What do you want of your elected officials? Perhaps you want them to follow through on election promises? Maybe you want them to meet with the public regularly so they are aware of voter and community concerns? I suppose some people would say transparency is their most important expectation? I certainly want them to be informed about the decisions they make. But have you ever considered the duty of an elected official to be a buffer from unjust rules, mandates or laws of a higher authority?
We need our elected leaders to be strong and principled in the face of adversity. Leaders need to be able to detach themselves from herd mentality and use reason to guide their decisions. They especially need to be willing and able to push back against unjust dictates from a higher authority. And make no mistake - that isn't as easy as it sounds.
A famous study from 1963 investigated how people will justify their bad behaviors as obedience to authority (the "just doing my job" excuse). The aim of the study was "researching how far people would go in obeying an instruction if it involved harming another person". The study participants were instructed to administer an electric shock ranging from 15 volts (slight) to 450 volts (extremely dangerous) to another person (who was an actor pretending to writhe in pain) anytime that person gave an incorrect answer to a participant's question. The experimenter also prodded the participants to continue shocking the other person when the participant hesitated. Going into the study, the researchers estimated that less than 3% of participants would administer the maximum 450 volt shock. What they found was that 65% of the participants obediently complied.
In communities all across the country, we saw local leaders bend the knee and accept overreaching COVID-19 lockdowns and mandates dictated by higher authorities, whether they came from elected officials or unelected high-placed bureaucrats. Some of the decisions made in March of 2020 were understandable, but by late April it was clear that COVID-19 was primarily dangerous to the elderly and protocols should have focused on that demographic. A recent medical study (in peer review) has concluded that the median COVID infection fatality rates (aka death rates) across 29 high-income countries (including the US) are:
0.0003% at 0-19 years (this translates to 1 fatality out of 1,000,000 cases)
0.003% at 20-29 years
0.011% at 30-39 years
0.035% at 40-49 years
0.129% at 50-59 years
0.501% at 60-69 years
The Atlantic recently tried to extend an olive branch to those mistreated by COVID tyrants, but I'll admit it's hard to accept an apology over two years into a mostly self-inflicted disaster that would have ended in two months if elected leaders weren't so docile and compliant.
Today gender ideology being implemented in schools is making headlines. GHAPS administrators have accepted the opinions of credentialed experts regarding age appropriateness of library books and have funded professional development that teaches anti-racism. With a new school on the horizon will GHAPS accept money in exchange for design elements that violate common sense? What will our elected school board leaders do if a resurgence of COVID occurs or the seasonal flu gets nasty? Will they actually make their own risk-based assessment to guide their decisions? If they disagree with a higher authority, will they have the fortitude to push back? And when it comes to Federal and State emergency money, will they be enamored with opportunity to get a slice of the pie, no matter the strings attached? Where will this mentality lead in the future? Climate Lockdowns are already being implemented in the UK.
It’s time for new administration at GHAPS.