Texas Government Paper: Defiance Under Covid-19 Lockdowns

The article chosen for analysis is titled, Businesses Chafing Under Covid-19 Lockdowns Turn to Armed Defiance. It gives a detailed analysis of the experience of businesses in Texas amidst the tight measures adopted by the government against COVID-19. The authors explain the extreme measures militia groups take as they use force to disobey some of the policies identified by the government. For example, Jamie Williams decided to reopen her East Texas tattoo studio with the help of a militia group. She got the help of a local group, which secured her premises with "military-style rifles, tactical shotguns, camouflage vests, and walkie-talkies." (Fernandes & Montgomery, 2020). The instance is one of the many others documented in the article. It helps show the extensive public reactionary measures against what they saw as an unfair policy by the government. In their view, the adopted COVID-19 restrictions were illegal and infringed upon their fundamental rights and freedoms. The article highlights the dangers of public mistrust in the government and how they can rise against some of the policies and measures they feel infringe on their rights.

The article portrays Texas as a defiant state willing to rise against what it feels is unfair and unjust. It helps show the frustrations of local businesses at the height of the COVID-19 pandemic. Mainly, it gives an overview of public opinion on the issues and how they affect a wide range of the population. The issue can be seen in many ways, such as choosing a public militia group instead of the government-provided measures. A particular concern arises when the public shows its mistrust of the system. In one instance, Ms Williams states, "And it's really sad that citizens are having my back as opposed to my government" (Fernandes & Montgomery, 2020). The statement helps portray Texas and its people as a group willing to go against authority. It makes the audience understand the value of enhanced communication, particularly in the wake of certain policies.

Also, the government's involvement with the people helps make them understand the need for certain policies. The issue could have been easily avoided if there had been a striking balance between the rights of the individuals and the overall need to protect the community against a raging pandemic. Instead, it populated a poor narrative and outcome that threatened the lives of the locals in the case study.

The provided analysis helps highlight certain vital concepts. First, there is the concept of individual liberty vs. collective good. The concept stresses the importance of finding a balance if individual rights threaten the collective good and responsibility of the people. In one instance described in the article, an individual asks about the constitutional basis of the order to force business owners to shut their doors. Moreover, Queiroz (2018) also explains that the 'people as a sovereign body' protects against violations of individual liberty. Such measures in the article are a part of what the public challenges. As such, there is a clear shift from what they consider fundamental in their lives.

However, the government's overall need and primary responsibility is also to protect its people. The government must protect the people, even if it infringes on certain rights. For example, there would be fingers pointed at the government if someone dies from a virus because of the lack of enhanced policies. As such, the article helps bring a clash between the two values to light. It essentially provides the mandate to take a more comprehensive look at the issue and how it affects modern citizen values.

Secondly, the article also highlights the concept of federalism. The US government operates in a two-tier system of government. Essentially, it becomes primary for the two systems to have their powers, often derived from the Constitution. The article helps show the instances in which some of the policies used in a given system of government collide with others. An instance is seen in the article where the attorney general, Ken Paxton, issued a warning to three Democratic-led cities (Fernandes & Montgomery, 2020). In his warning, he reiterated the importance of the cities abiding by the policies and measures that the governor had enhanced. In a way, there is a show of the clash between the two entities, particularly driven by political interests. In a system of federalism, the adopted values and powers must be adopted for the greater public good. However, there is a clear show of defiance. It puts into question the overall legitimacy and authority derived within the segments. It also questions the overall concept of federalism and how power should be enhanced from the federal level to the local counties.

Additionally, there is the third concept of public policies. Pollack-Porter et al. (2018) define policies as principles that guide a course of action. They are viable entities used in the people's support, growth, and development. As such, there is a vital need for the general public to adhere to and enhance the policies. This also translates into the adopted laws and regulations that align with the policies. The case study helps explain the concept through the restrictive measures adopted by the government. They tend to show how different groups and people work around shared goals and an overall desire for maintained interventions.

The overall need for public policy is to provide "intervention, services and public works, and the framework for citizens' responsibility to the state on specified issues" (Akanle & Omobowale, 2022). However, there is the danger of people being angry when the policy does not favor them. The article highlights a situation where the people revolt against the COVID-19 restrictions sanctioned by the federal and state governments. Their uprising is a testament to their lack of trust in the policy. It also shows the need for enhanced involvement among the communities.

In addition, the approach taken by small business owners helps show the need for alternative public policy. The article discusses the people who feel the government's restrictions have gone too far (Fernandes & Montgomery, 2020). It leads to a clash in the policy and the decisions that are to be taken by the relevant authority in light of the issue. Furthermore, it also extends to the mandate of the people and the police. On the one hand, there is the need to enforce the law; on the other hand, emerging economic concerns threaten their relationships. One of the requirements of public policy is that it will provide answers when the law is unclear (Pollack-Parker et al., 2018). However, the given situation expressively shows a situation that breeds unclear outcomes. This often tends to create and breed anarchy amongst the people. It is a precursor to the wide-range nature of the violence and uprising by the militia groups seen in the article.

The article helps bring to light the issue in Texas. The authors quickly show the issues in the state after the COVID-19 restrictions. The rise of militia groups to protect businesses that defy the restrictions takes center stage. The analysis further reveals the development of certain concepts and valuable lessons in governance. First, there is the clash between individual liberty and collective good. Here, the business owners feel that their rights to operate their areas supersedes the collective health responsibility. In addition, there is the concept of federalism, as certain cities in the state defy the orders expressed by the governor. Lastly, there is the concept of public policy and the need to involve the people when enacting these policies to hear their views. Overall, the concepts help explain the broader issues in governance and the provided policy values. The lessons learned and integrated from the study become integral to understanding shared goals and primary values.