I believe that the people in charge of the United States did a better than average job with the challenge of covid. I believe our primary response to them should be gratitude.
Many people disagree with me. They are still enraged by covid restrictions, which they think are pointless.
I believe that Tony Fauci, most of the time, spoke for the medical consensus with regard to covid. I agree with the public health consensus on covid – that social distancing was a good idea prior to vaccines. Once we had shots, it was a good idea to get them because they lower your chances of serious injury or death.
Because social distancing was necessary prior to vaccines, it was a good idea for the government to send people money and to do other things to help the country through a temporary emergency, even if it cost trillions of dollars.
Conservatives who opposed these measures were wrong, and right-wingers generally displayed a maladaptive approach to covid when compared with the leftist approach of bigger government intervention. At times, however, right-wing critiques of covid reduction policies were cogent – such as the need to balance our needs for connection with the benefits of social distancing, the stupidity of big government social distancing overreach such as when the government restricted people from hiking and going to the beach and enjoying the great outdoors (getting outside to exercise is usually a great idea during an influenza epidemic), and the idiocy of keeping schools closed past the time of covid vaccine availability. Conservatives were probably right when they opposed the government imposing vaccine mandates.
We have widespread left-wing tendencies to harm-reduction and fairness because these impulses are often adaptive. We also have widespread right-wing tendencies to fear of contagion, fear of outsiders, and fear of disorder because these impulses are often adaptive.
In some situations, left-wing approaches tend to work better, and in other situations, right-wing responses, including the xenophobic police state, work better.
An academic study released July 10, 2021, noted:
Given research revealing conservatives are more sensitive to disease threat, it is curious that U.S. conservatives were less concerned than liberals with the COVID-19 pandemic. Across four studies that spanned almost ten months throughout the pandemic, we evaluated three potential reasons why conservatives were less concerned: (1) Motivated Political reasons (conservatives held COVID-specific political beliefs that motivated them to reduce concern), (2) Experiential reasons (conservatives were less directly affected by the outbreak than liberals), and (3) Conservative Messaging reasons (differential exposure to/trust in partisan conservative messaging). All four studies consistently showed evidence that political (and not experiential or partisan messaging) reasons more strongly mediated conservatives’ lack of concern for COVID-19…
In the United States, polling has consistently suggested that conservatives are less concerned than liberals about the COVID-19 pandemic (Brownstein, 2020; Malloy & Schwartz, 2020). Conservatives’ relative lack of concern towards the pandemic is curious in light of a large body of social psychological research and theory suggesting strong ties between conservative ideology and threat (e.g., Altemeyer, 1996; Duckitt & Sibley, 2010; Feldman, 2003; see Choma & Hanoch, 2017, for discussion) – and especially to direct physical threats such as disease (for summaries, see Conway et al., 2019; Crawford, 2017). For example, research shows that disgust sensitivity – one of the psychological mechanisms by which disease threat operates – is associated with more conservative policy positions and voting tendencies (Brenner & Inbar, 2015; Helzer & Pizarro, 2011; Inbar et al., 2012; Liuzza et al., 2018; Oosterhoff et al., 2018; Shook et al., 2017). Indeed, research specifically on COVID-19 revealed that COVID-19-based primes increased conservatism (Karwowski et al., 2020). Complementary work at a socio-ecological level suggests that the presence of more communicable disease is generally associated with higher levels of politically conservative values and beliefs (Beall et al., 2016; Conway, Repke, & Houck, 2017a; Conway, Bongard, et al., 2017; Conway, Repke, & Houck, 2017b; Fincher et al., 2008; Murray et al., 2019; Tybur et al., 2016). In addition to showing culture-level pathogen prevalence’s association with traditionally conservative-related beliefs such as authoritarianism and autocratic governments (Conway, Repke, & Houck, 2017a; Conway, Bongard, et al., 2017; Conway, Repke, & Houck, 2017b; Fincher et al., 2008; Tybur et al., 2016), this line of research has also demonstrated more specific conservative ideological shifts based on the prevalence of active disease outbreaks (Beall et al., 2016). Taken together, this set of findings at both the individual and ecological levels has suggested to researchers that pathogen prevalence is associated with more ideological conservatism (see Conway et al., 2019, for a summary).
This presents a psychological puzzle. If conservatives are more sensitive to disease threat, why did American conservatives seem less concerned with a worldwide disease pandemic in which the United States has at points had the highest number of confirmed cases (World Health Organization, 2020)?
