vox--2020-10-27--Why North and South Dakota are suffering the worst Covid-19 epidemics in the US

The third surge of Covid-19 cases is leading to worsening outbreaks across the United States .
But two states — North Dakota and South Dakota — have coronavirus outbreaks that far surpass the rest of America .
While the Dakotas managed to avoid big outbreaks during the spring and for most of the summer , the current situation suggests that was more an element of luck and timing than anything else .
With the coronavirus , it often seems like a matter of time before it hits your area to some extent .
And if a country or state doesn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ place — and the Dakotas didn ’ t — the virus can and likely will spread through its population .
It ’ s a lesson in the need for constant , continued vigilance .
North and South Dakota now have four to five times the weekly average for daily new coronavirus cases per 100,000 people .
The US , overall , is seeing 22 cases per 100,000 people as of October 26 .
South Dakota , meanwhile , has 95 per 100,000 , and North Dakota has 105 per 100,000 — making it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 100,000 at any time during this pandemic .
Greater testing capacity doesn ’ t fully explain the spikes in Covid-19 cases in either state .
In North Dakota , the seven-day testing average actually fell by nearly 2 percent over the last week as the number of cases increased by more than 14 percent .
In South Dakota , the testing average went up by 11 percent as cases increased by 20 percent over the previous week .
Both states have also seen their hospitalizations and deaths increase since September .
North and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , respectively , Covid-19 death rate over the previous week out of all states , Washington , DC , and US territories .
And the percent of tests coming back positive , which is used by experts to gauge testing capacity , is more than 11 percent for North Dakota .
In South Dakota , it ’ s an astonishing 40 percent .
The recommended maximum is 5 percent — which North Dakota surpasses and South Dakota completely demolishes .
That suggests that , if anything , testing in the Dakotas is still @ @ @ @ @ @ @ each state ’ s outbreak is even worse than the official figures indicate .
Unlike other states , South and North Dakota never fully closed down , with the Republican governors in each state resisting ever issuing a stay-at-home order .
So most of each state remained open — allowing the virus to spread freely through bars , restaurants , parties , celebrations , rodeos , rallies , and other large gatherings .
Among those potential spreading events was a motorcycle rally in Sturgis , South Dakota , in early August , which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ surge that followed in the region , particularly in the Upper Midwest .
Neither state has adopted a mask mandate , which research shows can help suppress the coronavirus .
Based on some national data , both Dakotas have some of the lowest rates of mask-wearing in the US .
Bonny Specker , an epidemiologist at South Dakota State University , was blunt in her assessment of the situation in the Dakotas .
“ Federal and many state leaders have not implemented mandates or reinforced [ public health agencies ’ ] recommendations to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” she told me .
“ In South Dakota , the governor had the information needed to minimize the impact of this virus on the health of South Dakotans , but she ignored that information as well as national recommendations from the CDC.
” Meanwhile , much of the public never saw the coronavirus as a major threat to the Dakotas .
“ Our low rates in the spring and summer built a sense of complacency , and that it was more of a problem for the rest of the country , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at North Dakota State University , told me , speaking of his state ’ s experience in particular .
This follows the playbook set by President Donald Trump , who has pushed a false sense of normalcy and told his followers to not let the coronavirus “ dominate your life ” even after he himself got sick with Covid-19 .
North and South Dakota are led by Republican governors , and Trump won each state by 36 points and 30 points , respectively , in 2016 .
Trump also held a massive July @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Rushmore , attracting thousands of his supporters from around the region , despite public health experts ’ advice against large gatherings .
All of this — a public rejection by state and national leadership of even the most basic precautions against Covid-19 — has allowed the coronavirus to spread out of control .
With each new interaction , the virus has an opportunity to spread .
While mostly rural states like the Dakotas managed to avoid big outbreaks during the early phases of the pandemic , experts say that it was only a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bit of bad luck — before the virus hit such places .
The only way this could turn around quickly is if the public and its leaders act .
But there ’ s still a lot of resistance to stricter measures , including mask mandates and especially lockdowns .
So there ’ s another possibility : The coronavirus will continue spreading in North and South Dakota , fueling more serious illnesses , hospitalizations , and deaths .
“ I fear we won ’ t see behavioral changes until people have been personally affected @ @ @ @ @ @ @ care because our hospitals are being overrun — which may not be too far off , ” Carson warned .
North and South Dakota have taken a laissez-faire approach to dealing with Covid-19 — never instituting stay-at-home orders or mask mandates as other states , including some of their neighbors , did .
South Dakota in particular took a very hands-off approach , with no restrictions even on large gatherings .
The strongest action Republican Gov .
Kristi Noem took was to push businesses to follow safety guidelines from the Centers for Disease @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has boasted about her state ’ s loose strategy : She argued in an ad that businesses struggling with restrictions in other states should “ come grow [ their ] company ” in South Dakota .
“ Here in South Dakota , we trust our people , ” Noem said .
“ We respect their rights .
We won ’ t shut them down.
” Noem still defends her approach , arguing in a recent op-ed that she ’ ll continue to resist stricter measures .
“ I ’ m going to continue @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and well-informed decisions for themselves and their families , ” she wrote .
North Dakota has done a little more .
While avoiding statewide restrictions and lockdowns , Republican Gov .
Doug Burgum in October called for reduced business capacity in some counties as cases spiked in his state .
But these are mere recommendations — it ’ s hard to know if any businesses are following them — and , even then , he stopped short of recommending closures .
North Dakota also has one of the most expansive testing regimes in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the highest rates of coronavirus testing in the country .
This may partially explain its high case count , although its positivity rate indicates that it still doesn ’ t have enough testing .
And that testing-and-tracing system can only do so much once the virus is completely out of control , which growing hospitalizations and death rates are evidence of .
“ Our contact tracers are overwhelmed with a backlog of cases , ” Carson said .
“ We have further heard from many of our contact tracers that they are meeting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their contacts or abide by quarantine rules .
People have become fatigued with the restrictions.
” Similar to South Dakota ’ s governor , North Dakota ’ s Burgum has pushed a message of personal responsibility .
“ It ’ s not a job for government , ” he said .
“ This is a job for everybody.
” Social distancing and masking are effective for curtailing Covid-19 .
As a review of the research in The Lancet concluded , “ evidence shows that physical distancing of more than 1 m is highly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with protection , even in non-health-care settings.
” Government mandates seem to help , too .
A study in Health Affairs found that “ government-imposed social distancing measures reduced the daily growth rate of confirmed COVID-19 cases by 5.4 percentage points after one to five days , 6.8 percentage points after six to ten days , 8.2 percentage points after eleven to fifteen days , and 9.1 percentage points after sixteen to twenty days.
” And a study from the nonprofit research institute IZA found that Germany ’ s local and regional mask @ @ @ @ @ @ @ registered Covid-19 cases between 2.3 % and 13 % over a period of 10 days after they became compulsory ” and “ the daily growth rate of reported infections by around 40 % .
” Carson acknowledged that such mandates “ did not seem so necessary earlier in our epidemic.
” But by not instituting government policies and allowing the public to act recklessly , North and South Dakota kept themselves vulnerable to the coronavirus .
That vulnerability took a while to expose itself in two sparsely populated states with relatively little travel @ @ @ @ @ @ @ appeared , Covid-19 has exploded , rapidly spreading across both of the Dakotas .
This wasn ’ t unpredictable .
In the spring , a South Dakota meat plant became the US ’ s top coronavirus hot spot — showing Covid-19 could reach even mostly rural areas like South Dakota .
But the outbreak didn ’ t change Noem ’ s approach .
Ian Fury , a spokesperson for Noem , defended her actions : “ Since the start of the pandemic , Governor Noem has provided her citizens with up-to-date science , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ trusted them to make the best decisions for themselves and their loved ones.
” It wasn ’ t just the government that allowed Covid-19 to spread in the Dakotas .
The public has played a role too , with large parts of each state acting as though everything is normal and refusing to embrace even the most basic precautions against the coronavirus .
COVIDcast , a project from Carnegie Mellon University that tracks real-time Covid-19 data , shows that North and South Dakota have some of the lowest levels of uptake in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
South Dakotans are the sixth most likely and North Dakotans are the eighth most likely , out of the 50 states plus Washington , DC , and Puerto Rico , to leave their homes for six or more hours a day .
South Dakotans and North Dakotans are also among the least likely — 50th and 49th , respectively , out of all 50 states plus DC — to wear masks .
While touring Bismarck , North Dakota , Deborah Birx , a White House coronavirus task force leader , acknowledged the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ use of masks that we have we seen in retail establishments of any place we have been , ” she told reporters .
Perhaps the most infamous example of either state ’ s lack of adherence to Covid-19 precautions is the Sturgis motorcycle rally .
From August 7 to 16 , bikers came from across the country , attending events and hitting up local bars and restaurants .
Masks were uncommon — even shunned .
Among the T-shirts sold at the events , one stated , “ Screw Covid-19 , I went to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ difficult to say with any certainty how much of the current epidemic originated at the Sturgis rally , but Covid-19 cases surged in the region , and particularly the Dakotas , in the weeks after the rally .
