What about younger sick people, Dan Patrick? Fox comments on coronavirus were morbid.
If you want a recipe for embarrassing Texas, here’s a foolproof one: A minute of Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, a dash of Fox News, and a dollop of social media.
Patrick, the second-term Republican, managed to shoot to the top of news feeds late Monday by suggesting — even if not as directly as his critics said — that senior citizens needed to accept a higher risk of death to prevent an economic depression.
“I’m not living in fear of COVID-19. What I’m living in fear of is what’s happening to this country,” Patrick told Fox host Tucker Carlson. “No one reached out to me and said, ‘Are you willing to take a chance on your survival in exchange for keeping the America that all America loves for your children or your grandchildren. If that’s the exchange, I’m all in.”
Patrick said that rather than shutting down the economy, people he talks to say it’s not worth losing “our whole country.”
“We’re having an economic collapse,” he said. “Let’s get back to work, let’s get back to living, let’s be smart about it, and those of us who are 70-plus, we’ll take care of ourselves, but don’t sacrifice the country.”
OTHERS AT CORONAVIRUS RISK
Patrick, as he is all too capable of doing, undermined his own argument by blowing off important facts. Yes, the highest risk of death from COVID-19 is among the elderly. But what about younger people with underlying conditions — say, a 50-year-old with rheumatoid arthritis, or a 35-year-old diabetic?
Should they, too, be prepared to sacrifice to save a few points of GDP?
Second, Patrick managed to corrupt a discussion we actually need to have. There are real health trade-offs to a sustained economic disaster and double-digit unemployment. Suicides may rise. Child abuse could spike. And a generation already bludgeoned by student debt and a decade or more of slow economic growth could lose any chance to own a home. They might put off marriage and child-rearing even more, which is a long-term demographic time bomb for the U.S.
BEHIND THE STORY
MOREHey, who writes these editorials?
Editorials are the positions of the Editorial Board, which serves as the Fort Worth Star-Telegram’s institutional voice. The members of the board are: Cynthia M. Allen, columnist; Steve Coffman, editor and president; Bud Kennedy, columnist; Ryan J. Rusak, opinion editor; and Nicole Russell, editorial writer and columnist. Most editorials are written by Rusak or Russell. Editorials are unsigned because they represent the board’s consensus positions, not the views of individual writers.
Read more by clicking the arrow in the upper right.
How are topics and positions chosen?
The Editorial Board meets regularly to discuss issues in the news and what points should be made in editorials. We strive to build a consensus to produce the strongest editorials possible, but when we differ, we put matters to a vote.
The board aims to be consistent with stances it has taken in the past but usually engages in a fresh discussion based on new developments and different perspectives.
We focus on local and state news, though we will also weigh in on national issues with an eye toward their impact on Texas or the Dallas-Fort Worth area.
How are these different from news articles or signed columns?
News reporters strive to keep their opinions out of what they write. They have no input on the Editorial Board’s stances. The board consults their reporting and expertise but does its own research for editorials.
Signed columns by writers such as Allen, Kennedy and Rusak contain the writer’s personal opinions.
How can I respond to an editorial, suggest a topic or ask a question?
We invite readers to write letters to be considered for publication. The preferred method is an email to letters@star-telegram.com. To suggest a topic or ask a question, please email Rusak directly at rrusak@star-telegram.com.
Patrick, a pro-life warrior, has also apparently missed what should be a remarkable moment for the cause. The country has largely rallied around the idea that protecting life, especially that of the fragile, is worth the sacrifice. You’d think he’d reinforce that message.
WE NEED TO KNOW HOW LONG
Patrick pointed out some facts that have been muted: The mortality rate of the virus is low, and while Americans are willing to wait for the worst to pass, they need to know the endpoint. On that much, we agree.
And give him this: Patrick, noting that he’s about to turn 70, put his money where his mouth is.
“If I get sick, I’ll go and try to get better, but if I don’t, I don’t. … We’ve got a choice here. And we’re going to be in a total collapse, recession, depression, collapse in our society, if this goes on another several months. There won’t be any jobs to come back to.”
Patrick is clumsily reflecting the idea that the long-term sacrifices are too great for the huge steps we’re taking to slow the spread of the virus. It’s not a view that we agree with, but it’s not out of the realm of discussion.
But by reducing it to the specter of throwing Granny into the volcano to appease the gods of the economy, Patrick poisoned the well.
“Our biggest gift we give to our country, and our children and grandchildren, is the legacy of our country,” Patrick said.
He’s right about that. And they deserve for that country to be led by those who think before speaking much more than Dan Patrick does.
This story was originally published March 23, 2020 at 11:27 PM.