The Coming Coronavirus Ideological Realignment
In the last week alone, unemployment claims have reached unprecedented levels, thousands of small businesses have closed, and entire states have shut down with no concrete timetable to reopen. In short, COVID-19 has demolished any semblance of normalcy and the idea that anything in American society is secure or untouchable now seems foolish — other, that is, than its perpetual political polarization. Somehow, in the midst of what is likely the most devastating crisis of the 21st century, in a time of absolute societal upheaval, Democrats and Republicans have remained as polarized as ever, if not more so. Every aspect of the coronavirus, and the US response to it, has been politicized bitterly, and clear ideological lines have been drawn. Thus far, Republicans have generally fallen on the side of muted skepticism towards the virus and outright hostility towards the severe measures proposed and taken to combat the virus, whereas most Democrats have consistently sounded the alarm and endorsed the more drastic measures.
No doubt, some of these ideological bearings are consistent with historically maintained beliefs in both parties. On the one hand, Republicans are inherently more skeptical of science-based recommendations than Democrats, and Trump is uniquely concerned with damage control of the economy to secure his reelection bid; the left on the other hand, has publicly prioritized the need for damage control of the virus itself. Still, above all else, paramount to any real ideological reasoning on either the left or the right, is President Trump. Political alignment in the age of Trump is predictable. Republicans and right-wing media almost always fall in line with what the president says, while the Democrats will take the opposing side. This has been true on a number of issues preceding the virus, and has certainly been true regarding the virus itself. When the United States confirmed its first cases of COVID-19 at the end of January, Trump downplayed the threat of the virus. What followed was a media blitz by Fox News dismissing the “hysteria” of the coronavirus. The rhetoric continued into mid-March when Trump accused the Democratic party of inflaming the coronavirus situation. In turn, both left wing voices and mainstream media outlets like the New York Times and CNN, which are often at odds with the president, have conveyed a clear sense of urgency and disaster that coronavirus has brought on the country.
As the number of cases and deaths skyrocketed in the US, Trump reversed course and acknowledged the threat of the pandemic. Still, the right-wing media, sticking with their initial understanding and rhetoric, has largely minimized it, and the federal government has been reluctant to implement some of the most drastic powers available. For example, the administration has not used its full authority to implement the Defense Production Act, which forces private companies to produce essential equipment, allegedly because Trump thought it would make America look socialist — even as Democratic governors have begged the president to carry it out. In fact, it is the response of the governors around the country that has been most illuminating in the left-right divide. Governors in populous blue states, like New York and California — which have been hit the hardest by the virus — have imposed strict restrictions on their citizens, including shelter-in-place measures. In contrast, Republicans have been much more hesitant to take similar heavy-handed steps. Less than two weeks ago for example, the governor of Mississippi ignored calls to shut down the state, saying it is “never going to be China.” As of April 4th all 8 states that have not called for a stay-at-home order are led by Republican governors.
In truth, any purely ideological explanation for the current divide between Republicans and Democrats is flimsy at best and incoherent at worst. Trump staked out his position, the Republican establishment followed suit like the loyal sheep they’ve become, and Democrats reflexively voiced the opposing point of view. All of this seems to have been done without the two parties ever really analyzing or questioning their new assumed positions, the potential consequences of these positions and, importantly, whether these positions are ideologically consistent with what the two parties supposedly stand for. It thus seems possible — if not likely — that we will see an ideological re-positioning throughout the crisis. This will be especially true if a specific measure or moment acts as a catalyst wherein the shutdown starts being viewed not merely through a public-health and economic lens, but through a civil liberties lens as well. And it seems increasingly likely that this moment will come.
Police around the country are now issuing citations to people who break local or state stay-at-home directives. Federal law enforcement agencies have also gained more discretionary power to detain individuals. Perhaps most concerningly, the Customs and Border Protection (CPB) has been authorized to indefinitely detain people who show flu-like symptoms. So far these measures, including that of the CPB, have received little to no attention. This is particularly surprising when it comes to the left, which is generally concerned with civil liberties and what it might deem “authoritarian” measures. But if these enforcement tactics are a harbinger of things to come, over time the newfound authority granted to the government, and by proxy the police, will become impossible to ignore.
Up until now, the focus on the left clearly has been on public safety, a reaction to the right’s alarm about the lock-down and wishful thinking about the virus. But will progressives and the left writ large be willing to sacrifice concern about overzealous cops and potential abuses of civil liberties in pursuit of (legitimate) concern for public health? Similarly, will the right really be willing to loosen its grip on their “Blue Lives Matter’’ rhetoric, and distance themselves from more high-handed officers? It is worth remembering the respective Democratic and Republican responses to perhaps the only modern precedent for the current US reaction to COVID-19: the PATRIOT ACT. While governmental overreach in that case — put in place by the conservative Bush administration — was heralded by the right (save for some fringe libertarians) for keeping us safe, it received its most consequential push-back from wide-ranging elements of the left, who felt as if the potential security risk was not worth sacrificing cherished civil liberties. Considering that a similar conversation is taking place regarding the response to the current crisis, and that the Democratic and Republican talking points have effectively been swapped, it is hardly a stretch to presume that both the left and the right will soon find themselves disagreeing with their current position toward the lock-down.
The ambiguous nature of these novel laws makes the situation even more ripe for potential ideological re-positioning. In most states, as of now, troopers and police are being told to use personal discretion when deciding if a citation is warranted; historically, when the American judicial system — police, prosecutors, and judges alike — have been tasked with exercising personal discretion in deciding punishments, the hammer has fallen much harder on certain demographics (namely low-income minorities) than others (namely the affluent). If this remains the case during the lockdowns, as all historical precedent indicates it will, Democrats and Republicans will find themselves in awkward positions, where Democrats will see their current argument more aligned with the officers’, and Republicans will find theirs more aligned with the targets. More likely than not, these will prove to be unstable, and overtime untenable, positions. If police discretion is used in a haphazard manner, and especially in a racially discriminatory way, this will very likely accelerate the ideological re-positioning. Indeed, in a return to the alternate polarization seen post-PATRIOT ACT, it seems possible that in a matter of weeks, legitimate portions of the left will be arguing that the federal and state governments are overreaching and authoritarian, while some on the right will be pining for citizenry acquiescence to the new laws.
When coronavirus first emerged in the US, the President picked a side, Republicans fell in line, and Democrats sprinted to the opposing point of view. As the crisis escalated, the right re-calibrated their message but continued with a stance dominated by skepticism about the threat posed by the pandemic, and apprehension over strong governmental measures. The left meanwhile doubled down on the need for forceful emergency intervention. It is natural to imagine that these positions are rooted in ideology, and thus intractable. However, both parties have taken ideological stances at odds with at least some of their current posture. Moreover, it is becoming increasingly clear that, despite valid reasoning and good intentions, civil liberties are being, and will continue to be, sacrificed in pursuit of public health. As these infringements pile up and become impossible to ignore, both Democrats and Republicans will be forced to add to their current interpretation of the crisis, and thus reposition their rhetoric and actions on the virus and what they perceive to be the appropriate governmental response.
Written with Joris de Mooij