It ’ s not just Sturgis , though .
On July Fourth , Trump held a large rally at Mount Rushmore , which is in South Dakota , that thousands of people attended , seldom wearing masks .
Families and friends held their own parties and celebrations around the summer holidays , including Labor Day @ @ @ @ @ @ @ state fairs .
Schools have reopened , with universities and colleges in particular fueling outbreaks nationwide .
“ Those events , combined with the lack of leadership in encouraging the public to wear masks or practice social distancing , have contributed greatly to the current situation we are in , ” Specker said .
Bars and restaurants are of special concern to experts : In these spaces , people are close together for long periods of time , they can ’ t wear masks as they eat or drink , the air can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it can outdoors , and alcohol can lead them to drop their guards further .
Another problem is older teens and young adults may act more recklessly , believing they ’ re at lower risk of contracting Covid-19 .
But as a recent CDC study noted , younger people tend to spread the virus to their parents , grandparents , teachers , and so on .
That , Carson said , appears to have happened in North Dakota : “ We saw a surge of cases in our communities that had students coming @ @ @ @ @ @ @ spiked in the young college-age population , then eventually spilled over into the broader community.
” Trump and Republican leaders have encouraged this .
While touting their messages of personal responsibility , many Republicans have also downplayed the threat of Covid-19 .
Trump has deliberately done this — telling journalist Bob Woodward , “ I wanted to always play [ the coronavirus ] down.
” Even after his illness , Trump has tweeted , “ Don ’ t be afraid of Covid .
Don ’ t let it dominate your life.
” He @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — falsely — that they ’ re ineffective .
( In reality , the evidence for masks keeps getting stronger . )
For Trump , the goal here is obvious : If he manages to convince the public that things are okay and normal , it could boost his reelection chances .
Republican lawmakers , in many ways beholden to Trump ’ s supporters , have by and large followed the president ’ s lead .
In North and South Dakota , that has seemingly translated to a predominantly Republican public going out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ spreading the coronavirus across the states .
North and South Dakota now have a serious and growing crisis Experts often compare the spread of the coronavirus to a runaway freight train : The virus can take a while to build up , but once spread hits exponential growth , it takes an immense amount of work and time — up to weeks or months — to slow things down .
“ Until the leaders of state and federal government support recommended public health policy , it is going to be difficult to slow @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Specker said .
For the coronavirus , the solutions are the same things everyone has heard about for months now : More testing and contact tracing to isolate people who are infected , get their close contacts to quarantine , and deploy broader restrictions as necessary .
More masking .
More careful , phased reopenings .
More social distancing .
This is what ’ s worked in other countries , from Germany to South Korea to New Zealand , to contain their respective outbreaks .
It ’ s what ’ s worked in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ York and San Francisco .
But , crucially , this has to be sustained .
Until a vaccine or similar treatment is available , the coronavirus will remain a constant threat in the US .
Even less densely populated places — like the Dakotas — aren ’ t going to be safe for long without proper precautions in place .
Yet North and South Dakota leaders have continued resisting more hands-on approaches , calling for personal responsibility and limited , if any , role for government .
Some local officials have stepped up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have more limited powers and reach than state leaders .
The fall and winter stand to hasten the spread of the coronavirus , too .
Schools will continue to reopen .
The cold will push people indoors , where , due to poor ventilation , the virus has an easier time spreading than it does outdoors .
Families and friends will gather for the winter holidays , from Thanksgiving to Christmas to New Year ’ s .
A looming flu season could strain hospitals further , inhibiting their ability to treat a surge @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bad enough , the only possible solution to avert further spread could be a lockdown .
Already , the mayor of Fargo , North Dakota , mentioned the possibility .
“ The concern is that if we don ’ t start turning this around and our numbers keep going up , it ’ ll be difficult to keep the businesses going and being open , ” Democratic Mayor Tim Mahoney , a physician by training , said .
Given that the outbreaks are already so bad and state leaders have still refused tougher @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will continue tolerating a high number of cases and deaths , failing to take any serious action in response .
If so , the two worst outbreaks in one of the countries struggling the most with Covid-19 will remain bad and perhaps get even worse .
Help keep Vox free for all Millions turn to Vox each month to understand what ’ s happening in the news , from the coronavirus crisis to a racial reckoning to what is , quite possibly , the most consequential presidential election of our lifetimes .
Our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
But our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources .
Even when the economy and the news advertising market recovers , your support will be a critical part of sustaining our resource-intensive work .
If you have already contributed , thank you .
If you haven ’ t , please consider helping everyone make sense of an increasingly chaotic world : Contribute today from as little as $ 3 .

The third surge of Covid-19 cases is leading to worsening outbreaks across the United States. But two states — North Dakota and South Dakota — have coronavirus outbreaks that far surpass the rest of America.
The latest news: With hospitals at capacity, North Dakota’s governor is letting health care workers stay at work even if they test positive for the coronavirus. It’s an extraordinary step, but it reflects how desperate the state is to address staffing concerns at widely strained hospitals.
While the Dakotas managed to avoid big outbreaks during the spring and for most of the summer, the current situation suggests that was more an element of luck and timing than anything else. With the coronavirus, it often seems like a matter of time before it hits your area to some extent. And if a country or state doesn’t have the proper precautions in place — and the Dakotas didn’t — the virus can and likely will spread through its population. It’s a lesson in the need for constant, continued vigilance against the virus.
North and South Dakota now have multiple times the US’s weekly average for daily new coronavirus cases per 100,000 people. Overall, America is seeing 35 cases per 100,000 people as of November 9. South Dakota, meanwhile, has 137 per 100,000, and North Dakota has 177 per 100,000. The Dakotas were the first two states in the US to surpass 100 cases per 100,000 people.
Greater testing capacity doesn’t explain the spikes in coronavirus cases in either state. In North Dakota, the seven-day average of total tests didn’t increase over the last week, whereas the number of cases increased by more than 21 percent. In South Dakota, the testing average actually decreased by more than 2 percent over the previous week as cases increased by more than 4 percent.
Both states have also seen their hospitalizations and deaths increase since September. North and South Dakota report the highest and second-highest, respectively, Covid-19 death rate over the previous week out of all states, Washington, DC, and US territories.
And the percent of tests coming back positive, which is used by experts to gauge testing capacity, is more than 16 percent for North Dakota. In South Dakota, it’s an astonishing 54 percent. The recommended maximum is 5 percent. That suggests that, if anything, testing in the Dakotas is still missing a lot of cases, and each state’s outbreak is even worse than the official figures indicate.
Unlike other states, South and North Dakota never fully closed down, with the Republican governors in each state resisting ever issuing a stay-at-home order. So most of each state remained open — allowing the virus to spread freely through bars, restaurants, parties, celebrations, rodeos, rallies, and other large gatherings. Among those potential spreading events was a motorcycle rally in Sturgis, South Dakota, in early August, which some experts now blame for a Covid-19 surge that followed in the region, particularly in the Upper Midwest.
Neither state has adopted a mask mandate, which research shows can help suppress the coronavirus. Based on some national data, both Dakotas have some of the lowest rates of mask-wearing in the US.
Bonny Specker, an epidemiologist at South Dakota State University, was blunt in her assessment of the situation in the Dakotas. “Federal and many state leaders have not implemented mandates or reinforced [public health agencies’] recommendations to prevent the spread of the virus,” she told me. “In South Dakota, the governor had the information needed to minimize the impact of this virus on the health of South Dakotans, but she ignored that information as well as national recommendations from the CDC.”
Meanwhile, much of the public never saw the coronavirus as a major threat to the Dakotas, leading to less adherence to precautions. “Our low rates in the spring and summer built a sense of complacency, and that it was more of a problem for the rest of the country,” Paul Carson, an infectious disease expert at North Dakota State University, told me, speaking of his state’s experience in particular.
This follows the playbook set by President Donald Trump, who has pushed a false sense of normalcy and told his followers to not let the coronavirus “dominate your life” even after he himself got sick with Covid-19. North and South Dakota are led by Republican governors, and Trump won each state by 33 and 26 percentage points, respectively, in this year’s election. Trump also held a massive July Fourth rally in South Dakota at Mount Rushmore, attracting thousands of his supporters from around the region, despite public health experts’ advice against large gatherings.
All of this — a rejection of even the most basic precautions against Covid-19 by much of the public as well as state and national leaders — has allowed the coronavirus to spread out of control. With each new interaction, the virus has an opportunity to spread. So it has in the Dakotas.
The only way this could turn around quickly is if the public and its leaders act. But there’s still a lot of resistance in both states to stricter measures, including mask mandates and especially lockdowns.
So there’s another possibility: The coronavirus will continue spreading in North and South Dakota, fueling more serious illnesses, hospitalizations, and deaths.
“I fear we won’t see behavioral changes until people have been personally affected, or can’t get medical care because our hospitals are being overrun — which may not be too far off,” Carson warned.
The Dakotas resisted basic policies to fight Covid-19
North and South Dakota have taken a very libertarian approach to dealing with Covid-19, never instituting stay-at-home orders or mask mandates even as other states, including some of their neighbors, did.
