vox--2020-07-01--Social conservatives feel betrayed by the Supreme Court — and the GOP that appointed it

What is the purpose of the Republican Party ?
That ’ s a question some social conservatives have been asking following the Supreme Court ’ s ruling on June 15 in Bostock v. Clayton County , a major Supreme Court decision holding that federal law prohibits employment discrimination against LGBTQ workers — a decision written by Trump-appointed Justice Neil Gorsuch .
Monday ’ s decision in June Medical Services LLC v. Russo , which found that a law requiring abortion providers to obtain hospital admitting privileges was unconstitutional , has only intensified that debate .
Both cases gave the Supreme @ @ @ @ @ @ @ conservatives that their faith in the Court — or , more accurately , in President Trump ’ s judicial nominations — was justified .
Both cases saw those hopes dashed .
The promise the Republican Party makes to rank-and-file social conservatives and leaders of major conservative organizations — one Trump made in 2016 , and again in 2020 — is transactional : If you vote for Republican presidents , and elect Republicans to Congress , they will put in place conservative judges who adhere to an “ originalist ” view of the Constitution @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the most important aspects of American life .
In 2016 , Trump promised to put judges on the Supreme Court who would overturn the 1973 landmark abortion decision Roe v. Wade , and said he would choose conservative judges chosen from a list compiled in part by the Heritage Foundation .
That election-year announcement was made in response to then-presidential candidate Sen. Ted Cruz , who said in February 2016 that Trump would put his sister , Maryanne Trump Barry , on the Court , calling her a “ hardcore pro-abortion liberal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Putting conservative jurists on the Supreme Court was a top-level political priority .
This bargain helped put Trump in office in 2016 : One poll from the Washington Post found 26 percent of Trump voters said the Supreme Court was the basis of their decision .
To be clear , the Trump Supreme Court has delivered victories to socially conservative Republicans — for example , a 2018 decision maintaining that crisis pregnancy centers do not need to provide information about abortion , and a decision Tuesday finding that religious schools can not be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to private schools .
But this year ’ s Supreme Court term is shaking the terms of that bargain .
One conservative writer told me in response , “ The only way to make sense of the Supreme Court ’ s abortion jurisprudence is to assume it is guided by one principle : ‘ Pro-lifers must lose.
’ ” Among some prominent social conservatives , discontent is starting to boil over .
As a conservative writer and editor told me , some social conservatives are asking , as one writer told me , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ good for , other than boring tax cuts ?
” Social conservatives aren ’ t likely to begin voting for Democrats .
But the discontent indicates a shift within the conservative movement .
The Republican Party hasn ’ t been immune to the societal shift on LGBTQ rights ( although opinions on abortion tend to be more stable ) .
As the party has changed , many social conservatives feel increasingly isolated on cultural and social issues — even from other conservatives .
Now even judges handpicked by the conservative Federalist Society , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the promise of conservative jurists , have disappointed them .
Trump is again running for the White House in part on the issue of getting conservative jurists on the Supreme Court — he has repeatedly spoken about his hopes for a vacancy .
But some social conservatives are wondering : What ’ s the point ?
“ We have been the Republican Party ’ s useful idiots ” A number of prominent social conservatives , from the executive director of a conservative political action committee to independent writers and thinkers , have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ feel , as one writer told me , “ isolated and estranged in our country.
” Social conservatism , as a part of the conservative movement , embraces a specific interpretation of “ traditional values ” in social issues — from abortion to LGBTQ issues to matters of religious liberty — that they feel need preservation in the face of societal change .
They see their beliefs as a necessary bulwark against the evils of modern society .
Josh Hammer , an opinion editor at Newsweek , told me that social conservatism emphasizes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ alone can anchor societies in truth and forestall the seductive allure of the day ’ s fashionable vagaries.
” Michael Brendan Dougherty , a writer for National Review , also defined social conservatism partly in religious terms : “ Social conservatism is the political defense of institutions we deem necessary for the moral and spiritual formation of individuals , institutions that facilitate civil society and good government .
Fallen humanity needs these institutions as aids to live together peacefully , tolerably , and well.
” Leaders of the Republican Party recognized decades ago @ @ @ @ @ @ @ GOP voters , making them integral not just to the Republican Party but to movement conservatism — the effort to put conservative ideas into political action .
As Rush Limbaugh said in February 2008 , “ The three stools or the three legs of the [ Republican ] stool are national security/foreign policy , the social conservatives , and the fiscal conservatives.
