls. He blithely made decisions that Machiavelli would be proud of, yet he is getting off scot-free.  This is because of where he is placed and because of his financial position, having headed federal organizations for decades.

So then when their fridges are full, and their bank accounts are happy, powerful government actors can enact rules that bring harm.  The simple farm voices of the common man are too weak to hinder government fiat.  Oh, that things would change!

The proposal is that those in positions of high authority be reined in such that they are voted in, rather than appointed.  Maybe positions could be rated on a points system.  Review figure 1.  Once determinations are made, such positions could then be decided by voters.  Should someone like Dr. Fauci be able to stay on and on through multiple presidents, without ever once answering to voters?  Might he have been more careful under voter scrutiny?  The same questions could be asked with respect to others in positions of power.

Feel free to contact Mortimer Gentry, a pen name, at my email, MortimerGentry@usa.com, or my new webpage or on FB.