South Dakota in particular took a very hands-off approach, with no restrictions even on large gatherings. The strongest action Republican Gov. Kristi Noem took was to push businesses to follow safety guidelines from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Otherwise, Noem has boasted about her state’s loose strategy: She argued in an ad that businesses struggling with restrictions in other states should “come grow [their] company” in South Dakota.
“Here in South Dakota, we trust our people,” Noem said. “We respect their rights. We won’t shut them down.”
Noem still defends her approach, arguing in an op-ed in October that she’ll continue to resist stricter measures. “I’m going to continue to trust South Dakotans to make wise and well-informed decisions for themselves and their families,” she wrote.
North Dakota has done a little more. While avoiding statewide restrictions and lockdowns, Republican Gov. Doug Burgum this month called for reduced business capacity and other limits as cases spiked in his state. But these are mere recommendations — it’s hard to know whether any businesses are following them — and even then, he stopped short of recommending closures.
North Dakota also has one of the most expansive testing regimes in the US — consistently reporting one of the highest rates of coronavirus testing in the country. This may partially explain its high case count, although its positivity rate indicates that it still doesn’t have enough testing. And that testing-and-tracing system can only do so much once the virus is completely out of control, which growing hospitalizations and death rates are evidence of.
“Our contact tracers are overwhelmed with a backlog of cases,” Carson said. “We have further heard from many of our contact tracers that they are meeting increasing resistance from people to give up their contacts or abide by quarantine rules. People have become fatigued with the restrictions.”
Similar to South Dakota’s governor, North Dakota’s Burgum has pushed a message of personal responsibility. “It’s not a job for government,” he said. “This is a job for everybody.”
Social distancing and masking are effective for curtailing Covid-19. As a review of the research in The Lancet concluded, “evidence shows that physical distancing of more than 1 m is highly effective and that face masks are associated with protection, even in non-health-care settings.”
Government mandates seem to help, too. A study in Health Affairs found that “government-imposed social distancing measures reduced the daily growth rate of confirmed COVID-19 cases by 5.4 percentage points after one to five days, 6.8 percentage points after six to ten days, 8.2 percentage points after eleven to fifteen days, and 9.1 percentage points after sixteen to twenty days.”
And a study from the nonprofit research institute IZA found that Germany’s local and regional mask mandates “reduced the cumulative number of registered Covid-19 cases between 2.3% and 13% over a period of 10 days after they became compulsory” and “the daily growth rate of reported infections by around 40%.”
Carson acknowledged that such mandates “did not seem so necessary earlier in our epidemic.” But by not instituting government policies and allowing the public to act recklessly, North and South Dakota kept themselves vulnerable to the coronavirus. That vulnerability took a while to expose itself in two sparsely populated states with relatively little travel in and out — but once it appeared, Covid-19 has exploded, rapidly spreading across both of the Dakotas.
This wasn’t unpredictable. In the spring, a South Dakota meat plant became the US’s top coronavirus hot spot — showing Covid-19 could reach even mostly rural areas like South Dakota. But the outbreak didn’t change Noem’s approach.
Ian Fury, a spokesperson for Noem, defended her actions: “Since the start of the pandemic, Governor Noem has provided her citizens with up-to-date science, facts, and data, and then trusted them to make the best decisions for themselves and their loved ones.”
Burgum’s office didn’t respond to a request for comment.
The public, fueled by Trump, didn’t follow proper precautions
It wasn’t just the government that allowed Covid-19 to spread in the Dakotas. The public has played a role too, with large parts of each state acting as though everything is normal and refusing to embrace even the most basic precautions against the coronavirus.
COVIDcast, a project from Carnegie Mellon University that tracks real-time Covid-19 data, shows that North and South Dakota have some of the lowest levels of uptake in the US for social distancing and masking. South Dakotans are the 12th most likely and North Dakotans are the 17th most likely, out of the 50 states plus Washington, DC, and Puerto Rico to leave their homes for six or more hours a day. South Dakotans and North Dakotans are also among the least likely — 50th and 48th, respectively, out of all 50 states plus DC — to wear masks.
While touring Bismarck, North Dakota, in October, Deborah Birx, a White House coronavirus task force leader, acknowledged the problem. “This is the least use of masks that we have we seen in retail establishments of any place we have been,” she told reporters.
Perhaps the most infamous example of either state’s lack of adherence to Covid-19 precautions is the Sturgis motorcycle rally. From August 7 to 16, bikers came from across the country, attending events and hitting up local bars and restaurants. Masks were uncommon — even shunned. Among the T-shirts sold at the events, one stated, “Screw Covid-19, I went to Sturgis.”
Insufficient contact tracing makes it difficult to say with any certainty how much of the current epidemic originated at the Sturgis rally, but Covid-19 cases surged in the region, and particularly the Dakotas, in the weeks after the rally.
It’s not just Sturgis, though. On July Fourth, Trump held a large rally at Mount Rushmore, which is in South Dakota, that thousands of people attended, seldom wearing masks. Families and friends held their own parties and celebrations around the summer holidays, including Labor Day in September. There were rodeos and state fairs. Schools have reopened, with universities and colleges in particular fueling outbreaks nationwide.
“Those events, combined with the lack of leadership in encouraging the public to wear masks or practice social distancing, have contributed greatly to the current situation we are in,” Specker said.
Bars and restaurants are of special concern to experts: In these spaces, people are close together for long periods of time, they can’t wear masks as they eat or drink, the air can’t dilute the virus the way it can outdoors, and alcohol can lead them to drop their guards further.
Another problem is older teens and young adults may act more recklessly, believing they’re at lower risk of contracting Covid-19. But as a recent CDC study noted, younger people tend to spread the virus to their parents, grandparents, teachers, and so on. That, Carson said, appears to have happened in North Dakota: “We saw a surge of cases in our communities that had students coming back to start college. Those cases spiked in the young college-age population, then eventually spilled over into the broader community.”
Trump and Republican leaders have encouraged this. While touting their messages of personal responsibility, many Republicans have also downplayed the threat of Covid-19. Trump has deliberately done this — telling journalist Bob Woodward, “I wanted to always play [the coronavirus] down.” Even after his illness, Trump has tweeted, “Don’t be afraid of Covid. Don’t let it dominate your life.” He’s even mocked masks and claimed — falsely — that they’re ineffective. (In reality, the evidence for masks keeps getting stronger.)
For Trump, the goal here is political: If he manages to convince people that things are okay and normal, it could boost public perception of his handling of the pandemic. Republican lawmakers, in many ways beholden to Trump’s supporters, have by and large followed the president’s lead.
In North and South Dakota, that has seemingly translated to a predominantly Republican public going out, too often without masks, and spreading the coronavirus across the states.
North and South Dakota now have a serious and growing crisis
Experts often compare the spread of the coronavirus to a runaway freight train: The virus can take a while to build up, but once spread hits exponential growth, it takes an immense amount of work and time — up to weeks or months — to slow things down.
“Until the leaders of state and federal government support recommended public health policy, it is going to be difficult to slow the spread of this virus,” Specker said.
For the coronavirus, the solutions are the same things everyone has heard about for months now: More testing and contact tracing to isolate people who are infected, get their close contacts to quarantine, and deploy broader restrictions as necessary. More masking. More careful, phased reopenings. More social distancing.
This is what’s worked in other countries, from Germany to South Korea to New Zealand, to contain their respective outbreaks. It’s what’s worked in parts of the US, like New York and San Francisco.
But, crucially, this has to be sustained. Until a vaccine or similar treatment is available, the coronavirus will remain a constant threat in the US. Even less densely populated places, like the Dakotas, aren’t going to be safe for long without proper precautions in place.
Yet North and South Dakota leaders have continued resisting more hands-on approaches, calling for personal responsibility and limited, if any, role for government. Some local officials have stepped up to fill the vacuum, but they have more limited powers and reach than state leaders.
This fall and winter stand to hasten the spread of the coronavirus, too. Schools will continue to reopen. Increasingly cold weather will further push people indoors, where, due to poor ventilation, the virus has an easier time spreading than it does outdoors. Families and friends will gather for the winter holidays, from Thanksgiving to Christmas to New Year’s. A looming flu season could strain hospitals further, inhibiting their ability to treat a surge of Covid-19 patients.
If it gets bad enough, the only possible solution to avert further spread could be a lockdown. Already, the mayor of Fargo, North Dakota, mentioned the possibility. “The concern is that if we don’t start turning this around and our numbers keep going up, it’ll be difficult to keep the businesses going and being open,” Democratic Mayor Tim Mahoney, a physician by training, said.
Given that the outbreaks are already so bad and state leaders have still refused tougher actions, another possibility is the Dakotas will continue tolerating a high number of cases and deaths, failing to take any serious action in response.
If so, the two worst outbreaks in one of the countries struggling the most with Covid-19 will remain bad and perhaps get even worse.


vox--2020-10-27--To compete with China and Russia, America needs a new era of multilateralism

With Election Day looming , American progressives yearn for an about-face from President Trump ’ s foreign policy — perhaps nowhere more so than when it comes to US multilateralism .