” Trump was not , and is not , a social conservative , and many of his 2016 attempts to speak the language of social conservatism — for example , saying @ @ @ @ @ @ @ women who have abortions should be punished in some form — fell flat with his desired audience .
But he recognized that he could gain their support by putting the Supreme Court at the center of his campaign .
The promise made to social conservatives by Trump and the Republican Party was clear : Vote for us and we ’ ll use our power to put in place conservative judges who will issue conservative decisions on the issues that matter most to you .
As Michael Wear wrote in the Washington Post earlier @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump offered little in the way of concrete policy commitments , but he did promise social conservatives rock-solid judges and the protection of religious freedom , which would surely be eroded , he claimed , if Hillary Clinton became president.
” Trump has largely fulfilled his promise , appointing conservative jurists to federal courts at every level , as my colleague Ian Millhiser has detailed .
And it ’ s worth noting that the choice of Gorsuch for the Supreme Court was widely feted by social conservatives in 2017 .
In a piece @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Walker , an associate professor of Christian ethics and apologetics at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary , wrote that social conservatives should celebrate Gorsuch ’ s nomination given his “ textualist and originalist interpretations of the Constitution ” and support from prominent conservative legal thinkers like professor Robert George .
But in Bostock , that promise was seemingly broken .
A conservative judge wielded a conservative view of the Constitution to rule that discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity was illegal discrimination based on sex .
Walker sounded significantly less enthusiastic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Bostock decision : “ The argument that social conservatives like myself made in 2017 was significantly weakened after the Bostock ruling , ” he said .
“ It does not negate the entire argument about Justice Gorsuch ’ s conservative credentials .
Still , it certainly blunts the forcefulness of the argument , and the overall enthusiasm social conservatives once had for Justice Gorsuch.
” Missouri Sen. Josh Hawley , who argues that conservatives should wield the power of the government to uphold conservative norms and ideas , echoed the same message : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who wrote it , represents the end of something , ” he said in a floor speech on June 16 .
“ It represents the end of the conservative legal movement , or the conservative legal project , as we know it .
After Bostock , that effort , as it has existed up to now , is over.
” Hawley ’ s ire about the decision wasn ’ t limited to the ruling , but pointed to the unspoken agreement social conservative voters had with the Republican Party : “ The bargain @ @ @ @ @ @ @ party establishment , you support their policies and priorities — or at least keep your mouth shut about it — and , in return , the establishment will put some judges on the bench who supposedly will protect your constitutional rights to freedom of worship , to freedom of exercise , ” he said .
“ That ’ s what we ’ ve been told for years now.
” He added , “ And if those are the things that we ’ ve been fighting for — it ’ s what I thought @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of us who call ourselves legal conservatives — if — if we ’ ve been fighting for originalism and textualism , and this is the result of that , then I have to say it turns out we haven ’ t been fighting for very much .
Or maybe we ’ ve been fighting for quite a lot , but it ’ s been exactly the opposite of what we thought we were fighting for.
” Other prominent social conservatives agreed .
Rod Dreher , a writer at the American Conservative , told @ @ @ @ @ @ @ does lay bare how useless the bargain has been.
” “ The GOP gives social conservatives little or nothing legislatively , and hasn ’ t for a very long time , ” he said .
“ True , they have blocked some bad things over the years .
That ’ s not nothing .
But I think we ’ ve always known that judges are the real deal here.
” “ Every institution — the media , academia , corporations , and others — are against us on gay and transgender rights , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ only hope we had was that federal judges would protect the status quo .
Now that ’ s gone.
” Social conservatives have been very successful at the state level , but many of those successes — abortion restrictions , for example — have been struck down by federal courts , like the case at the center of June Medical .
And more worrying for social conservatives : Some of the most important decisions on LGBTQ rights — Lawrence ( which ruled that laws barring private homosexual activity were unconstitutional ) , Windsor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Act ) , Obergefell ( which found that the right to marry was guaranteed by the Constitution ) , and now Bostock — were written by Republican Supreme Court appointees .
“ Social conservatives thought that having seen Anthony Kennedy — the author of Lawrence , Windsor , and Obergefell — off , things might finally change , ” Dreher said .
“ Now we know we were fools .
“ The month of June ought to have made the scales fall from the eyes of religious conservatives .
We have been the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Other prominent commentators agreed : “ Social conservatives have been treated like a client for whom the patron doesn ’ t actually have to deliver any goodies , ” New York Post op-ed editor Sohrab Ahmari told me .
