Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Two years later, Covid-19 still exacerbated by partisan polarization

Anti-vaccine protest

People against Covid-19 vaccinations protest in front of Pfizer world headquarters in New York City in November 2021.

Stephanie Keith/Getty Images

In March, the world marked the second anniversary of Covid-19 being declared a global pandemic. The past two years have included a series of tumultuous social and political events that have contributed to the polarization and the continued spread of misinformation, which has kept the nation – and the world – from fully recovering.

Because the battle against Covid is not just a health care issue, some experts believe the path out of the pandemic requires breaking down partisan barriers and halting the spread of misinformation.


Politicization of science

The United States, despite only making up 4 percent of the global population, has been the site of 25 percent of Covid-19 cases throughout the pandemic. This disproportionate rate of infections can be attributed to various factors, but one of the primary causes arises from the politicization of related science, both early in the pandemic and in the ensuing months.

Vaccines have been the center of polarizing debates for years, despite mounting empirical evidence supporting their effectiveness. This, along with suspicions surrounding mask mandates and even the reality of the pandemic, all play into a more extensive trend of denying the merits of scientific findings.

So how did these discrepancies come about, and how did they grow to the deadly levels we have seen in the past few years?

To begin, stressful situations like a pandemic may lead to predispositions towards denial, rationalism and confirmation bias as a defense mechanism against confronting the devastating realities that exist in the moment.

“Denial is a way for people to defend themselves against anxiety,” Mark Whitmore, an associate professor at Kent State University who has studied the spread of disinformation, explained in an interview with CNN. One defense mechanism “is simply to deny whatever the threatening source is exists. In this case, you would simply say, ‘Well the epidemic is a hoax. It doesn't really exist.’”

Under such conditions, public opinion is susceptible to polarized messaging, according to Nina Ashford, former federal government director and clinical assistant professor at the Tufts University School of Medicine.

“We have seen more egregious forms of politicization [of science] happen over the past two years of the pandemic,” she said. “This undermining of the scientific process has trickled down into the public’s trust of vaccines, of public health in general, of medicine … and these tend to be along partisan lines.”

At the beginning of the U.S. outbreak in early 2020, President Donald Trump downplayed the severity of the disease, with many Republican leaders quickly following his lead. Even now that the disproportionate vulnerability of unvaccinated populations has been demonstrated, some media outlets have continued to spread misinformation about preventative measures and the foundational science behind the implementation of pandemic policies. In addition to seeding general mistrust in government, Ashford states, “one of the biggest public health threats coming out of this pandemic is disinformation and misinformation.”

Even with the dramatic shift in policy since Joe Biden became president, “there has been so much damage done in the years before that a lot of this mistrust and disinformation which was sown from the highest levels of government has carried through … even to where people are questioning the credibility of the CDC,” she said.

Individuals and communities across the United States are feeling the effects of these partisan divides: Covid-19 death tolls in red states soared in comparison to their blue counterparts after vaccines were made available, as many Republicans remained reluctant to get the shots. While the death rate has been subsiding, the virus still poses a particularly dangerous risk to vulnerable populations, including low-income individuals, multi-family households, essential workers and those who are immunocompromised.

Solutions require common ground

Experts believe continued efforts to mitigate the impacts of Covid-19 must involve multifaceted approaches, focusing on common goals of preserving the overall wellbeing and social welfare of our families, friends and communities.

“At baseline, Republicans and Democrats tend to want the same outcomes, we just have very different processes of getting there. … At the end of the day, people want to raise their families and live good lives in safe environments,” said Ashford, who argues that bipartisan approaches to public health issues will ultimately be the “best path forward for our democracy.”

In order to combat the spread of misinformation, Ashford stressed the urgency of “having conversations as a nation about how we consume information, how we critically think and analyze this information.”

Ultimately, “the beauty of our democracy is that we did have these two differing views and we know that diversity of thought is a good thing. No one person or group holds the answer, so I would love to see us as a nation get to where we can view our differences as strengths and figure out what that middle ground looks like.”


Read More

Democratic Presidential candidate U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) holds his first presidential campaign rally at Brooklyn College on March 02, 2019 in Brooklyn, New York.