Multilateralism — working with other countries both through large international institutions and looser coalitions toward common goals — has been a pillar of American foreign policy since World War II .
From the creation of the United Nations and NATO to President George W. Bush ’ s Iraq War “ coalition of the willing ” and President Barack Obama ’ s negotiations alongside Russia and China on the Iran @ @ @ @ @ @ @ alone .
But Donald Trump changed all that .
The Trump administration ’ s approach truly has been America First equals America Alone .
Trump pulled the US out of the Iran nuclear deal , the Paris climate agreement , the United Nations Human Rights Council , and the Trans-Pacific Partnership ( TPP ) .
He ’ s in the process of exiting the World Health Organization ( WHO ) .
He ’ s repeatedly questioned the value of NATO and mused about withdrawing from it .
Yet , amid calls to reprioritize @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” progressive aspirations can not paper over the real geopolitical frictions that will persist post-Trump .
Just as conservative efforts to desert multilateral institutions are self-defeating , so too is the belief that international cooperation will blossom after November 3 .
American progressives should seek to reengage in multilateral institutions , from the WHO to the UN .
But they can not forget that those institutions remain competitive zones where democracies must defend their values against authoritarian rivals .
Multilateral cooperation has never seemed more urgent — or more lacking Covid-19 is only @ @ @ @ @ @ @ administration is truculently set against the world , not just withdrawing from the WHO but also refusing to join the Covax initiative , a historic , global multilateral effort to ensure that all countries , rich and poor , will have access to a novel coronavirus vaccine if and when one or more become available .
Amid the pandemic-induced economic crisis , congressional Republicans seek to dismantle the World Trade Organization ( WTO ) , all while a trade war batters American consumers and farmers .
The last of the major US-Russia nuclear @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of collapse , and both North Korea and Iran continue to improve and expand their nuclear and missile programs .
Given this bevy of undoubtedly self-injurious policies , it is understandable that some progressives are calling on a potential Biden administration to undertake a “ fundamental re-envisioning of the United States ’ role in the world , ” emphasizing international cooperation .
But a desire for the United States to rejoin international institutions and agreements should not be synonymous with a belief that global cooperation will define a post-Trump world .
That belief @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that has become all too apparent in recent years : Multilateral institutions have become one of the primary battlegrounds where the unfolding international clash of systems between democratic and authoritarian regimes is being waged .
Authoritarian countries like China and Russia know this fact well and are skilled at manipulating and exploiting international institutions to serve their own ends .
The United States used to understand this fact , too , once upon a time , but it seems to have forgotten it lately .
It ’ s time for America to remember @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to start using these institutions to punch back .
Hope that shared threats will outweigh geopolitical divides is not new An American belief that international organizations could “ help depoliticize controversial issues by treating these as neutral , technical challenges ” underlaid the building of global institutions following World War II .
More recently , the early Obama administration viewed the “ challenges of a new century ” — countering violent extremism , nuclear nonproliferation , climate change , economic growth , and pandemic disease — as common ground around which international stakeholders @ @ @ @ @ @ @ however , cooperative visions foundered on the shoals of geopolitical differences .
Neither in 1949 nor in 2009 could shared “ problems without passports ” outweigh the equally immediate threat posed by liberal , democratic norms to authoritarian regimes .
As the Brookings Institution ’ s Thomas Wright has written , a resurgence in geopolitical rivalry was “ rooted in a clash of social models — a free world and a neo-authoritarian world — that directly affects how people live.
” That clash stemmed not only from traditional military frictions , but even @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , democratic societies pose to the stability of authoritarian regimes .
Increasingly , those authoritarian regimes are striking back .
Senator Elizabeth Warren has described a “ belligerent and resurgent ” Russia and a China that has now “ weaponized its economy , ” both of which seek to undermine open , democratic societies .
Similarly , Sen. Bernie Sanders has outlined a future contested between “ a growing worldwide movement toward authoritarianism , oligarchy , and kleptocracy ” and “ a movement toward strengthening democracy , egalitarianism , and economic , social @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Consequently , while dangers like Covid-19 threaten everyone , differences between democratic and authoritarian regimes can yield contrasting responses .
Take , for instance , something as basic as using technology like smartphones and apps to aid in contact tracing in the fight against Covid-19 .
As Vox ’ s Dylan Scott explains : But the data collection needed to do this quickly becomes entangled in concerns surrounding “ digital authoritarianism , ” where illiberal regimes employ such tools to “ surveil , repress , and manipulate domestic and foreign populations ” alike @ @ @ @ @ @ @ use of this public health crisis to expand the scope of its surveillance and control shows that even when the world can agree on a common challenge , solutions may diverge based on a regime ’ s values .
Thus , even amid areas of international cooperation , a degree of vigilance is required to defend democratic interests .
By no means is cooperation entirely foreclosed — which is why the Trump administration ’ s rejection of the Covax initiative is misguided .
Nonetheless , democracies should not mistakenly believe that unalloyed cooperation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ advances their interests .
How to stand and compete from within ...
While the United States can not be starry-eyed about multilateral engagement , it also can ’ t afford to be cavalier as to its value — as Republican leaders increasingly are .
Not only does the United States confront a true peer competitor in China , making allies more necessary than ever , but the key domains of that competition — from trade and investment flows to advanced technologies and communications infrastructure — are already deeply enmeshed in multilateral institutions .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , has amplified its efforts to shape international institutions , as President Vladimir Putin declares “ the liberal idea ” has “ outlived its purpose.
” Likewise , China , in seeking “ reform of the global governance system , ” looks to realign the world to better support the CCP ’ s illiberal rule at home — including its persistent surveillance of its citizens and the internment and forced “ reeducation ” of Uighur minorities .
Thus , rather than use cooperative mechanisms like Interpol for the intended purpose of catching criminals @ @ @ @ @ @ @ abusing the system to pursue political dissidents .
Authoritarian leaders do not hesitate to twist international institutions to defend illiberal behavior beyond their own borders , such as the Russian head of the UN Counterterrorism Office striving to legitimate Chinese human rights abuses in Xinjiang .
As Beijing and Moscow lead the charge to redefine global norms , democracies must meet that challenge .
From privacy rules for artificial intelligence to norms for combating transnational corruption , international standards set abroad will not remain overseas .
As the 2020 Hong Kong National Security @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the national level can reach into democracies around the world , so will global rules set by illiberal states .
Consequently , the United States and like-minded partners must compete in international institutions to defend the values that underpin open societies .
That competitive posture does not necessitate withdrawal from international organizations , as some conservatives have preached .
As Kori Schake of the American Enterprise Institute recently argued , “ it is a ridiculous solipsism ... to believe that if we stop participating in international cooperation and institutions that that cooperation stops @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of competition to more advantageous ground , by withdrawing from these institutions , the United States merely cedes influence in the very arenas where the essential debates are occurring .
Rather than isolating authoritarians to increase democratic states ’ leverage , the United States is cutting itself off from the partners it needs .
So long as more universal forums , such as the UN International Telecommunications Agency , are where relevant standards are set , then active participation is called for .
Abandonment only opens space for authoritarian powers to press their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than the juxtaposition of the sidelining of Taiwan in the WHO against the March 2020 election for head of the obscure , but important , World Intellectual Property Organization ( WIPO ) .
Despite Taiwan ’ s robust performance in managing Covid-19 — with only seven deaths thus far — Beijing has continued to block Taipei ’ s participation in WHO meetings , hampering sharing from that success .
The Trump administration ’ s response ?
Only to throw up its hands and complain about China ’ s influence as it heads for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , in the March election to lead WIPO , the UN organization charged with protecting intellectual property , the United States chose to show up and take a stand .
Recognizing the impact of Chinese-based intellectual property theft and cyberespionage , the Trump administration , in a rare moment of diplomatic engagement , rallied a near 2-1 vote in favor of the US-supported candidate against the Chinese alternative .
The message is clear : The United States leaning into a coordinated diplomatic push can make all the difference .
... and from without @ @ @ @ @ @ @ institutions like the UN or WTO does not preclude pursuing new multilateral innovations to better defend democratic societies .
A decade ago , proposals for a “ concert of democracies ” or a “ global NATO ” stalled .
Mistrust in the wake of George W. Bush ’ s “ coalition of the willing ” in Iraq coupled with a fear that being seen to push the expansion of Western-style democracy would alienate rising powers from India to Brazil , scuttling such efforts .
Why needlessly stir the pot in a world where @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and the march of liberal democracy appeared inevitable ?
However , the current international landscape differs vastly from then .
New institutions to enhance democratic societies ’ defensive coordination may have seemed unnecessary a decade ago but should be seen in a different light today , when authoritarian regimes pose a real challenge to the liberal model .
Thus , today ’ s version — what Edward Fishman of the Atlantic Council and Siddharth Mohandas of the Center for a New American Security have called “ councils of democracies ” — would aim @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than justify its forcible expansion abroad .
In doing so , the United States and its democratic partners should neither pull up the drawbridge from universal bodies that include authoritarian actors nor remain beholden to those institutions , as they constrain democracies ’ ability to better cooperate in their own defense .
Fortunately , US Cold War strategy offers lessons on managing that balance .
