For conservatives, a face-mask war is the wrong hill to die on

The Covid-19 crisis, like many other areas of life, has become embroiled in the culture wars that are raging, most ferociously on the far side of the Atlantic, but also with varying degrees of intensity across Britain and continental Europe.

In this conflict, small-C conservatives have many legitimate grievances; they are appalled by the degrading of their cultural heritage by nihilistic “woke” forces and by the increasing encroachments of the state upon individual freedoms. They are right to fight back, but in targeting the restrictions being imposed to contain the pandemic, they have chosen the wrong issue. This is not favourable ground for conservatives; on the contrary, it enables their enemies to portray them as uninformed, irresponsible and selfish.

The objections to coronavirus restrictions and quarantines are most vociferous in the United States. That America is also the country with the largest level of infections and a catastrophic number of deaths does not seem coincidence. In both Britain and America the protective mask has become an icon of dissent. Conservatives and more especially libertarians have demonised it as an intolerable assault on personal freedom.

Of course it is uncomfortable, dehumanising and of uncertain efficacy. But, like every other element in the fight against the virus, it should be assessed objectively. Does it work? The evidence is mixed but common sense dictates that it must afford some level of protection, if not to the wearer then to those in the vicinity.

Common sense suggests the creation of a barrier, even if far from comprehensive, between possible carriers of the virus and the rest of the community must be helpful. Making a virility symbol of not wearing a mask, if there is the slightest likelihood it may protect vulnerable people, is not manly but stupid, and selfish towards those at risk.

The same test applies to the basic principle of isolation and lockdown. You do not have to be an epidemiologist to work out that, since the virus is mainly transmitted from person to person, the fewer people you are in contact with the less likely you are to contract the disease. Indeed, the significant fall in infections over the course of lockdown proved its efficacy. The case against extended lockdown is not clinical but economic. We may feel sympathy for those who are losing their livelihoods, but that dismal consequence of the state fulfilling one of its few legitimate responsibilities – to protect the lives of its citizens – is not an attack on small-C conservative values.

Sadly, Christians as a community have been drawn into this wrong-headed crusade. No unbeliever can truly appreciate the degree of deprivation felt by Christians who cannot participate in communal prayer or the liturgy and sacraments. But that does not negate the reality that a church congregation is a close-knit public gathering, as much as the audience at a cinema or theatre, and it is unreasonable, potentially even self-destructive, to expect exemption from safety regulations.

On the other hand, Christians are not paranoid in claiming that in some instances they are being targeted by militantly secularist authorities. In the current rancid climate prevailing in the United States, some Democratic governors have baited Christians by forcing their churches to remain closed while keeping abortion clinics open. But recognising such malign motivation does not invalidate the fact that they may have done the right thing for the wrong reason.

The UK government is Janus-faced in its attitude to the Covid-19 outbreak. Confused experts are supplying contradictory advice, while business lobbies press for relaxation of restrictions. The significant escalation in Covid cases since the easing of lockdown has alarmed the government into halting further relaxation.

Conservatives need to recognise that combating a deadly disease is not creeping socialism. Such measures have been implemented throughout recorded history by feudal rulers and absolute monarchs. The Draconian quarantine measures in 18th century Leghorn, for example, were not inspired by “woke” campaigners or Keynesian economists. The fact that the term “communitarian” has been appropriated by the left [OR1] should not provoke conservatives into distorting their own philosophy, ultimately rooted in community, rather than in unrestricted individualism.

Conservatives have a massive challenge to reassert such rights as freedom of speech, currently threatened with obliteration by totalitarian legislation being proposed in Scotland. Opposing face mask, quarantine, social distancing and other reasonable precautions is the wrong hill to die on.