How Political Attitudes in the Trump Era shaped the U.S. Pandemic Response
As of September 12, 2021, there have been over 650,000 deaths in the United States due to COVID-19 (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2020). This does not seem like a controversial statement. But based on the current divisive political climate, a statement of fact such as this is likely to elicit responses ranging from fear to shoulder-shrugging, from gasps to eye rolls. What are the outside factors that give us such a wide range of such divergent reactions?
Hetherington and Weiler (2018) define the two prevalent worldviews of today to be fixed or fluid, or some combination of the two. Those with a fixed worldview tend to respond to life more motivated by fear, while those who hold a more fluid worldview are less likely to see peril lurking around every corner. In the past, both worldviews shared adherents of both the Democratic and Republican parties. But as cultural issues have come to forefront of our society, a new pattern has emerged—Republicans tend to be more fixed in their worldview, Democrats more fluid.
What happens in a society so starkly divided by worldview and party when a deadly pandemic is introduced? A fear-based response could trigger multiple outcomes. Fear of the virus might make a person more likely to huddle down and wait for the threat to pass, but conversely, the fear of the necessary change through mitigation measures could also inform one’s perception of the virus.
Enter Donald Trump.
Gilens and Murakawa (2002) have posited that “citizens are more likely to rely on elite cues in forming opinions on new or technically complex issues.” (p. 19) When a poorly understood pandemic began to jeopardize the health and safety of our country, Trump had the ear of the American public—especially those that voted for him, given that when parsing through elite cues, people are more likely to choose those reflected by perceived like-minded individuals. Conversely, those who do not align with an elite’s views are more likely to be dissuaded by their arguments. (Gilens & Murakawa, 2018, pp. 25-27) Given these facts, Republicans and Democrats might view the same speech from the commander-in-chief, yet their takeaway could be dramatically different.
So what is the impact when Trump says at a press conference, “Just stay calm, it will go away,” or makes comments such as “People are tired of hearing Fauci and all these idiots.”? (Gilson et al., 2020) What is the message when he rarely wears a mask on camera and
chooses to remain quiet about his vaccination status for several months? How does the public respond—how does the news media respond?
“In one-third of homes, the television is on all day” (Political Socialization, 2011). The prevalence of media exposure in our daily lives has a profound impact on our political socialization, but the networks “balance their public service imperative against the desire to make money” (Political Socialization, 2011). While media can be used to educate, motives are often not pure but influenced by their targeted audience.
Taking cues from the President, characters such as Tucker Carlson and Rush Limbaugh are less likely to report from a negative slant and risk alienating Trump voters. In contrast, Anderson Cooper could respond to the same set of facts with scathing criticism. Working with the same set of facts, a Republican might see wearing a mask or getting a vaccine as an infringement on their personal freedom, while a Democrat might view it as a social obligation towards the more at-risk members of society.
Those with higher levels of “political efficacy” who “feel that they have skills and resources to participate effectively in politics” (Political Socialization, 2011) will likely identify with the messages being delivered to them through these agents of socialization and take action. Some may argue about social distancing for Thanksgiving gatherings; some may post viral content on Facebook about the safety of vaccines; some may boycott shopping at stores for their policies on masking.
What is your position on masking? Social Distancing? Vaccine mandates? From the channel we turn on for our dose of evening news to the friends we keep on social media—from the conversations at the dinner table to the politicians we love to hate—our opinions don’t exist in a vacuum. They are a living thing evolving daily. Where and who you get your information from—that will inform their evolution.
References
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2020). COVID data tracker. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#datatracker-home
Gilens, M. & Murakawa, N. (2002). Elite cues in political decision-making. In M. X. D. Carpini,
L. Huddy & R. Shapiro (Eds.), Research in micropolitics (Vol. 6, pp. 15-49)
Gilson, D., Thompson, L., Jeffery, C., Liss-Schultz, N., Butler, K., & Peischel, W. (2020,
October 8). Superspreader in chief: The ultimate timeline of Trump’s deadly coronavirus denial. Mother Jones. https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2020/10/trump-coronavirus-covid-denial-timeline/
Hetherington, M. J., & Weiler, J. (2018). Prius or pickup?: how the answers to four simple
questions explain America’s great divide. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.
Political socialization (2011). In American government and politics in the information age.
Retrieved from https://open.lib.umn.edu/americangovernment/part/chapter-6-political-culture-and-socialization/
Comments