Importing a Cold War strategy lock , stock , and barrel for current challenges would undoubtedly be mistaken .
Nevertheless , that history reveals democracies are not forced @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the UN and more values-based ones like NATO .
Rather , working at times through narrower groups grounded in a shared belief in liberalism and democracy can enhance the position of open societies in those larger bodies .
For instance , instead of being caught between abandoning the WTO — a folly few other states would join in — and continuing to struggle along with the system ’ s real limitations and abuses , the United States could work outside the system to build leverage within it .
Here , as Jake Sullivan @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Kurt Campbell of the Asia Group have outlined , a forum convening democratic states to build shared norms and standards on 21st-century economic issues — digital tax , data privacy rules , etc .
— could be “ layered over the WTO system.
” Such a combination would not only create a space to build the norms that democratic societies need for managing 21st-century governance challenges , but also maximize their leverage within the WTO to raise standards across a global economy .
At the same time , democracies should work in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ increasingly strategic areas of international finance , advanced technologies like 5G and artificial intelligence , and battling transnational corruption .
To protect democratic ideals , there will be times when it is necessary to exclude those who would seek to undermine them .
Today ’ s threats and circumstances may not require a global expansion of a formal alliance like NATO .
Nonetheless , deepening ties between democratic societies will be essential on issues from sharing best practices on countering disinformation to maintaining information systems that appreciate values of transparency , accountability , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the United Kingdom is an example of an early mover on what ’ s possible .
Against rising concerns over cybersecurity and espionage from Chinese 5G leader Huawei , London has begun exploring a potential democracies-only grouping to better secure 5G communications technology , alongside other national security supply chains .
5G is only one illustration of a range of issues at the intersection of advanced technologies and the evolving digital economy where democracies must set the international rules if they are to maintain values such as privacy and free speech for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ such as closer transatlantic coordination on investment security — reviewing foreign purchasers and investors in US or European companies — and export controls for new technologies emerge as essential in maintaining a lead in tomorrow ’ s technologies , in order to shape their use around liberal principles .
Fundamentally , as democracies increasingly compete with an economically powerful China and revanchist Russia , their best defense rests in recognizing that not only are democracies more competitive together , but that a gap in the armor in one is likely a gap for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be wished away In only four years , President Trump has left the United States embattled on nearly every front .
An urge to trumpet international cooperation as a departure from his administration ’ s ceaseless antagonism is understandable .
However , in considering a world post-Trump , progressives must separate his disastrous policies from the structural reality of a growing clash between open and authoritarian societies — a contest that can not be wished away .
Democracies must reengage multilaterally , but without losing sight that shared challenges do not necessarily beget @ @ @ @ @ @ @ must be tempered by vigilance against authoritarian leaders who will not hesitate to use multilateral institutions to roll back and undermine liberal values in order to “ make the world safe ” for authoritarianism .
Given that reality , assertive measures are necessary to close ranks with other like-minded partners to defend democratic values in a more interconnected , but more contested , world .
A post-Trump foreign policy may open the door for the pursuit of progressive goals ; but they will have to be fought for abroad as much as at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ policy analyst focusing on US alliances and multilateralism .
Previously , he served as an associate fellow with the Brookings Institution ’ s Project on International Order and Strategy .
Find him on Twitter at @ MorelandBW .
Help keep Vox free for all Millions turn to Vox each month to understand what ’ s happening in the news , from the coronavirus crisis to a racial reckoning to what is , quite possibly , the most consequential presidential election of our lifetimes .
Our mission has never been more vital than it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you through understanding .
But our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources .
Even when the economy and the news advertising market recovers , your support will be a critical part of sustaining our resource-intensive work .
If you have already contributed , thank you .
If you haven ’ t , please consider helping everyone make sense of an increasingly chaotic world : Contribute today from as little as $ 3 .

With Election Day looming, American progressives yearn for an about-face from President Trump’s foreign policy — perhaps nowhere more so than when it comes to US multilateralism.
Multilateralism — working with other countries both through large international institutions and looser coalitions toward common goals — has been a pillar of American foreign policy since World War II.
From the creation of the United Nations and NATO to President George W. Bush’s Iraq War “coalition of the willing” and President Barack Obama’s negotiations alongside Russia and China on the Iran nuclear deal, America has rarely operated alone.
But Donald Trump changed all that.
The Trump administration’s approach truly has been America First equals America Alone. Trump pulled the US out of the Iran nuclear deal, the Paris climate agreement, the United Nations Human Rights Council, and the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). He’s in the process of exiting the World Health Organization (WHO). He’s repeatedly questioned the value of NATO and mused about withdrawing from it.
Yet, amid calls to reprioritize “international cooperation, not competition,” progressive aspirations cannot paper over the real geopolitical frictions that will persist post-Trump. Just as conservative efforts to desert multilateral institutions are self-defeating, so too is the belief that international cooperation will blossom after November 3.
American progressives should seek to reengage in multilateral institutions, from the WHO to the UN. But they cannot forget that those institutions remain competitive zones where democracies must defend their values against authoritarian rivals.
Multilateral cooperation has never seemed more urgent — or more lacking
Covid-19 is only the latest instance in which the Trump administration is truculently set against the world, not just withdrawing from the WHO but also refusing to join the Covax initiative, a historic, global multilateral effort to ensure that all countries, rich and poor, will have access to a novel coronavirus vaccine if and when one or more become available.
Amid the pandemic-induced economic crisis, congressional Republicans seek to dismantle the World Trade Organization (WTO), all while a trade war batters American consumers and farmers. The last of the major US-Russia nuclear arms control agreements teeters on the verge of collapse, and both North Korea and Iran continue to improve and expand their nuclear and missile programs.
Given this bevy of undoubtedly self-injurious policies, it is understandable that some progressives are calling on a potential Biden administration to undertake a “fundamental re-envisioning of the United States’ role in the world,” emphasizing international cooperation.
But a desire for the United States to rejoin international institutions and agreements should not be synonymous with a belief that global cooperation will define a post-Trump world.
That belief naively and recklessly ignores a stark reality that has become all too apparent in recent years: Multilateral institutions have become one of the primary battlegrounds where the unfolding international clash of systems between democratic and authoritarian regimes is being waged.
Authoritarian countries like China and Russia know this fact well and are skilled at manipulating and exploiting international institutions to serve their own ends. The United States used to understand this fact, too, once upon a time, but it seems to have forgotten it lately.
It’s time for America to remember. It’s time for America to start using these institutions to punch back.
Hope that shared threats will outweigh geopolitical divides is not new
An American belief that international organizations could “help depoliticize controversial issues by treating these as neutral, technical challenges” underlaid the building of global institutions following World War II.
More recently, the early Obama administration viewed the “challenges of a new century” — countering violent extremism, nuclear nonproliferation, climate change, economic growth, and pandemic disease — as common ground around which international stakeholders would rally.
In both instances, however, cooperative visions foundered on the shoals of geopolitical differences.
Neither in 1949 nor in 2009 could shared “problems without passports” outweigh the equally immediate threat posed by liberal, democratic norms to authoritarian regimes. As the Brookings Institution’s Thomas Wright has written, a resurgence in geopolitical rivalry was “rooted in a clash of social models — a free world and a neo-authoritarian world — that directly affects how people live.”
That clash stemmed not only from traditional military frictions, but even more basically from the threat that open, democratic societies pose to the stability of authoritarian regimes.
Increasingly, those authoritarian regimes are striking back. Senator Elizabeth Warren has described a “belligerent and resurgent” Russia and a China that has now “weaponized its economy,” both of which seek to undermine open, democratic societies. Similarly, Sen. Bernie Sanders has outlined a future contested between “a growing worldwide movement toward authoritarianism, oligarchy, and kleptocracy” and “a movement toward strengthening democracy, egalitarianism, and economic, social, racial, and environmental justice.”
Consequently, while dangers like Covid-19 threaten everyone, differences between democratic and authoritarian regimes can yield contrasting responses. Take, for instance, something as basic as using technology like smartphones and apps to aid in contact tracing in the fight against Covid-19. As Vox’s Dylan Scott explains:
In the United States and across the world, smartphone applications are seen as a promising option to automate some of the work that health workers have traditionally been asked to do. Namely, they could silently track which people we’ve been in contact with, and if one of those people tests positive for Covid-19, our phone would send us a notification letting us know about our potential exposure.
But the data collection needed to do this quickly becomes entangled in concerns surrounding “digital authoritarianism,” where illiberal regimes employ such tools to “surveil, repress, and manipulate domestic and foreign populations” alike. The Chinese Communist Party’s use of this public health crisis to expand the scope of its surveillance and control shows that even when the world can agree on a common challenge, solutions may diverge based on a regime’s values.
Thus, even amid areas of international cooperation, a degree of vigilance is required to defend democratic interests. By no means is cooperation entirely foreclosed — which is why the Trump administration’s rejection of the Covax initiative is misguided. Nonetheless, democracies should not mistakenly believe that unalloyed cooperation in the face of every shared challenge advances their interests.
How to stand and compete from within ...
While the United States cannot be starry-eyed about multilateral engagement, it also can’t afford to be cavalier as to its value — as Republican leaders increasingly are.
