Why I hope mask-wearing won’t outlast the pandemic

“Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program.” — Milton Friedman

News of the pending authorization of a coronavirus vaccine was quickly tempered with reminders that not much will change in the short term — including mandated mask-wearing.

That’s depressing. Whatever else divides us, we should be united in our desire to rid ourselves of masks as soon as safely possible. Sadly, that’s not necessarily true. Anthony Fauci, infectious-disease expert, told the Philadelphia Inquirer that masks might be needed into

2022. Worse, it’s becoming clearer some Americans would consider it just fine if face coverings became a routine and permanent part of our culture.

My own stated reluctance — not refusal — to jump on the “mask up” bandwagon is always met by exasperated people asking why wearing what

FROM THE RIGHT

Ross Douthat Star Parker Jonah Goldberg TBA

Pat Buchanan Marc A. Thiessen George Will amounts to “a tiny piece of cloth” is so stridently resisted. Conversely, what’s baffling to me is why such an explanation is needed. But I’ll try.

It’s logical to take extraordinary measures in the short term in response to threats such as a new virus. We can debate the efficacy of specific measures, but what we should agree on is that those that most encroach on our freedoms should be discarded first when the threat has passed. The side effects of social distancing and lockdowns are well documented, both for their mental and physical health consequences and the damage they do to our economy. But masks, too, have significant social costs.

Studies have shown that Americans are freer with showing their feelings through facial expressions than people from other nations. When we come into contact with people, whether in formal gatherings or random encounters at the grocery store, we “read” each other based in large part on the kind of unfiltered expression that is a hallmark of a liberated country — expression transmitted by speech, body language and, most importantly, our faces.

Teachers required to wear masks while instructing grade-school students have told me how frustrating it is that their young charges can’t decipher when they’re smiling at them, and can’t see their mouths as they form the words they’re teaching them to say and spell.

Masks give everyone a poker face. They inhibit our ability to hear each other. They discourage social interaction and can trigger “mask anxiety.” Far from being just “a tiny piece of cloth” that’s added to our clothing like a fashion accessory, masks obscure our identities, our emotions and a key part of our personalities.

But it’s only temporary, you say? Americans learned long ago to be suspicious when the government makes such a pledge, usually in response to wars, terrorism or health crises. Exhibit A would be the federal income tax, ostensibly enacted to pay for the Civil War, then again for World War II, but enjoying remarkable staying power.

President-elect Joe Biden is suggesting a 100-day plan, including a mask mandate, to fight COVID19. What’s magical about 100 days? Nothing. It’s an arbitrary stretch of time the public might think reasonable enough to endure. Anyone want to bet that the edicts won’t still be in place on Day 101?

As for masks, let’s agree to wear them for as long as we have to — but not one day longer. The freest and most transparent nation on Earth should never surrender to the notion that a society of hidden faces is an acceptable new normal.

Gary Abernathy, a contributing columnist for The Washington Post, is a freelance writer based in Loveland, Ohio.