Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter.
How America’s partisan divide over pandemic responses played out in the states
Throughout the Covid-19 pandemic, a partisan divide has existed over the appropriate government response to the public health crisis. Democrats have been more likely to favor stricter policies such as prolonged economic shutdowns, limits on gathering in groups and mask mandates. Republicans overall have favored less stringent policies.
As political scientists and public health scholars, we've been studying political responses to the pandemic and their impacts. In research published in the summer of 2020, we found that "sub-governments," which in the U.S. means state governments, tended to have a bigger impact on the direction of pandemic policies than the federal government. Now, as data on last year's case and death rates emerge, we're looking at whether the political party in the governor's office became a good predictor of public health outcomes as Covid-19 moved across the country.
Looking at states' Covid-19 case and death rates, researchers are finding the more stringent policies typical of Democratic governors led to lower rates of infections and deaths, compared to the pandemic responses of the average Republican governor. In preparation for future pandemics, it may be worth considering how to address the impact that a state government's partisan leanings can have on the scope and severity of a public health crisis.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
Comparing responses by Democratic and Republican governors
To compare and chart our state-by-state COVID-19 policy stringency data, we've developed our "Protective Policy Index." To calculate this index, we took into account the types of policies state governments adopted over the course of the pandemic, such as school closings, lockdowns and mandatory mask mandates. We combined the adopted measures for each state over time to calculate the index. Higher values of the index indicate states adopted more stringent measures.
When we charted the policy responses of Democratic and Republican governors between May 1 and July 31, 2020, they revealed that heading into May, states led by Democrats generally took more stringent measures than those led by Republicans. Over the next eight weeks or so, as Democratic-led states began to slowly reopen, they continued to maintain more stringent measures on average than Republican-led states. By July, Democratic governors began to roll back their reopenings amid some signs of a new pandemic wave, while Republican-led states largely maintained the same level of stringency.
With that information established, we could begin to explore whether there was a relationship between COVID-19 policy stringency in different states, and their rates of pandemic cases and deaths.
According to a study released in March, both case and death rates were higher on average in states led by Republican governors during the second half of 2020. The first map represents rates of Cocis-19 cases between June 1 and July 31, 2020 as reported by the CDC. The second map represents CDC estimates of excess mortality rates – the number of deaths above the average norm – between June 1 and August 31, 2020. The taller spikes indicate higher case and death rates.
Next, to study the relationship between the stringency of a state's pandemic responses and its rates of Covid-19 cases and deaths, we mapped each state's rating on the Protective Policy Index to the same CDC data. The results show that more stringent policies were generally associated with fewer cases and deaths.
All of these findings, in conjunction with those of our own research, suggest that amid the current deep divide in U.S. politics, it's possible to forecast public health outcomes based on whether a state is led by a Republican or a Democrat. For large chunks of time in 2020, states led by Republicans overall had higher average case and death rates from Covid-19, in part due to their state governments adopting less stringent policies to quell the virus. It is important to note, however, that not all states fit perfectly into this pattern. For example, Vermont Gov. Phil Scott, a Republican, adopted relatively stricter measures and this likely led to better health outcomes.
America's polarized health care politics
The differences we discovered between red and blue states in our analysis did not surprise our team. After all, a partisan divide over health care in the U.S. existed before Covid-19. During President Bill Clinton's administration in the 1990s, there was a clear and growing partisan divide over health care reform. During President Barack Obama's administration, Democrats supported the Affordable Care Act and the federal government's response to the H1N1 virus, while nearly all Republicans opposed both measures.
We already know that partisan divisions over health care in the U.S. can worsen public health. For example, despite the evidence that the ACA has had a positive effect on individual health care outcomes, Republicans have consistently fought against it. Republican-led states that chose not to adopt Medicaid expansion have not experienced all the positive benefits of the Affordable Care Act.
For example, states such as Texas, Florida, Georgia and Mississippi that have not expanded Medicaid have the largest relative percentage of uninsured residents in the country. In some Republican-led states that did opt for Medicaid expansion, it was adopted with new restrictions. This has ultimately led to worse outcomes.
These long-established partisan divisions have also influenced Americans' polarized views of the government's proper role in addressing the pandemic. This divide grew so wide during 2020 that at some points it was as if people were living in alternate realities based on their partisan leanings. At times an American's political affiliation indicated whether or not they would acknowledge even that a pandemic was really happening.
Where we go from here
Now that mass vaccination against Covid-19 is underway across the country, Americans have hope that life will soon get "back to normal." But until enough people are vaccinated to halt the spread of the virus, public health officials are warning that we are not quite there yet. They are encouraging states to maintain some restrictions that slow the spread of the virus, especially considering that there are more contagious variants spreading across the country.
Overwhelming evidence suggests that differences between Republican and Democratic officials on health policy have had life-or-death consequences during the pandemic. But recent history suggests that in the next public health crisis, governments across the U.S. may once again focus more on politics than on policies grounded in the best available science. Experience also suggests that even when this leads to bad health outcomes, Americans aren't likely to rethink the partisan divide over health care.
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Click here to read the original article.