Not only does the United States confront a true peer competitor in China, making allies more necessary than ever, but the key domains of that competition — from trade and investment flows to advanced technologies and communications infrastructure — are already deeply enmeshed in multilateral institutions.
Authoritarian leaders understand this emerging dynamic.
Russia, long skilled in multilateral diplomacy, has amplified its efforts to shape international institutions, as President Vladimir Putin declares “the liberal idea” has “outlived its purpose.” Likewise, China, in seeking “reform of the global governance system,” looks to realign the world to better support the CCP’s illiberal rule at home — including its persistent surveillance of its citizens and the internment and forced “reeducation” of Uighur minorities.
Thus, rather than use cooperative mechanisms like Interpol for the intended purpose of catching criminals, Russia and China have focused on abusing the system to pursue political dissidents. Authoritarian leaders do not hesitate to twist international institutions to defend illiberal behavior beyond their own borders, such as the Russian head of the UN Counterterrorism Office striving to legitimate Chinese human rights abuses in Xinjiang.
As Beijing and Moscow lead the charge to redefine global norms, democracies must meet that challenge. From privacy rules for artificial intelligence to norms for combating transnational corruption, international standards set abroad will not remain overseas.
As the 2020 Hong Kong National Security law demonstrates, if authoritarian actions at the national level can reach into democracies around the world, so will global rules set by illiberal states. Consequently, the United States and like-minded partners must compete in international institutions to defend the values that underpin open societies.
That competitive posture does not necessitate withdrawal from international organizations, as some conservatives have preached. As Kori Schake of the American Enterprise Institute recently argued, “it is a ridiculous solipsism...to believe that if we stop participating in international cooperation and institutions that that cooperation stops happening.”
Instead of shifting the locus of competition to more advantageous ground, by withdrawing from these institutions, the United States merely cedes influence in the very arenas where the essential debates are occurring. Rather than isolating authoritarians to increase democratic states’ leverage, the United States is cutting itself off from the partners it needs.
So long as more universal forums, such as the UN International Telecommunications Agency, are where relevant standards are set, then active participation is called for. Abandonment only opens space for authoritarian powers to press their agendas.
This is perhaps nowhere clearer than the juxtaposition of the sidelining of Taiwan in the WHO against the March 2020 election for head of the obscure, but important, World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO).
Despite Taiwan’s robust performance in managing Covid-19 — with only seven deaths thus far — Beijing has continued to block Taipei’s participation in WHO meetings, hampering sharing from that success. The Trump administration’s response? Only to throw up its hands and complain about China’s influence as it heads for the WHO’s door.
Conversely, in the March election to lead WIPO, the UN organization charged with protecting intellectual property, the United States chose to show up and take a stand. Recognizing the impact of Chinese-based intellectual property theft and cyberespionage, the Trump administration, in a rare moment of diplomatic engagement, rallied a near 2-1 vote in favor of the US-supported candidate against the Chinese alternative.
The message is clear: The United States leaning into a coordinated diplomatic push can make all the difference.
... and from without
Simultaneously, continuing to participate in universal institutions like the UN or WTO does not preclude pursuing new multilateral innovations to better defend democratic societies.
A decade ago, proposals for a “concert of democracies” or a “global NATO” stalled. Mistrust in the wake of George W. Bush’s “coalition of the willing” in Iraq coupled with a fear that being seen to push the expansion of Western-style democracy would alienate rising powers from India to Brazil, scuttling such efforts. Why needlessly stir the pot in a world where cooperation on shared transnational threats seemed critical and the march of liberal democracy appeared inevitable?
However, the current international landscape differs vastly from then. New institutions to enhance democratic societies’ defensive coordination may have seemed unnecessary a decade ago but should be seen in a different light today, when authoritarian regimes pose a real challenge to the liberal model.
Thus, today’s version — what Edward Fishman of the Atlantic Council and Siddharth Mohandas of the Center for a New American Security have called “councils of democracies” — would aim to protect democracy at home, rather than justify its forcible expansion abroad. In doing so, the United States and its democratic partners should neither pull up the drawbridge from universal bodies that include authoritarian actors nor remain beholden to those institutions, as they constrain democracies’ ability to better cooperate in their own defense.
Fortunately, US Cold War strategy offers lessons on managing that balance. Importing a Cold War strategy lock, stock, and barrel for current challenges would undoubtedly be mistaken. Nevertheless, that history reveals democracies are not forced to choose between more universal organizations like the UN and more values-based ones like NATO. Rather, working at times through narrower groups grounded in a shared belief in liberalism and democracy can enhance the position of open societies in those larger bodies.
For instance, instead of being caught between abandoning the WTO — a folly few other states would join in — and continuing to struggle along with the system’s real limitations and abuses, the United States could work outside the system to build leverage within it.
Here, as Jake Sullivan of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and Kurt Campbell of the Asia Group have outlined, a forum convening democratic states to build shared norms and standards on 21st-century economic issues — digital tax, data privacy rules, etc. — could be “layered over the WTO system.”
Such a combination would not only create a space to build the norms that democratic societies need for managing 21st-century governance challenges, but also maximize their leverage within the WTO to raise standards across a global economy.
At the same time, democracies should work in values-based coalitions to promote democratic security in increasingly strategic areas of international finance, advanced technologies like 5G and artificial intelligence, and battling transnational corruption. To protect democratic ideals, there will be times when it is necessary to exclude those who would seek to undermine them.
Today’s threats and circumstances may not require a global expansion of a formal alliance like NATO. Nonetheless, deepening ties between democratic societies will be essential on issues from sharing best practices on countering disinformation to maintaining information systems that appreciate values of transparency, accountability, and respect for individual privacy.
Here, the United Kingdom is an example of an early mover on what’s possible. Against rising concerns over cybersecurity and espionage from Chinese 5G leader Huawei, London has begun exploring a potential democracies-only grouping to better secure 5G communications technology, alongside other national security supply chains.
5G is only one illustration of a range of issues at the intersection of advanced technologies and the evolving digital economy where democracies must set the international rules if they are to maintain values such as privacy and free speech for their own citizens.
Thus, steps such as closer transatlantic coordination on investment security — reviewing foreign purchasers and investors in US or European companies — and export controls for new technologies emerge as essential in maintaining a lead in tomorrow’s technologies, in order to shape their use around liberal principles.
Fundamentally, as democracies increasingly compete with an economically powerful China and revanchist Russia, their best defense rests in recognizing that not only are democracies more competitive together, but that a gap in the armor in one is likely a gap for all.
A contest that cannot be wished away
In only four years, President Trump has left the United States embattled on nearly every front. An urge to trumpet international cooperation as a departure from his administration’s ceaseless antagonism is understandable.
However, in considering a world post-Trump, progressives must separate his disastrous policies from the structural reality of a growing clash between open and authoritarian societies — a contest that cannot be wished away.
Democracies must reengage multilaterally, but without losing sight that shared challenges do not necessarily beget shared solutions. Good-faith efforts at cooperation must be tempered by vigilance against authoritarian leaders who will not hesitate to use multilateral institutions to roll back and undermine liberal values in order to “make the world safe” for authoritarianism.
Given that reality, assertive measures are necessary to close ranks with other like-minded partners to defend democratic values in a more interconnected, but more contested, world. A post-Trump foreign policy may open the door for the pursuit of progressive goals; but they will have to be fought for abroad as much as at home.
Will Moreland is a foreign policy analyst focusing on US alliances and multilateralism. Previously, he served as an associate fellow with the Brookings Institution’s Project on International Order and Strategy. Find him on Twitter at @MorelandBW.


vox--2020-10-27--Democrats want to turn Texas blue. It starts with the state House in 2020.

Former Vice President Joe Biden has made a late-stage play for Texas in the hope of bringing to fruition his party ’ s longtime dream of flipping a once reliably red state .
Local Democrats have set their sights lower on the ballot : They ’ re hoping to pick up nine seats in the Texas House of Representatives , enough to give them control of the state ’ s House for the first time since 2002 .
The goal could be within their grasp .
Those seats are all in districts that Democrat Beto O ’ Rourke won in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Even if President Donald Trump claims Texas ’ s 38 electoral votes in November and Sen. John Cornyn fends off newcomer MJ Hegar , Democrats hope that the state House will be the first domino to fall in their mission to remake Texas politics for good .
In 2018 , Democrats picked up 12 seats in the state House .
Genevieve Van Cleve , the Texas state director of All On the Line , the advocacy arm of the National Democratic Redistricting Committee , said that her organization ’ s polling suggests @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at least another six to seven seats , with the remaining seats being more of a reach .
Polling from the Texas Democratic party , however , show them up in 11 districts .
The consequences of a Texas House win are bigger this year than in a typical election year because the state legislature will be responsible for redrawing electoral districts in 2021 after the results of the 2020 census come in .
In a state that has long engaged in partisan gerrymandering , Democrats are hoping that , if they control @ @ @ @ @ @ @ least get a seat at the table during the redistricting process — improving their chances of winning elections in the state over the next decade .
