Not only is Donald Trump back in the White House, but the far right is poised to occupy the Austrian chancellorship for the first time in the country’s postwar history and Germany is hurtling toward a fraught election next month, following the collapse of its “traffic light” coalition government. Is each of those countries unhappy in its own way (to paraphrase Tolstoy), or is there a common denominator to their unhappiness?
While many commentators have settled on the idea of widespread “anti-incumbency” bias in recent political outcomes, that does not tell us why voters have turned against incumbents. One explanation, of course, is inflation, but another largely underappreciated cause is the fallout from the COVID-19 pandemic, which left many communities not only with a lingering sense of loss, but also with unresolved conflicts and deep-seated distrust.
In Austria, the far right has benefited massively from discontent over how the COVID-19 pandemic was managed. In Italy, 40 percent of those who voted for Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni’s Brothers of Italy party in the last election thought the previous government’s decisions about vaccines amounted to “an undemocratic restriction on citizens’ freedom.” And Trump, in his second inaugural address, elicited loud cheers from his audience when he made a point of mentioning that he would reinstate soldiers who had been discharged for disobeying vaccine mandates.
Libertarian resentment over past restrictions and mandates is one thing; an abiding distrust of scientists is quite another. The latter is bound to affect not just public health, but also climate policies and other highly politicized areas of science.
Former US president Joe Biden was so fearful of scientists being persecuted by the incoming “Trumpists” — with their various “enemies lists” — that he preemptively pardoned COVID-19 pandemic-era US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases head Anthony Fauci in the final hours of his presidency. (Trump still tried to please his base by removing Fauci’s federal security detail, despite the fact that he has faced regular death threats.)
Trump’s nominee to lead the National Institutes of Health, Jay Bhattacharya, is most known for discounting the toll of the COVID-19 pandemic and saying that the virus should be allowed to spread widely in order to build herd immunity. He has also been eager to link science funding to the level of academic freedom at universities, although it is unclear how he would make such assessments. In fall last year, he agreed to speak at a “benefit dinner” hosted by the Heartland Institute, a powerhouse of climate denialism. Other speakers included the right-wing Brexiteer Nigel Farage and the pro-Russia, far-right Austrian politician Harald Vilimsky.
There is nothing wrong with being cautious about scientific findings. As Karl Popper and many other philosophers of science have argued, scientists should be open to having their hypotheses falsified; they should welcome questioning and revisions. The problem is that very few of us are in a position to assess scientific debate, let alone challenge the prevailing consensus (even if we have “done our own research”). Nonetheless, in today’s information ecosystem, it is easier than ever to dismiss inconvenient facts by making vague references to what supposedly went wrong during the COVID-19 pandemic, or by trotting out conspiracy theories about cover-ups and scientists being illegitimately empowered to govern.
True, many disputes about the COVID-19 pandemic simply map onto existing political divisions, but that was not inevitable. Rather, it is the result of certain politicians treating the virus as yet another front in the culture war. Even within the far right, political trajectories varied. Whereas Trump and former Brazilian president Jair Bolsonaro promoted libertarian policies and quack cures (such as injecting bleach), Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban pursued a relatively restrictive approach.
What can be done? One option is to establish independent commissions to produce a proper historical record of how the COVID-19 pandemic was handled. Who made which decisions, and why? How much uncertainty were they facing, and how did they assess risks and trade-offs?
In theory, there is already support for such an idea in many political quarters. None other than venture capitalist and financier of far-right causes Peter Thiel, who recently called for a fact-finding initiative modeled on the Truth and Reconciliation Commission in post-apartheid South Africa (where he partly grew up).
Of course, there is a danger that such commissions would immediately be perceived as partisan, especially in the eyes of those who already distrust scientists. That was certainly the case with the US House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic, whose final report garnered little national attention. One potential remedy is a citizen assembly comprising a random selection of adults (like a trial jury). Outgoing German Chancellor Olaf Scholz — who has admitted that COVID-19 pandemic-era school closures probably went too far — recently welcomed such an approach.
Critics would counter that since “ordinary citizens” must first listen to experts, the selection of expert testimony would remain a source of contention for vaccine skeptics or people with a political axe to grind. However, just allowing a public airing of different assessments (although not conspiracy theories) could have a cathartic effect. While a citizen assembly’s final report might not be accepted by all, it would at least establish an official record. Almost all commissions that similarly dealt with past dictatorships in Central Europe, Latin America and elsewhere drew criticism; but few countries regret having established them.
At this point, any effort to mitigate the COVID-19 pandemic’s toxic political legacy is to be welcomed.
Jan-Werner Mueller, professor of politics at Princeton University, is the author, most recently, of Democracy Rules.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Taiwan’s fall would be “a disaster for American interests,” US President Donald Trump’s nominee for undersecretary of defense for policy Elbridge Colby said at his Senate confirmation hearing on Tuesday last week, as he warned of the “dramatic deterioration of military balance” in the western Pacific. The Republic of China (Taiwan) is indeed facing a unique and acute threat from the Chinese Communist Party’s rising military adventurism, which is why Taiwan has been bolstering its defenses. As US Senator Tom Cotton rightly pointed out in the same hearing, “[although] Taiwan’s defense spending is still inadequate ... [it] has been trending upwards
There is nothing the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) could do to stop the tsunami-like mass recall campaign. KMT Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) reportedly said the party does not exclude the option of conditionally proposing a no-confidence vote against the premier, which the party later denied. Did an “actuary” like Chu finally come around to thinking it should get tough with the ruling party? The KMT says the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) is leading a minority government with only a 40 percent share of the vote. It has said that the DPP is out of touch with the electorate, has proposed a bloated
In an eloquently written piece published on Sunday, French-Taiwanese education and policy consultant Ninon Godefroy presents an interesting take on the Taiwanese character, as viewed from the eyes of an — at least partial — outsider. She muses that the non-assuming and quiet efficiency of a particularly Taiwanese approach to life and work is behind the global success stories of two very different Taiwanese institutions: Din Tai Fung and Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC). Godefroy said that it is this “humble” approach that endears the nation to visitors, over and above any big ticket attractions that other countries may have
A media report has suggested that Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) was considering initiating a vote of no confidence in Premier Cho Jung-tai (卓榮泰) in a bid to “bring down the Cabinet.” The KMT has denied that this topic was ever discussed. Why might such a move have even be considered? It would have been absurd if it had seen the light of day — potentially leading to a mass loss of legislative seats for the KMT even without the recall petitions already under way. Today the second phase of the recall movement is to begin — which has
RSS