“ That ’ s not how that relationship is supposed to work.
” At the top echelons of the party , Republicans have been far more effective at the economic side of their coalition ’ s agenda than the social conservative side .
“ The ‘ effective ’ options for social conservatives are limited @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and public opinion , ” Peter Spiliakos , a writer for the Christian magazine First Things , told me .
“ Those aren ’ t the only constraints , but there is no basis for remaking a majority Republican coalition based primarily on unpopular social conservative asks.
” The result has been that Republican presidential candidates make promises to get social conservatives to the voting booths , such as the Bush-era proposed constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage , that later do not materialize .
Dreher told me it was in part due @ @ @ @ @ @ @ caused him to change his voter registration from Republican to independent .
“ Team Bush got out the vote the year before in large part by stoking turnout from social conservatives afraid of court-imposed gay marriage , ” he said .
“ And then when Bush won his second term , he had a chance to repay voters by backing the Federal Marriage Amendment , which would have constitutionalized traditional marriage .
“ So what happened ?
Bush came out and gave a tepid , pro forma endorsement of the amendment , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Senate .
Bush wasn ’ t going to spend any political capital on the issue , and neither were the Republicans.
” In 2004 , a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage was divisive with voters , making the chances of an amendment to the Constitution ( which requires ratification by three-fourths of the states ) likely impossible .
But it made for good election fodder .
Many social conservatives run successful elections leaning on culture war issues .
But once elected , they ’ ve focused on passing new and more tax cuts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ culture ” and the radical left , well aware that actually taking action on purported culture war priorities — banning pornography , for example — would be politically costly .
It ’ s easier to focus on tax cuts and let litigators handle cultural issues at the judicial level .
As conservative writer David French put it in the Dispatch : But the agenda that has been delivered isn ’ t necessarily reflective of Republican voters ’ preferences — particularly populist voters who are more economically liberal than the Republicans they vote for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ only part of the Republican bargain that may be beginning to collapse , as many social conservatives view the future as one where their views will be pushed from the public square altogether .
For decades , the conservative movement focused on fusionism — “ free market ” principles and libertarian ideas — in the larger fight against communism .
But in recent years , many conservatives , particularly social conservatives opposed to the “ business wing ” of the GOP , have called for abandoning that approach to shape not just a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one .
In the absence of powerful religious institutions , they argue , government has — or should have — a role in promoting the public good .
“ Social conservatives can , and will , rally around a vision that is less overtly focused on the maximization of individual liberty and freedom as normative goals by themselves , and is more focused on using the levers of government to enhance virtue , order , family formation , reshored supply chains , and the common good of the citizenry , ” Hammer told @ @ @ @ @ @ @ meant by the common good , he directed me to this article he wrote in which he argued that a common-good conservatism would be against “ hyper-literalist free speech absolutism ” and support an idea of “ natural law ” that would reject “ natural law-subversive , individual autonomy-maximizing cases like Lawrence v. Texas and Obergefell v. Hodges.
” He quotes Aristotle in saying “ a state exists for the sake of a good life , and not for the sake of life only.
” Conservatives and populists argue this sentiment hasn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ Rank-and-file conservatives don ’ t think their leaders have protected them , ” one prominent conservative television personality told me .
“ They ’ re right .
That ’ s death.
” “ I think the word “ conservative ” has come to mean too many things that are incompatible , ” Hezekiah Kantor , a pseudonymous writer for the conservative outlet American Greatness , told me , explaining : “ Does ‘ conservative ’ mean not exercising the raw political power to end abortion on demand , internet pornography , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what it means , then yes , many social conservatives feel estranged.
” “ Things could fall apart very quickly ” The loyalty many social conservatives have for the Republican Party is , for some , a matter of necessity .
As Michael Brendan Dougherty told me , “ So long as Democrats promise social conservatives 40 lashes , Republicans can win while only delivering 30 or so.
” Many social conservatives didn ’ t support Trump initially ( Sen. Cruz was a first choice ) .
And Trump as a vehicle for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of social conservatives was always , as Kantor told me , a “ Hail Mary ” of sorts , a last-gasp attempt to prevent what Kantor saw as a future of “ persecution and marginalization ” for social conservatives .
Trump wasn ’ t from the conservative movement , but some social conservatives believed it would take a Trumpian figure — uncouth and unbound by convention — to take on an increasingly aggressive left , one the Federalist ’ s Ben Domenech said in 2019 were “ culture war white walkers , bent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ American