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 Chinese government on March 29 sent shock waves through the Tibetan Buddhist community by announcing the untimely death of one of its most revered spiritual figures, Hungkar Dorje Rinpoche. His sudden passing in Vietnam raised widespread suspicion and concern among his followers, who demanded an investigation. International human rights organization Human Rights Watch joined their call and urged a thorough investigation into his death, highlighting the potential involvement of the Chinese government. At just 56 years old, Rinpoche was influential not only as a spiritual leader, but also for his steadfast efforts to preserve and promote Tibetan identity and cultural
The gutting of Voice of America (VOA) and Radio Free Asia (RFA) by US President Donald Trump’s administration poses a serious threat to the global voice of freedom, particularly for those living under authoritarian regimes such as China. The US — hailed as the model of liberal democracy — has the moral responsibility to uphold the values it champions. In undermining these institutions, the US risks diminishing its “soft power,” a pivotal pillar of its global influence. VOA Tibetan and RFA Tibetan played an enormous role in promoting the strong image of the US in and outside Tibet. On VOA Tibetan,
Former minister of culture Lung Ying-tai (龍應台) has long wielded influence through the power of words. Her articles once served as a moral compass for a society in transition. However, as her April 1 guest article in the New York Times, “The Clock Is Ticking for Taiwan,” makes all too clear, even celebrated prose can mislead when romanticism clouds political judgement. Lung crafts a narrative that is less an analysis of Taiwan’s geopolitical reality than an exercise in wistful nostalgia. As political scientists and international relations academics, we believe it is crucial to correct the misconceptions embedded in her article,
Sung Chien-liang (宋建樑), the leader of the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) efforts to recall Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Legislator Lee Kun-cheng (李坤城), caused a national outrage and drew diplomatic condemnation on Tuesday after he arrived at the New Taipei City District Prosecutors’ Office dressed in a Nazi uniform. Sung performed a Nazi salute and carried a copy of Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf as he arrived to be questioned over allegations of signature forgery in the recall petition. The KMT’s response to the incident has shown a striking lack of contrition and decency. Rather than apologizing and distancing itself from Sung’s actions,
RSS