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 conflict in the Middle East has been disrupting financial markets, raising concerns about rising inflationary pressures and global economic growth. One market that some investors are particularly worried about has not been heavily covered in the news: the private credit market. Even before the joint US-Israeli attacks on Iran on Feb. 28, global capital markets had faced growing structural pressure — the deteriorating funding conditions in the private credit market. The private credit market is where companies borrow funds directly from nonbank financial institutions such as asset management companies, insurance companies and private lending platforms. Its popularity has risen since
An article published in the Dec. 12, 1949, edition of the Central Daily News (中央日報) bore a headline with the intimidating phrase: “You Cannot Escape.” The article was about the execution of seven “communist spies,” some say on the basis of forced confessions, at the end of the 713 Penghu Incident. Those were different times, born of political paranoia shortly after the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) relocated to Taiwan following defeat in China by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). The phrase was a warning by the KMT regime to the local populace not to challenge its power or threaten national unity. The
Philippine Coast Guard spokesman Jay Tarriela on March 1 was promoted from commodore to rear admiral from Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. The promotion is a striking testament to how Beijing’s intimidation tactics on its current main target in the South China Sea have backfired. It is also yet another example that Taiwan can look to when it comes to responding to Chinese scare campaigns. Tarriela has been consistent in his approach since Manila launched its transparency initiative in early 2023 to counter Chinese “gray zone” tactics around its western waters. As the face of the West Philippine Sea Transparency Office,
The Iran war has exposed a fundamental vulnerability in the global energy system. The escalating confrontation between Iran, Israel and the US has begun to shake international energy markets, largely because Iran is disrupting shipping through the Strait of Hormuz. This narrow waterway carries roughly one-third of the world’s seaborne oil, making it one of the most strategically sensitive energy corridors in the world. Even the possibility of disruption has triggered sharp volatility in global oil prices. The duration and scope of the conflict remain uncertain, with senior US officials offering contradictory signals about how long military operations might continue.
RSS