A lobbyist who worked for both Bernie Sanders and Fortune 500 clients explains what democratic socialist wins mean for business, and how to prepare.

VIEW press/Getty Images

I Campaigned for Bernie Sanders Then Lobbied for Amazon

In 2016, my political outreach company, Firehouse Phones, worked on the presidential campaign of a democratic socialist. It was one of many campaigns my firm touched, but that one stays on my resume for a reason: it taught me more about how persuasion actually works than any client engagement before or since.

Today I run Ohio River South, a government affairs firm focused on the nation's fastest-growing region — the American South. Over the past decade we've advocated for nearly two dozen Fortune 500 companies — Amazon in my earlier lobbying years, and later growing a client roster that included Alphabet, Microsoft, General Motors, United Healthcare, and Capital One.

Keep ReadingShow less
The White House
The white house with green lawn and trees
Photo by Josh on Unsplash

The Politics of Gratitude: Why Washington Punishes the Loyalty It Cannot Price

On a Sunday night in August, Senator Jon Ossoff told a campaign rally in Atlanta that President Trump would rather build his ballroom and “travel with Natalie” than do his job. He never used her last name. He did not need to. Natalie Harp, the White House aide known to colleagues as Trump’s “human printer” for trailing him with a portable printer and transcribing his social-media dictation, had become a punchline before most Americans knew who she was.

The backlash arrived within hours. White House officials accused Ossoff of insinuating an affair; Republican Rep. Brandon Gill noted that Harp survived bone cancer only because the Right to Try Act, which Trump signed in 2018, let her seek an experimental treatment outside the normal approval process, and dismissed any other reading of the moment as unfair. Weeks earlier, Harp had been at the center of a far more consequential story: in July, she was one of a handful of aides, alongside the defense secretary and two senior staffers, chosen to accompany Trump on a covert switch of aircraft as he left a security summit in Turkey after officials detected a credible Iranian threat, while most of the traveling delegation stayed behind on a decoy plane. That is the real proximity Ossoff's line was needling. Then came a detail that complicated the story further: Trump had personally given Harp and several other aides cash gifts of $45,000 apiece, which a former federal ethics official called troublesome, since money on that scale can leave a recipient feeling indebted to whoever signs the check.

Keep ReadingShow less
A map labeling Lake Ontario as "Lake America" is displayed behind U.S. President Donald Trump.

A map labeling Lake Ontario as "Lake America" is displayed as U.S. President Donald Trump signs an executive order during an event in the Oval Office of the White House on August 27, 2026 in Washington, DC.

Andrew Harnik/Getty Images

Cartography of Convenience: Why Rushed Renaming Erodes Public Trust

In tough economic times, governments often reach for the easiest kind of progress: a new name on an old sign. Wage stagnation, inflation, crumbling roads, and rising rents are hard problems that take years and real money to fix. Renaming a street, a lake, or a strait is not. It costs a fraction as much and lets officials point to something they “did.” A new name never fixes a pothole or lowers a grocery bill. This year offered an unusually rich catalogue of the habit, reaching from a city council in Texas to a wartime waterway in the Persian Gulf.

A Concept Borrowed From the Cremation Ground

Indian philosophy has an old idea called shmashana vairagya, describing the sudden clarity a person feels standing at a cremation ground, when ordinary ambitions look small. The feeling fades once the mourner goes home. Public policy has its own version of this cycle. In the raw hours after a tragedy, a scandal, or a surge of national feeling, officials decide, sometimes within a single social media post, what belongs on a map or a sign forever. The emotion passes in hours. The bill, when there is one, stays for years.

Keep ReadingShow less
Donald Trump

U.S. President Donald Trump on February 6, 2026.

(Photo by Samuel Corum/Getty Images)

A Demagogue in the White House: Will the Guardrails Hold?

A demagogue does not seize all power at once. He takes it piece by piece.

In Trump’s second administration, those pieces accumulated in plain sight. The president generated so much disruption and noise that Americans struggled to keep pace. Each new controversy displaced the last, obscuring a more consequential story: the steady accumulation of presidential power.

Keep ReadingShow less