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

After the Ceasefire, the Violence Continues – and Cries for New Words

An Israeli army vehicle moves on the Israeli side, near the border with the Gaza Strip on November 18, 2025 in Southern Israel, Israel.

(Photo by Amir Levy/Getty Images)

After the Ceasefire, the Violence Continues – and Cries for New Words

Since October 10, 2025, the day when the US-brokered ceasefire between Israel and Hamas was announced, Israel has killed at least 401 civilians, including at least 148 children. This has led Palestinian scholar Saree Makdisi to decry a “continuing genocide, albeit one that has shifted gears and has—for now—moved into the slow lane. Rather than hundreds at a time, it is killing by twos and threes” or by twenties and thirties as on November 19 and November 23 – “an obscenity that has coalesced into a new normal.” The Guardian columnist Nesrine Malik describes the post-ceasefire period as nothing more than a “reducefire,” quoting the warning issued by Amnesty International’s secretary general Agnès Callamard that the ”world must not be fooled” into believing that Israel’s genocide is over.

A visual analysis of satellite images conducted by the BBC has established that since the declared ceasefire, “the destruction of buildings in Gaza by the Israeli military has been continuing on a huge scale,” entire neighborhoods “levelled” through “demolitions,” including large swaths of farmland and orchards. The Guardian reported already in March of 2024, that satellite imagery proved the “destruction of about 38-48% of tree cover and farmland” and 23% of Gaza’s greenhouses “completely destroyed.” Writing about the “colossal violence” Israel has wrought on Gaza, Palestinian legal scholar Rabea Eghbariah lists “several variations” on the term “genocide” which researchers found the need to introduce, such as “urbicide” (the systematic destruction of cities), “domicide” (systematic destruction of housing), “sociocide,” “politicide,” and “memoricide.” Others have added the concepts “ecocide,” “scholasticide” (the systematic destruction of Gaza’s schools, universities, libraries), and “medicide” (the deliberate attacks on all aspects of Gaza’s healthcare with the intent to “wipe out” all medical care). It is only the combination of all these “-cides,” all amounting to massive war crimes, that adequately manages to describe the Palestinian condition. Constantine Zurayk introduced the term “Nakba” (“catastrophe” in Arabic) in 1948 to name the unparalleled “magnitude and ramifications of the Zionist conquest of Palestine” and its historical “rupture.” When Eghbariah argues for “Nakba” as a “new legal concept,” he underlines, however, that to understand its magnitude, one needs to go back to the 1917 Balfour Declaration, in which the British colonial power promised “a national home for the Jewish people” in Palestine, even though just 6 % of its population were Jewish. From Nakba as the “constitutive violence of 1948,” we need today to conceptualize “Nakba as a structure,” an “overarching frame.”

Keep ReadingShow less
Ukraine, Russia, and the Dangerous Metaphor of Holding the Cards
a hand holding a deck of cards in front of a christmas tree
Photo by Luca Volpe on Unsplash

Ukraine, Russia, and the Dangerous Metaphor of Holding the Cards

Donald Trump has repeatedly used the phrase “holding the cards” during his tenure as President to signal that he, or sometimes an opponent, has the upper hand. The metaphor projects bravado, leverage, and the inevitability of success or failure, depending on who claims control.

Unfortunately, Trump’s repeated invocation of “holding the cards” embodies a worldview where leverage, bluff, and dominance matter more than duty, morality, or responsibility. In contrast, leadership grounded in duty emphasizes ethical obligations to allies, citizens, and democratic principles—elements strikingly absent from this metaphor.

Keep ReadingShow less
Beyond Apologies: Corporate Contempt and the Call for Real Accountability
campbells chicken noodle soup can

Beyond Apologies: Corporate Contempt and the Call for Real Accountability

Most customers carry a particular image of Campbell's Soup: the red-and-white label stacked on a pantry shelf, a touch of nostalgia, and the promise of a dependable bargain. It's food for snow days, tight budgets, and the middle of the week. For generations, the brand has positioned itself as a companion to working families, offering "good food" for everyday people. The company cultivated that trust so thoroughly that it became almost cliché.

Campbell's episode, now the subject of national headlines and an ongoing high-profile legal complaint, is troubling not only for its blunt language but for what it reveals about the hidden injuries that erode the social contract linking institutions to citizens, workers to workplaces, and brands to buyers. If the response ends with the usual PR maneuvers—rapid firings and the well-rehearsed "this does not reflect our values" statement. Then both the lesson and the opportunity for genuine reform by a company or individual are lost. To grasp what this controversy means for the broader corporate landscape, we first have to examine how leadership reveals its actual beliefs.

Keep ReadingShow less
Donald Trump

When ego replaces accountability in the presidency, democracy weakens. An analysis of how unchecked leadership erodes trust, institutions, and the rule of law.

Brandon Bell/Getty Images

When Leaders Put Ego Above Accountability—Democracy At Risk

What has become of America’s presidency? Once a symbol of dignity and public service, the office now appears chaotic, ego‑driven, and consumed by spectacle over substance. When personal ambition replaces accountability, the consequences extend far beyond politics — they erode trust, weaken institutions, and threaten democracy itself.

When leaders place ego above accountability, democracy falters. Weak leaders seek to appear powerful. Strong leaders accept responsibility.

Keep ReadingShow less