A Modest Proposal for Covid Amnesty

What can ponerology tell us about amnesty for Covid totalitarians?

Hermann Göring during cross examination at at Nuremberg, Germany, 1946. (Photo:Raymond D'Addario/Galerie Bilderwelt/Getty Images)

By now I’m guessing many of you have read about the recent article by Emily Oster in the Atlantic: “Let’s Declare a Pandemic Amnesty.” Maybe you’ve even read it, or at least an article or two about it.¹ If you haven’t, here’s the article’s sub-head: “We need to forgive one another for what we did and said when we were in the dark about COVID.”

It’s basically a feeble not-apology in which Oster admits that “we” (i.e. the managerial-class power-possessors and those who followed them) made some mistakes. “We” were a bit heavy-handed in pushing policies that didn’t work. But “we” had a good excuse: “We didn’t know.”

Unfortunately, her admissions are fairly weak sauce. It’s not that we closed schools, it’s that we closed them for too long. It’s not that we social distanced, it’s that we social distanced outside. It’s not that we wore masks, it’s that we wore cloth masks. It’s not that some took the J&J vax, it’s that they just didn’t know the mRNA ones were more effective. Some people managed to get things right, in retrospect, but only by accident. Others just happened to get a lot of things wrong, through no fault of their own. Really, we were totally in the dark, so it’s perfectly natural that we did pretty much everything wrong. (Oh, but Trump telling people to inject themselves with bleach was bad. Only he didn’t.)

No mention of the vaccine mandates, serious adverse events, lost jobs and bankrupt businesses, elderly dying alone, and the lives ruined and lost as a result of lockdowns, to mention only a handful of the crimes committed over the past few years. No mention of the social hysteria that turned many into fearful, aggressive hypochondriacs and control freaks.

No, “we” made some mistakes, but now we should all forgive and forget, and just get on with our lives.²

Naturally, many are having none of this. Michael P. Senger writes, for instance, “Let’s not declare a pandemic amnesty. Let’s declare a real pandemic inquiry.”

I’m going to take a surprising position on this one. Yes, I say, let us have a full Covid amnesty!

Let me pause for a moment to allow my dear readers to recover from the shock. Then, let me lay out my conditions. Because of course there are conditions.

Let there be a full amnesty for all the Covid totalitarians—all those leaders who through ignorance, spinelessness, greed, or malevolence created and maintained these policies—but only on this condition: that they willingly retire from their current positions of influence and power, from which they will thenceforth be barred for life. Those who refuse will be subject to a pandemic inquiry such as Senger recommends, with all the legal consequences that may follow.

I think this is a fair compromise. Each side wants their cake and to eat it too. Oster and those like her want the record wiped clean. No real apology, no real repentance, but full amnesty for any moral lapses or crimes committed. “I want amnesty for all the bad things I did, but I still want to keep all the social and professional perks I currently have.” That’s not going to work.

On the other hand, those who have been proven right about all these things want some justice. “1) Put yourself on trial! 2) Find yourself guilty! 3) Punish yourself to the full extent of the law!” Good luck with that. The people responsible are the people in power, and they will not admit their errors, let alone step down from office and give up without a fight, so long as there is even the hint of possible retribution—aside from a few scapegoats, perhaps.

This is essentially what Lobaczewski recommended in the 1980s just prior to the fall of communism, and more or less what happened when it did fall.³ There was very little if any retribution. Where that process went wrong was allowing too many of the previous leadership class simply to change their ideological allegiances and retain power. They should have been barred from power, but offered nice retirement packages as an incentive to go away peacefully. What’s better? Amnesty, on the condition that they’ll never be allowed to wreck things again? A steady stalemate of more of the same? Or civil war?

But if you’re dead set against amnesty, don’t worry. I doubt things will ever get to the point where it can even be seriously considered as an option. Rather, things will continue on pretty much as Oster implies: self-exoneration, half-hearted admissions of wrong framed in such a way that it is clear the currently ruling class is not going anywhere any time soon. There doesn’t yet exist a civil society with the political organization necessary to challenge the current establishment. Until it does, I’m afraid it will be more “sorry, not sorry.” All dreams of any meaningful inquiry will remain just that: dreams.

1. A few summaries and critical takes: here, here, and here.

2. I’m reminded of this infamous line: “We tortured some folks.”

3. See Chapter 9 of Political Ponerology.