…the effect of conservatism on perceived coronavirus threat was significantly reduced as COVID-19 experiences/impacts increased…
…conservatives cared less (and that liberals cared more) about the disease outbreak because they had political beliefs that intersected with the COVID-19 pandemic.13 These political beliefs provided motives for both conservatives and liberals to view the pandemic through a lens that would lead them to assign more or less threat to the disease. For conservatives, this means that because they (for example) do not want government restrictions – and the full acknowledgment of the threat might make those restrictions more psychologically plausible – they are motivated to downplay the severity of the threat. Perhaps surprisingly, our data reveal this is not the result of differential exposure to, and trust in, conservative political messaging. Although it might be tempting to suggest that this effect is about conservatives heeding Donald Trump’s sometimes-dismissive message about COVID, our data show it clearly was not about Trump specifically – but rather more fundamentally ideological.
…the ideological match between group-level ideologies and the outcomes of a pandemic (or indeed, any culture-wide phenomenon that might cause anxiety) will be crucial in determining public responses to a given crisis. Ideological groups who feel a pandemic will benefit their own ideological ends will be more likely to view it as a threat; ideological groups who feel a pandemic will hurt their own ideological ends will be less likely to view it as a threat. Thus, if conservatives believe a threatening pandemic will hurt their ideological ends, they will be less likely to view it as threatening; and if liberals believe a threatening pandemic will help their ideological ends, they will view it as more threatening.
…An Atlantic headline suggested that “Red and blue America aren’t experiencing the same pandemic” (Brownstein, 2020). Our data reveal that is indeed true. But the primary point of divergence is not because of differences in objective experiences or political messaging; rather, our data suggest it is because conservatives and liberals have ideological beliefs that predispose them to believe that COVID-19 is differentially threatening. But our data also suggest that these differences are less prominent among people on both sides who report they are impacted by the pandemic directly.
This analysis rings true to me. If public health experts said the main thing we need to do to lower health risks from covid is to stop immigration, then conservatives would have welcomed that government intervention. Instead, public health experts said the main thing we need to do to lower health risks from covid is to increase government control over your life and to limit your freedoms because we experts know better than you do. That rubbed conservatives the wrong way.
When covid was politicized in March of 2020 to damage Trump and Republicans, it makes sense that Republicans would reject much of public health advice.
Those running the American covid response were often on the left and they often used words that rubbed Republicans the wrong way. Much of the ornery rejection of common sense public health measures during covid developed because of the way it was communicated by the people in charge.
When you look at the left-wing preoccupations of people in public health prior to covid, it makes sense that those not on the left reacted to their covid pronouncements with suspicion.
If you are not on the left, then you likely have felt the left and our leading institutions use emergencies (from climate change to homelessness to the trans craze) to increase their power over us.
The 2013 book Verbal Judo: The Gentle Art of Persuasion said in chapter six:
Eleven Things Never to Say to Anyone (And How to Respond If Some Idiot Says Them to You)
1. “COME HERE!”
Ironically, this command actually means “Go away,” especially when said by an intimidating authority figure. Many street people automatically translate the phrase as “Run like the devil!”
To you and me, “Come here!” is vaguely threatening. It says, “You haven’t obeyed me, so now I’m ordering you to move when I want you to move.”
I learned in police work that it’s much more effective to casually approach a person and say, “Excuse me, but I need to chat with you a second,” or even “Could I chat with you a second?” I gave the other party the feeling that he had some choice, but my implication was clear.
2. “YOU WOULDN’T UNDERSTAND.”
I don’t know about you, but I find this phrase so insulting that I can almost hear the comma and then “stupid” implied at the end. No matter who this is said to, it puts the listener off. Better to say, “This might be difficult to understand, but . . .” or “Let me try to explain this . . .”
There’s no harm in warning people that what you’re about to say is complicated and that it’s okay if they don’t get it at first. You can even put the onus on yourself: “I hope I can explain this . . .” Just don’t prejudge their ability to comprehend. And certainly don’t whip them in advance for what may be your failure to communicate.
3. “BECAUSE THOSE ARE THE RULES.”
That phrase would make just about anybody want to throw up. But if you’re enforcing rules that exist for good reasons, don’t hesitate to explain them. Your audience might not agree, but at least they will have been honored with an answer. For instance, if you tell children they have to go to bed at a certain time and they demand to know why, explain that they will be less cranky and able to have more fun the next day if they get adequate sleep. Tell them that you need their help in doing your job as a parent. “It’s my responsibility to bring up healthy, happy kids. You do your part, and I’ll do mine.”
4. “IT’S NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS.”
Here is the slam – dunk of verbal abuse. It’s usually said by a frustrated parent, but it’s occasionally heard among friends too. The phrase angers people because it brands them as outsiders and brusquely cuts them off. It also exposes you as someone who doesn’t have a good reason for answering the question. It makes it seem that you have no power behind your position.