- 8 states where the pandemic has shifted the balance of power - The ... ›
- The coronavirus response: Trump vs. the states - The Fulcrum ›
- In fighting the virus, liberals wave states' rights banner - The Fulcrum ›
Life coaching, and other introspective measures, only work if we're willing to adapt, writes Molineaux.
In pursuit of happiness: The case for national self-reflection
I have always been self-reflective. It was my coping mechanism during bouts of family drama, when I would escape to my room and think. In the days before screens took all our attention, I read a lot and journaled a little. With therapy as a young adult and coach training for a midlife career change, I got to know myself well. When I looked at where I wanted to contribute, I landed in politics — with a starry-eyed dream that we could collectively advance our nation via coaching everyone.
My journey of self-discovery, improvement and actualization brings joy to me and many benefits as I work in the rough and tumble of politics. A few are:
- Knowing I am inherently a good person.
- Trusting myself.
- Carrying a sense of peace within myself, sharing it with others.
- Ability to be vulnerable and overcoming the fear of being hurt.
- Understanding the thoughts that are truly mine, compared to thoughts others would like me to believe (family, culture, media, etc.).
- Fearlessness in facing my own beliefs about others and the world at large.
- Befriending my emotions as tools to understand myself better.
I could go on and on. Yes, I like myself, just as I am.
When I was working as a coach, I had a particularly challenging client. Week after week, she failed to keep her agreements to self-reflect. So I asked her why she was avoiding looking inside herself.
"I don't find myself that interesting," was her response.
At that moment, I realized coaching wouldn't work for her. She wanted the world around her to change to her preferences. She wasn't committed to adapting or accepting the world as it was; to examine what was inside herself that caused her resentment. We parted ways soon after.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
I suspect the majority of us (Americans) would like our life circumstances to magically adapt to accommodate our preferences. In this current age of the attention economy, we've been catered to by "the customer is always right" thinking perpetuated by advertisers, entertainment platforms and social media to believe it IS possible to create our world just the way we like it.
IRL (in real life) of course, that's not how people, communities or the world works. We are not customers of democracy or consumers of politics. We must be participants.
Good relational skills help us navigate, negotiate and motivate ourselves to meet our needs with others in our day-to-day lives. How often do we self-reflect about our own navigation (what is our purpose?), negotiation (what are deal-breakers?) or motivation (what are we willing to do?)? Our families, communities and nation would be stronger if we stopped to take a look.
Which brings us to Maslow's hierarchy of needs. There is a reason that self-actualization is the pinnacle in the hierarchy. When people are focused on meeting their physical and emotional needs, stopping for self-actualization or personal growth is "one more thing" that requires time and energy. If there is not enough time or energy, people never quite get to their personal growth. It's not necessary for survival. I postulate that self-fulfillment (a benefit of personal growth) is necessary for sustained happiness. And further, that for the American experiment to succeed, collective personal growth is necessary.
Arayabandit/Getty Images
When I first contemplated jumping into politics, I was at a crossroads in my life. I had left the soul-killing (for me) work of advertising and marketing. I was a full-time, self-employed executive life coach. My physical and emotional needs were met. But I was still restless and dissatisfied. That is the moment when transformative self-actualization began for me.
"Aren't you ever content?" was the complaint lodged by my then-husband.
He was right — and wrong. Right that I'm rarely content. I love the motivation of being dissatisfied with the status quo and striving for the next thing. I love the rush of endorphins as I co-create something new and innovative with friends and colleagues. I love the journey to deeper understanding of myself, others and our nation. If I'm not moving towards a better future, I'm not happy. But he was wrong that being content was a destination at which to arrive and live out our days.
Pulling back to the perspective of the nation — are we at a moment where we are struggling to survive? Or could our discontent be a sign that we are beginning a self-actualization process, collectively as Americans? I would say that is exactly what is happening.
Culturally, we paused after the turbulent '60s and '70s. We needed a break to embody and recover from seemingly rapid change. Our focus shifted from the continued expansion and security of civil rights to more individual needs. Our discontent was pushed aside for a while. And now we are dissatisfied again because it is time for us to move on, to think about our collective needs. This is our journey to manifest our potential government of the people, by the people, for the people.
Contentment for a moment in time is a great place to rest. But it's the JOURNEY that keeps us alive. That exploration of who we are as a people. How much we can achieve or co-create to make our lives, our communities and our nation a better place to live. And a healthier planet to live upon.
For my former client who didn't find herself interesting and the Americans who think it's "those people" who are to blame for our current situation, I would advise to pause for self-reflection anyway. If you are experiencing feelings of hatred, contempt or disgust, how are those emotions helping our nation? If you feel superior to others who "don't get it," how is your superiority helping our nation?
In our republic, our democratic values are made up of our collective selves. As it is with each of us individually, it is the same with democracy. Democracy is not a destination but a journey to evolve and improve. This is both an individual and community responsibility and only by taking this path together will we heal the wounds that divide us.
At this moment in our nation's history, we have a lot to lose. And a lot to gain if we can get it right.
- New Georgia rules go against global principles for fairness - The ... ›
- Report: U.S. contributes to decline of freedom worldwide - The Fulcrum ›
- Congressional interns deserve to be paid - The Fulcrum ›