“ Democrats can compete just fine if we ’ re on a level playing field , and what we don ’ t have in Texas is a level playing field , ” Van Cleve said .
They are also aiming to use a state House majority to prioritize expanding Medicaid for low-income Texans in the middle of a pandemic that has hit the state particularly hard , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Senate that have long opposed that goal , it will likely be out of reach for at least the next two years .
Beyond those policy goals , Democrats hope that flipping the state House could give voters a reason to show up in future elections .
Texas has historically low turnout , especially among Hispanic voters , in part because it has among the most restrictive voting laws nationwide .
That has been a major obstacle to Democratic hopes of flipping the state .
“ If we win a majority in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seat at the table where you can begin to draw people back into democracy , draw them back in [ with ] a reason to vote , ” O ’ Rourke said in an interview .
“ We have the ability to actually cure some of this.
” A state House majority would give Democrats a seat at the table in redistricting Texas ’ s current electoral maps favor Republicans , but Democrats are trying to change that by flipping the state House and having a say in the redistricting process that will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would offer them only modest gains in power — a single seat at the table on the state ’ s five-person legislative redistricting board and the possibility of sending the maps to federal court .
That ’ s an improvement over the veto power they currently have over the maps ( none ) , but it ’ s still a far cry from taking the reins and being able to redraw them more equitably .
Both congressional and state legislative districts are redrawn every 10 years .
In most states , including Texas @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
In 2021 , the redistricting committees of both the state House and state Senate will convene and attempt to pass new electoral maps , which must include districts of equal populations that do not discriminate on the basis of race and ethnicity .
The governor has the power to veto those maps .
But if the chambers can ’ t come to an agreement or the governor vetoes their maps — as is likely to be the case if Democrats take control of the state House — that ’ s when it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ federal judges in San Antonio would have the final say over the congressional maps .
But the process is different for the state legislative maps : a five-person board composed of the lieutenant governor , state attorney general , state comptroller , commissioner of the General Land Office , and speaker of the Texas House draw the maps in closed-door meetings , with no public input .
A simple majority of the board would have to approve the maps .
Currently , Republicans hold all of the seats on the board , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ select their speaker , they would gain a seat at the table .
That ’ s the only way Democrats can begin to reverse the partisan gerrymandering that has plagued Texas for decades .
Republicans have been accused of diluting the power of nonwhite voters ( who tend to favor Democrats ) with their electoral maps in 2003 and 2011 , spurring protracted legal battles .
And they have sought to break up the state ’ s growing urban , Democratic centers and create districts that extend well into redder , rural areas @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Travis County , home to Austin , a city often described as a “ blueberry in tomato soup.
” The county has five congressional districts , all anchored in liberal Austin , but only one of those districts is represented by a Democrat .
“ I ’ ve been in these districts where they ’ re sliced and diced , cracked and packed , ” Van Cleve said .
“ Somebody who wants to run for office quickly discovers that no matter how great a message they have and no matter how awesome @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , their voice is not going to be heard at the Texas Capitol if they live in a district that ’ s totally gerrymandered.
” There could be additional complications to redistricting next year .
Ken Paxton , the Texas Attorney General , has been accused of committing crimes including bribery and abuse of office , and it ’ s possible that a Democratic state House could move to impeach him and force him to step down .
Gov .
Greg Abbott , a Republican , would have to appoint his successor , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ board would go to someone who “ no Texan has vetted or voted for , ” Van Cleve said .
The redistricting process also hinges on the new population counts from the 2020 census , which has been delayed on account of the pandemic and obstructed by the Trump administration .
The population of Texas has grown substantially over the last 10 years , which can largely be attributed to growth in the Latino community and in major metro areas .
The state is on track to gain two to three congressional seats @ @ @ @ @ @ @ census are delayed or found to be inaccurate , that could impact whether the electoral maps accurately reflect population trends .
“ It just doesn ’ t serve ordinary people , ” Van Cleve said .
“ This system of rigged maps and hyperpartisan gerrymandering really goes lockstep with voter suppression.
” Democrats are highlighting Medicaid in their battle for the state House On the campaign trail , Democratic candidates have sought to make their battle for the state House about one of voters ’ top priorities , particularly in the middle of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ particular , they want to expand Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act ’ s joint state-federal program that has offered health care coverage to individuals with incomes below 138 percent of the poverty line ( about $ 17,600 for a single adult ) since 2016 .
It ’ s a central pillar in their so-called “ contract with Texas , ” laying out policies they would seek to enact if they captured the majority .
It ’ s also been highlighted in ads funded by the national Democratic super PAC Forward Majority , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Texas state House battle .
But since the GOP still holds a decisive majority in the state Senate , Democrats won ’ t likely be able to pass Medicaid expansion even if they capture the state House .
And even if they did manage to pass it , Abbott could still veto it .
Texas , which has the highest uninsured rate nationwide , is one of only 12 states that has yet to expand Medicaid .
The federal government covers 90 percent of costs associated with the program as of 2020 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bring in $ 110 billion in federal funds over the next decade .
Expanding Medicaid would extend health insurance coverage to an estimated 1 million low-income Texans amid the pandemic .
Coronavirus hospitalizations peaked over the summer after Texas became one of the first states to reopen its economy , and 650,000 Texans have lost their health insurance during the pandemic .
There have been concerning signs that Texas is due for another surge as cases have recently spiked in El Paso and North Texas .
“ We have got to expand Medicaid @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a Democrat who is up for reelection after flipping their district in 2018 , told KXAN .
“ Texas is leaving $ 10 billion of federal funding on the table every year because we got stubborn in 2009.
” Republicans , including Abbott , have long cautioned that it would nevertheless be too expensive and raise health care costs across the board .
“ Medicaid expansion is wrong for Texas , ” Abbott said in 2015 , calling it a “ broken and bloated ” program .
A few Texas Republicans appear to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but not nearly enough to be able to get the legislation through the state Senate and Gov .
Abbott .
Democrats see winning the state House as a driver of voter enthusiasm The Democrats ’ play for the state House is coming on the heels of a particularly divisive few years in the Texas legislature , marked by controversies around a bill protecting businesses like Chick-Fil-A that donate to religious organizations that oppose same-sex marriage , and a failed proposal that would have barred transgender people from using public bathroom facilities that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ see this election as an opportunity to show Texans , and the whole country , that their state politics can be different .
“ This is ground zero for the fight for LGBTQ rights .
This is ground zero for the fight for voting rights .
It ’ s ground zero for the fight for reproductive health care , ” Charlie Bonner , a spokesperson for MOVE Texas , a voter registration and engagement group , said .
“ For that reason , there ’ s a lot of national interest in ensuring @ @ @ @ @ @ @ House candidates have the challenge of getting their names out there in the middle of a pandemic that has made rallies , town hall meetings , and door-knocking impossible .
Texas Republicans have also put up their own defenses , with Abbott injecting a mid-seven-figure investment into down-ballot candidates during the final weeks before Election Day .
And they have sought to curb voter participation , limiting the number of ballot drop-off locations to just one per county , banning counties from sending mail-in ballots to all registered voters , and seeking to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ MOVE Texas have observed that Democratic voters are now more activated in the state than ever .
While the top of the ticket is driving voters to the polls , so are competitive down-ballot races , particularly among young people .
“ We haven ’ t been having this discussion before about the hyperlocal basis for these issues that our generation really cares about , like racial justice and climate change , ” Bonner said .
“ The president can ’ t have that much of an impact on those issues .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ those issues in your city.
” Turnout already appears to be up this cycle .
As of October 20 — with 10 days of early voting still to go — almost one-third of registered voters had cast their ballots in the state ’ s 10 largest counties .
( That includes both Democrats and Republicans . )
And Harris County , which has historically voted Democratic , has set early voting records .
Democrats are hoping that their play for the state House will keep voters activated for future contests : Abbott will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and his approval ratings have taken a hit during the coronavirus pandemic , possibly leaving him vulnerable to a Democratic challenger down the road .
A Democratic PAC has already started fundraising to defeat him .
A win in the state House could add momentum to those efforts .
“ People have written off Texas for so many years that Texas voters didn ’ t believe in themselves , ” Bonner said .
Will you help keep Vox free for all ?
The United States is in the middle of one of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
It ’ s essential that all Americans are able to access clear , concise information on what the outcome of the election could mean for their lives , and the lives of their families and communities .
That is our mission at Vox .
But our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources .
Even when the economy and the news advertising market recovers , your support will be a critical part of sustaining our resource-intensive work .
If you have already contributed , thank you .
If you haven ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ presidential election : Contribute today from as little as $ 3 .

Share All sharing options for: Democrats want to turn Texas blue. It starts with the state House in 2020.
Former Vice President Joe Biden has made a late-stage play for Texas in the hope of bringing to fruition his party’s longtime dream of flipping a once reliably red state. Local Democrats have set their sights lower on the ballot: They’re hoping to pick up nine seats in the Texas House of Representatives, enough to give them control of the state’s House for the first time since 2002.