Rather than saying, “It’s none of your business,” explain why the information cannot be revealed.5. “WHAT DO YOU WANT ME TO DO ABOUT IT?”
What a cop – out! The pseudo question, almost always accompanied by sarcasm, is seen as an evasion of responsibility. It’s also a sign that you’re exasperated.
6. “CALM DOWN!”
I have a lot of fun with this intrinsically contradictory command, in my seminars, especially with police officers but also with service personnel. I scrunch up my face into a mean grimace and ask them how calming it is when I say (shouting now), “Calm down!”
The command flat out doesn’t work.7. “WHAT’S YOUR PROBLEM?”
This snotty, useless phrase turns the problem back on the person needing assistance. It signals that this is a “you versus me” battle rather than an “us” discussion. The typical reaction is defensive. “It’s not my problem; you’re the problem!”
8. “YOU NEVER . . .” OR “YOU ALWAYS . . .”
These absolute generalizations are lies.
9. “I’M NOT GOING TO SAY THIS AGAIN.”
That is almost always a lie on the face of it, because what usually follows the above phrase? The thing you just said you weren’t going to say again! And you will probably say it again and again. This threat traps you, because if you’re really not going to repeat yourself, you’re left with one option: action. If you’re not prepared to act, you lose credibility.
10. “I’M DOING THIS FOR YOUR OWN GOOD.”
That is guaranteed to turn any listener into an instant cynic. No one believes it. It begs the sarcastic comeback, “Oh yessssss. Sure, I bet.”
11. “WHY DON’T YOU BE REASONABLE?”
Not once in my life has anyone come up to me and said, “You know what? I’m in left field today, totally irrational.” People may know they’re a little forgetful or flaky or out of it, but they’re not going to admit to being unreasonable. So you’re only inviting conflict with a question like this.
May 20, 2020, the Foundation for Economic Education published:
Citing research from the brain scientist Gary Marcus, Haidt said the initial organization of the brain essentially comes with a “first draft.” Studying the anthropological and historical records, Haidt found that five pillars of morality exist across disciplines, cultures, and even species:
care/harm
fairness/reciprocity
loyalty/betrayal
authority/subversion
sanctity/degradationWhat’s interesting is that these moral pillars differ sharply across ideological lines in America today. Haidt found that both conservatives and liberals recognize the harm/care and fairness/reciprocity values (though liberals value these a little more than conservatives). Things change, however, when examining the three remaining foundational values—loyalty/betrayal, authority/subversion, and sanctity/degradation. While conservatives accept these moral values, liberal-minded people tend to reject them.
The difference is extraordinary, and it helps explain the different ways Republicans and Democrats are experiencing the coronavirus. In May, a CNBC/Change Research survey found that while only 39 percent of Republicans said they had serious concerns about COVID-19, 97 percent of Democrats said they had serious concerns.
While some of the divergence could stem from the fact that blue states have been hit harder by COVID-19 than red states, Haidt’s research would suggest that another reason Democrats are more concerned is because liberals have an intense appreciation of the care/harm moral pillar.
Indeed, the preeminence of the care/harm moral can be found in the rhetoric of many progressives.
“I want to be able to say to the people of New York, ‘I did everything we could do,’” New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo announced in March. “And if everything we do saves just one life, I’ll be happy.”
The care/harm moral is even found in the latest social media emojis. Last month, as USA Today reported in an exclusive story, Facebook rolled out its new “care” emoji.
“The new Facebook reaction—an emoji hugging a heart—is intended as shorthand to show caring and solidarity when commenting on a status update, message, photo or video during the coronavirus crisis that allow users to express how much they care about others,” the paper reported.
Cuomo’s language (and to a lesser extent Facebook’s emojis) suggests that, for many, care for others is the preeminent virtue. As such, efforts to protect people must be taken above lesser social considerations.
Understanding the different moral framework conservatives and liberals are using helps us understand why blue states have taken a much more aggressive approach in efforts to limit the spread of COVID-19.
As The Atlantic explains, with a few exceptions, such as Ohio, Republican governors have been much more reluctant to impose sweeping restrictions on their residents than states led by Democratic governors. While governors in these states no doubt value care/harm, their moral framework likely gives them a heightened concern of other social considerations, particularly civil liberties.
The lockdowns, the Constitution Center explains, have threatened many of America’s most cherished civil liberties—the freedom to assemble, the right to purchase a firearm, the ability to freely travel, the freedom to attend church or visit a reproductive health facility. They’ve also put thousands of companies on a path toward bankruptcy by prohibiting them from engaging in commerce.
