Sathya Tadinada

Period 3

2 September 2020

Face Masks: America’s Political Response

We live in a society that is amid a global pandemic. While this may seem like a very

unsafe time for everyone, following simple health guidelines can improve the quality of life for

everyone and make sure every single person has a chance to stay alive. To prevent us from dying

to the virus, health organizations around the world have recommended taking certain precautions

to slow the spread. One of these recommendations is to wear face masks. However, not all

people are willing to take such safety measures. In the United States, there is a large group of

people who claim that wearing such protective equipment infringes on their freedom and rights

as an American. On top of that, there is the fact that the President of the United States is adamant

about face masks and other safety guidelines from the World Health Organization (WHO) and

the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

The first article, written by Jesse Wegman, explains the benefit of face masks and how it

should be common sense for every American to wear one. He states that wearing a mask is

essentially “good hygiene and common courtesy.” Another way to look at wearing masks is to

see them as the best path to economic recovery. Wegman also criticizes the Republicans of the

country, arguing that they believe wearing masks has become a “secular religious symbol.” The

opinion column also mentions how political mask-wearing has become, calling people absurd for

shouting “It’s a free country; I can do what I want.”

Page 1
 The next column, authored by Thomas L. Friedman, has many similarities to the first

article. In this, Friedman discusses how something as simple as a mask has become an issue of

American freedom-of-speech rights as well as a political debate. He talks about how the

politicizing of face masks can and will set the United States back in the fight against COVID-19

and will only spark more controversy going forward, if nothing is done about it. “… a society

that politicizes everything will never realize its full potential in good times or prevent the worst

in bad times.” He condemns the people resisting to wear a mask in a pandemic, calling the

concept “selfish, libertarian nonsense masquerading as a comic-book defense of freedom.”

However, it seems that most of this mask-rebelling comes from officials in public offices (such

as the president, vice president, Republican governors, etc.) Friedman calls out Trump’s behavior

during the pandemic, stating that the president was concerned about his re-election that he

opposed any evidence that highlighted the current health crisis.

The final article, written by Thomas Friedman again, delves more into the course of

action that the Republican government has taken to slow the spread of the coronavirus. Certain

medical officials have been helpful in providing straightforward steps the public can take to

reduce their own risk and to prevent others from getting the virus. However, even with the

doctors’ help, the United States has a president who “instead of wearing a mask, turns defiance

of mask-wearing into a heroic act of defiance against liberals … and who hails governors who

open bars and restaurants for people to crowd together.” According to Friedman, Trump’s

primary motive is to reopen the economy without the slightest care for the citizens’ health. The

president does not respect the virus, and his response is based solely on his political needs. The

author proposed that since the national government will not do anything, it is time to take matters

into the hands of the public.

Page 2
 All three of the opinion columns make several connections to certain safety precautions

that health officials have recommended (i.e. face masks) and how the opposition to the

aforementioned advice proves fatal against the battle to eradicate the virus. All three articles

mention in some form how the Republican viewpoint of American rights is flawed. In addition,

they address that any freedom they claim to have does not mean they can oppose the

recommendations, since by doing so they put other American lives at risk. When it comes to face

masks, negligence is not acceptable. One other similarity that both articles Friedman wrote is that

face coverings have become an incredibly political matter, with Democrats and Republicans

being split on their viewpoint of the matter. A difference I saw between the two authors is that

Wegman focused more on the courtesy factor behind wearing masks whereas Friedman focused

more on the political/government response to the coronavirus.

In conclusion, COVID-19 is a serious threat to humanity. However, not all people treat it

with the same level of seriousness. Certain people view it as nothing but a scam, others view it as

an infringement of their unalienable rights. The United States, more than any other country, is

politicizing the use of face masks and other health procedures to limit the spread of the virus. At

the end of the day, all the mask protesters have to agree that: The unalienable rights that one

claims for themselves must apply to all people. If it does not apply to every person, it will not

apply to them either. Choosing not to wear a mask because it infringes on your personal rights

means that someone else will potentially die, making you indirectly liable for that. The right to

life is greater than the right to defy health guidelines for a better and safer world.

Page 3
 Works Cited

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/02/opinion/coronavirus-masks.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/28/opinion/coronavirus-masks.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/16/opinion/trump-coronavirus.html

Page 4