The goal could be within their grasp. Those seats are all in districts that Democrat Beto O’Rourke won in his ultimately unsuccessful 2018 US Senate run. Even if President Donald Trump claims Texas’s 38 electoral votes in November and Sen. John Cornyn fends off newcomer MJ Hegar, Democrats hope that the state House will be the first domino to fall in their mission to remake Texas politics for good.
In 2018, Democrats picked up 12 seats in the state House. Genevieve Van Cleve, the Texas state director of All On the Line, the advocacy arm of the National Democratic Redistricting Committee, said that her organization’s polling suggests that they are on track to flip at least another six to seven seats, with the remaining seats being more of a reach. Polling from the Texas Democratic party, however, show them up in 11 districts.
The consequences of a Texas House win are bigger this year than in a typical election year because the state legislature will be responsible for redrawing electoral districts in 2021 after the results of the 2020 census come in. In a state that has long engaged in partisan gerrymandering, Democrats are hoping that, if they control the lower chamber, they will at least get a seat at the table during the redistricting process — improving their chances of winning elections in the state over the next decade.
“Democrats can compete just fine if we’re on a level playing field, and what we don’t have in Texas is a level playing field,” Van Cleve said.
They are also aiming to use a state House majority to prioritize expanding Medicaid for low-income Texans in the middle of a pandemic that has hit the state particularly hard, though with a Republican governor and state Senate that have long opposed that goal, it will likely be out of reach for at least the next two years.
Beyond those policy goals, Democrats hope that flipping the state House could give voters a reason to show up in future elections. Texas has historically low turnout, especially among Hispanic voters, in part because it has among the most restrictive voting laws nationwide. That has been a major obstacle to Democratic hopes of flipping the state.
“If we win a majority in the state House, you now have a seat at the table where you can begin to draw people back into democracy, draw them back in [with] a reason to vote,” O’Rourke said in an interview. “We have the ability to actually cure some of this.”
A state House majority would give Democrats a seat at the table in redistricting
Texas’s current electoral maps favor Republicans, but Democrats are trying to change that by flipping the state House and having a say in the redistricting process that will begin next year.
Winning the majority would offer them only modest gains in power — a single seat at the table on the state’s five-person legislative redistricting board and the possibility of sending the maps to federal court. That’s an improvement over the veto power they currently have over the maps (none), but it’s still a far cry from taking the reins and being able to redraw them more equitably.
Both congressional and state legislative districts are redrawn every 10 years. In most states, including Texas, the state legislature controls the process. In 2021, the redistricting committees of both the state House and state Senate will convene and attempt to pass new electoral maps, which must include districts of equal populations that do not discriminate on the basis of race and ethnicity. The governor has the power to veto those maps.
But if the chambers can’t come to an agreement or the governor vetoes their maps — as is likely to be the case if Democrats take control of the state House — that’s when it gets tricky. A panel of three federal judges in San Antonio would have the final say over the congressional maps.
But the process is different for the state legislative maps: a five-person board composed of the lieutenant governor, state attorney general, state comptroller, commissioner of the General Land Office, and speaker of the Texas House draw the maps in closed-door meetings, with no public input. A simple majority of the board would have to approve the maps. Currently, Republicans hold all of the seats on the board, but if Democrats win the state House and select their speaker, they would gain a seat at the table.
That’s the only way Democrats can begin to reverse the partisan gerrymandering that has plagued Texas for decades. Republicans have been accused of diluting the power of nonwhite voters (who tend to favor Democrats) with their electoral maps in 2003 and 2011, spurring protracted legal battles. And they have sought to break up the state’s growing urban, Democratic centers and create districts that extend well into redder, rural areas.
The practice is particularly obvious in Travis County, home to Austin, a city often described as a “blueberry in tomato soup.” The county has five congressional districts, all anchored in liberal Austin, but only one of those districts is represented by a Democrat.
“I’ve been in these districts where they’re sliced and diced, cracked and packed,” Van Cleve said. “Somebody who wants to run for office quickly discovers that no matter how great a message they have and no matter how awesome their volunteer support is in the community, their voice is not going to be heard at the Texas Capitol if they live in a district that’s totally gerrymandered.”
There could be additional complications to redistricting next year. Ken Paxton, the Texas Attorney General, has been accused of committing crimes including bribery and abuse of office, and it’s possible that a Democratic state House could move to impeach him and force him to step down. Gov. Greg Abbott, a Republican, would have to appoint his successor, meaning that his seat on the redistricting board would go to someone who “no Texan has vetted or voted for,” Van Cleve said.
The redistricting process also hinges on the new population counts from the 2020 census, which has been delayed on account of the pandemic and obstructed by the Trump administration. The population of Texas has grown substantially over the last 10 years, which can largely be attributed to growth in the Latino community and in major metro areas. The state is on track to gain two to three congressional seats, but if the results of the census are delayed or found to be inaccurate, that could impact whether the electoral maps accurately reflect population trends.
“It just doesn’t serve ordinary people,” Van Cleve said. “This system of rigged maps and hyperpartisan gerrymandering really goes lockstep with voter suppression.”
Democrats are highlighting Medicaid in their battle for the state House
On the campaign trail, Democratic candidates have sought to make their battle for the state House about one of voters’ top priorities, particularly in the middle of a pandemic: health care. In particular, they want to expand Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act’s joint state-federal program that has offered health care coverage to individuals with incomes below 138 percent of the poverty line (about $17,600 for a single adult) since 2016.
It’s a central pillar in their so-called “contract with Texas,” laying out policies they would seek to enact if they captured the majority. It’s also been highlighted in ads funded by the national Democratic super PAC Forward Majority, which has sunk $12 million into the Texas state House battle.
But since the GOP still holds a decisive majority in the state Senate, Democrats won’t likely be able to pass Medicaid expansion even if they capture the state House. And even if they did manage to pass it, Abbott could still veto it.
Texas, which has the highest uninsured rate nationwide, is one of only 12 states that has yet to expand Medicaid. The federal government covers 90 percent of costs associated with the program as of 2020, and Democrats estimate that it could bring in $110 billion in federal funds over the next decade.
Expanding Medicaid would extend health insurance coverage to an estimated 1 million low-income Texans amid the pandemic. Coronavirus hospitalizations peaked over the summer after Texas became one of the first states to reopen its economy, and 650,000 Texans have lost their health insurance during the pandemic. There have been concerning signs that Texas is due for another surge as cases have recently spiked in El Paso and North Texas.
“We have got to expand Medicaid,” state Rep. Erin Zwiener, a Democrat who is up for reelection after flipping their district in 2018, told KXAN. “Texas is leaving $10 billion of federal funding on the table every year because we got stubborn in 2009.”
Republicans, including Abbott, have long cautioned that it would nevertheless be too expensive and raise health care costs across the board.
“Medicaid expansion is wrong for Texas,” Abbott said in 2015, calling it a “broken and bloated” program.
A few Texas Republicans appear to be changing their position on the matter, but not nearly enough to be able to get the legislation through the state Senate and Gov. Abbott.
Democrats see winning the state House as a driver of voter enthusiasm
The Democrats’ play for the state House is coming on the heels of a particularly divisive few years in the Texas legislature, marked by controversies around a bill protecting businesses like Chick-Fil-A that donate to religious organizations that oppose same-sex marriage, and a failed proposal that would have barred transgender people from using public bathroom facilities that align with their gender identity.
Democrats see this election as an opportunity to show Texans, and the whole country, that their state politics can be different.
“This is ground zero for the fight for LGBTQ rights. This is ground zero for the fight for voting rights. It’s ground zero for the fight for reproductive health care,” Charlie Bonner, a spokesperson for MOVE Texas, a voter registration and engagement group, said. “For that reason, there’s a lot of national interest in ensuring that we see progress here.”
State House candidates have the challenge of getting their names out there in the middle of a pandemic that has made rallies, town hall meetings, and door-knocking impossible. Texas Republicans have also put up their own defenses, with Abbott injecting a mid-seven-figure investment into down-ballot candidates during the final weeks before Election Day. And they have sought to curb voter participation, limiting the number of ballot drop-off locations to just one per county, banning counties from sending mail-in ballots to all registered voters, and seeking to curtail drive-thru voting.
But organizations like MOVE Texas have observed that Democratic voters are now more activated in the state than ever. While the top of the ticket is driving voters to the polls, so are competitive down-ballot races, particularly among young people.
“We haven’t been having this discussion before about the hyperlocal basis for these issues that our generation really cares about, like racial justice and climate change,” Bonner said. “The president can’t have that much of an impact on those issues. But you can make a big difference on those issues in your city.”
Turnout already appears to be up this cycle. As of October 20 — with 10 days of early voting still to go — almost one-third of registered voters had cast their ballots in the state’s 10 largest counties. (That includes both Democrats and Republicans.) And Harris County, which has historically voted Democratic, has set early voting records.
Democrats are hoping that their play for the state House will keep voters activated for future contests: Abbott will be up for reelection in 2022, and his approval ratings have taken a hit during the coronavirus pandemic, possibly leaving him vulnerable to a Democratic challenger down the road. A Democratic PAC has already started fundraising to defeat him. A win in the state House could add momentum to those efforts.
“People have written off Texas for so many years that Texas voters didn’t believe in themselves,” Bonner said.