These infringements tend to be viewed as reasonable to liberals, who emphasize the care/harm moral but are less likely to recognize the sanctity/degradation moral. New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy, for example, said he never even considered the US Constitution—a document considered sacrosanct by many Americans—when he issued his lockdown order.
“That’s above my pay grade,” Murphy told Tucker Carlson in April. “I wasn’t thinking of the Bill of Rights when we did this. We went to all—first of all—we went to the scientists who said people have to stay away from each other.”
Similarly, Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer saw no problem in suspending the Freedom of Information Act to prevent outside groups from assessing the model state officials used to justify locking down the entire state.
Those who view civil liberties and constitutional rights as sacred, however, are less than comfortable with such an approach. They will be less inclined to sacrifice sacred principles to support sweeping state efforts to protect people (and are probably more likely to see such efforts as counter-productive).
To be sure, some progressives do see civil liberties as sacred, and some of them have expressed dismay and bewilderment that so many progressives, in their enthusiasm for the care/harm moral, have abandoned civil liberties.
“[The COVID-19 crisis is] raising serious civil liberties issues, from prisoners trapped in deadly conditions to profound questions about speech and assembly, the limits to surveillance and snitching, etc.,” the progressive journalist Matt Taibbi recently wrote in Rolling Stone. “If this disease is going to be in our lives for the foreseeable future, that makes it more urgent that we talk about what these rules will be, not less—yet the party I grew up supporting seems to have lost the ability to do so, and I don’t understand why.”
If Haidt’s theory is correct, the reason is liberals and conservatives are, generally speaking, approaching the COVID-19 pandemic through divergent moral frameworks.
After all, the argument isn’t whether we should protect people.
“In any country, the disagreement isn’t over harm and fairness,” Haidt says. “Everyone agrees that harm and fairness matter.”
The argument isn’t even over how to best balance the care/harm moral with other considerations.
The disagreement is over whether efforts to protect individuals from COVID-19 should be balanced against other considerations—including constitutional and economic ones—at all.
Rony Guldmann writes in his work-in-progress Conservative Claims of Cultural Oppression:
[David] Kahane’s “free men and women” may have had certain narrow sympathies and parochial prejudices. But they were also free from the tighter regimes of affective-instinctual control that define later stages of the civilizing process. They had the anarchic will of free men if nothing else. And it is therein that their freedom lied, an inner, spiritual freedom for which the Rockies and Great Plains are only symbols. Conservative claimants of cultural oppression resent, not modern society per se—whose comforts and conveniences they do not, as Harris notes, really care to repudiate—but rather the organized personality structure that emerges from it, the properly ordered sociability of the buffered identity. In issuing their claims of cultural oppression, conservatives express their longing for a mode of experience that is less compromised by this sociability’s demands. They pine for a way of being that is less rationalized, intellectualized, and disengaged—for human nature’s authentic default consciousness. Such is the deeper meaning of the orneriness in relation to which the ostensible issues are always secondary.
This orneriness is why young conservative Todd Sweeney argues that “conservative and punk sensibilities naturally complement each other.” Conservatives, observes Sweeney, are naturally “drawn to imagery and a tone conveying order and discipline—respectability and reverence.” But while conservatives should continue to defend traditional values, they also need a broader understanding of what those values consist in. The nation whose goodness they praise stands, not only for peace and security, but equally for the risk and adventure in which America was once plentiful but which liberalism now seeks to extirpate. It was America that invented the cowboys and the frontier, as well as jazz, flappers, beatniks, bikers, rock ‘n’ roll, and the anarchic punk movement. And it has since rediscovered those roots in the Tea Party movement, a reminder that Americans haven’t always been servile to government. America being a country founded on freedom and rebellion, it is a serious mistake for conservatives “to accept the mantle of the fuddy-duddies” and let “the country’s free spirits, creative types, young people, and individualists go running to the other camp, where they’ll end up, in a tragic non sequitur, aiding and abetting stifling collectivist bureaucracies like the Environmental Protection Agency.”
Conservatives can see themselves as the true individualists because they identify the individualism of liberals with the ordering impulses of the buffered identity, which is what punk conservatism resists. Like the elites of old, today’s liberals insist that the lower orders be “not left as they are, but badgered bullied, pushed, preached at, drilled, and organized to abandon their lax and disordered folkways and conform to one or another feature of civil behavior.” Seen in the context of the mutation counter-narrative, the E.P.A. and other liberal institutions are merely carrying forth this longstanding tradition. Conservatives see their conservatism as their resistance to the badgering and bullying, and this is why they cannot but see liberals as tyrants and usurpers, crypto-fascists scheming to undermine their natural liberty.
