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
The recent passing of Taiwanese actress Barbie Hsu (徐熙媛), known to many as “Big S,” due to influenza-induced pneumonia at just 48 years old is a devastating reminder that the flu is not just a seasonal nuisance — it is a serious and potentially fatal illness. Hsu, a beloved actress and cultural icon who shaped the memories of many growing up in Taiwan, should not have died from a preventable disease. Yet her death is part of a larger trend that Taiwan has ignored for too long — our collective underestimation of the flu and our low uptake of the
For Taipei, last year was a particularly dangerous period, with China stepping up coercive pressures on Taiwan amid signs of US President Joe Biden’s cognitive decline, which eventually led his Democratic Party to force him to abandon his re-election campaign. The political drift in the US bred uncertainty in Taiwan and elsewhere in the Indo-Pacific region about American strategic commitment and resolve. With America deeply involved in the wars in Ukraine and the Middle East, the last thing Washington wanted was a Taiwan Strait contingency, which is why Biden invested in personal diplomacy with China’s dictator Xi Jinping (習近平). The return of
Actress Barbie Hsu (徐熙媛), known affectionately as “Big S,” recently passed away from pneumonia caused by the flu. The Mandarin word for the flu — which translates to “epidemic cold” in English — is misleading. Although the flu tends to spread rapidly and shares similar symptoms with the common cold, its name easily leads people to underestimate its dangers and delay seeking medical treatment. The flu is an acute viral respiratory illness, and there are vaccines to prevent its spread and strengthen immunity. This being the case, the Mandarin word for “influenza” used in Taiwan should be renamed from the misleading
The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) has long been a cornerstone of US foreign policy, advancing not only humanitarian aid but also the US’ strategic interests worldwide. The abrupt dismantling of USAID under US President Donald Trump ‘s administration represents a profound miscalculation with dire consequences for global influence, particularly in the Indo-Pacific. By withdrawing USAID’s presence, Washington is creating a vacuum that China is eager to fill, a shift that will directly weaken Taiwan’s international position while emboldening Beijing’s efforts to isolate Taipei. USAID has been a crucial player in countering China’s global expansion, particularly in regions where
RSS