Coronavirus: When a High-Trust Response Is Required in a Low-Trust Time

At this point, after you sift through all the tweet threads about the coronavirus, read all the articles, and watch all the news reports—there is a single message that blasts through, loud and clear. This is no time for business as usual. There’s no need to panic. However, each one of us needs to alter our behavior, at least to some degree. Stop shaking hands. If you feel sick, be courteous to others and stay home, lest you alarm (or infect) everyone around you with your coughing and wheezing. Rethink travel plans, including potentially that dream vacation you’ve spent the year (or years) saving to afford. 

There’s more, much more, that Americans can do depending on their roles at home, at work, and in public service. But there’s a common factor: To minimize the risk of facing the kind of crisis that has killed thousands, crippled Chinese cities, damaged the Chinese economy, and is afflicting Italy, Americans will have to take the coronavirus seriously, and they’ll have to engage in at least some degree (even if small) of personal sacrifice. 

That requires trust—including trust in your neighbors, in members of the media who transmit information about the virus, and in public health officials. That trust will require a change in behavior even if no one you know is sick, even if you feel healthy, and even if the virus isn’t yet in your community. 

But here’s the catch. We’re living in a low-trust time. Make no mistake, much of the mistrust in the media, the government, and other vital institutions has been richly earned. Not long ago, in the aftermath of the Iowa caucus debacle, I wrote a piece called “Make American Competent Again” where I walked through some of the truly momentous national challenges triggered not just by bad ideas or flawed ideology, but also through terrible, consequential mistakes:

[L]et’s back up for a moment and imagine an alternative history of the United States. In this alternative history, we simply ask what would be different if American politicians, journalists, election officials, bureaucrats, and captains of industry were simply better at their jobs—in matters large and small.

What are the ripple effects if Palm Beach County election officials designed a less-confusing ballot for the 2000 election? How does America change if our intelligence agencies were more accurate in their assessment of Saddam Hussein’s chemical and nuclear weapons programs? Or, if we still failed on that front, how is our nation different if military and civilian leaders had not made profound mistakes at the start of the Iraq occupation?

We can do this all day. Let’s suppose for a moment that industry experts were better able to gauge the risks of an expanding number of subprime mortgage loans. Would we be more trusting of government if it could properly launch a health care website, the most public-facing aspect of the most significant social reform in a generation? How can we accurately judge foreign threats if ISIS is dubbed a “jayvee team” the very year that it explodes upon the world stage and creates the largest jihadist state in modern history? 

But distrust can go too far, especially in an era where we face not just earned distrust–where we’re rightly skeptical of claims made by those with a record of dishonesty or incompetence, but also manufactured distrust, which is a close cousin to manufactured outrage. Americans need to understand that it is in the selfish ideological interests of the most partisan Americans to increase distrust, even in the face of overwhelming contrary facts. 

I can give you example after example after example after example after example after example of individuals with very significant followings responding to the stock market downturn and public alarm over coronavirus by blaming the media and labeling the media response as yet another effort to get Trump. 

Yes, there are partisans who’ve lodged unfair criticism at the president (calling the illness “Trumpvirus,” for example, is absurd), but Italy isn’t locking down travel to get Trump, China hasn’t locked down entire cities to get Trump, South Korea isn’t taking emergency measures to stop the spread of the virus to get Trump, and while aspects of the oil price war that helped tank the markets yesterday are aimed at the United States, there’s no neat line to partisan politics. 

One wants to ask these partisans, what is their expert view on the proper market reaction to serious public health crises besetting the world’s second, eighth, and 12th-largest economies? 

The combination of earned and manufactured distrust is creating an immense partisan gap in perceptions about the virus. An Axios/SurveyMonkey poll shows that Republicans and Democrats not only believe different things about the virus, they’re engaging in different behaviors:

Fully 62% of Republicans see news reports about the seriousness of the novel coronavirus as “generally exaggerated,” DOUBLE the percentage of Democrats saying so (31%). 

Among independents, 35% see the reports as likely exaggerated, with more, 45%, saying they’re “generally correct” and another 16% indicating the seriousness of the outbreak is “generally underestimated.”

And:

Large events such as sporting events or concerts: Democrats 18-points more apt be at least somewhat likely to avoid, 67% to 49% for Republicans …

Public spaces such as restaurants, shopping malls, and theaters: Democrats 16-points more likely to steer clear, 53% to 37% for Republicans …

Social gatherings at the homes of friends and families: Democrats 13-points more likely to avoid, 38% to 25% for Republicans.

My own view is rather simple. Stock markets can bounce back. GDP can grow again. Our nation’s vulnerable citizens, including the elderly and those with compromised immune systems, can’t come back to life if this virus strikes them down. Given that reality (and the reality that we see across the globe), we should take the advice of Trump’s former homeland security adviser, Tom Bossert:

The best way to put out the fire is a vaccine, but that is over a year away. In the meantime, we must focus on reducing the height of the outbreak curve. This requires coordination and implementation of non-pharmaceutical interventions. School closures, isolation of the sick, home quarantines of those who have come into contact with the sick, social distancing, telework and large-gathering cancellations must be implemented before the spread of the disease in any community reaches 1 percent. After that, science tells us, these interventions become far less effective.

It’s time to trust, and I trust that the words above represent our best chance to avoid the death and disruption we’ve seen abroad.

How popular was Bernie, after all? 

Predicting political outcomes is a perilous business. After all, a mere two weeks ago Bernie Sanders was the clear Democratic frontrunner, and pundits were writing Joe Biden’s political obituary. Now Bernie is fading and Biden is enjoying the fruits of one of the most dramatic political comebacks in modern American history. Six states are voting today, and if things go as expected (a big if), Bernie will be left needing his own comeback miracle to survive. 

But as Bernie fades, more than just his personal political fortunes are at stake. His entire narrative, including aspects of the Democratic Party’s lurch to the left after 2016, are now open to question. If his fade continues, it’s time to ask—was he truly the voice of a new revolution, or was his prior strength primarily a function of Hillary Clinton’s weakness? 

Make no mistake, Bernie was not supposed to be a serious challenger to Hillary in 2016, and the strength of his campaign didn’t just surprise pundits, it caused Democrats to question whether Bernie’s agenda represented the future of the party. 

Perhaps not. Perhaps the stampede to Biden isn’t just about perceived electability (after all, Bernie polls pretty well against Trump), but also about the relative moderation of the Democrats’ 2018 coalition—a coalition that depends on black and suburban voters who are well to the right of Bernie’s revolutionaries. 

Indeed, the available data indicate that the Democratic party’s turnout growth isn’t among Bernie’s revolutionaries, but among Biden’s suburbanites. And the suburbs don’t long for radical change. 

Time will tell, but if Bernie’s collapse continues, it may be time to rewrite part of the modern history of the Democratic Party. In 2016, many millions of its voters didn’t necessarily lurch left, they lurched away from Hillary. Bernie wasn’t so much the harbinger of a transformed party as he was the harbinger of Hillary’s ultimate political defeat.

One last thing … 

Not long ago I was talking to friends and asked which World War II stories needed their own movies. I nominated the Battle of Samar, one of the most heroic actions in American naval history. I didn’t even think of the Battle of the Atlantic, but this—from Tom Hanks—looks excellent. See you opening night!

Photograph of Ludovic Marin/AFP/Getty Images.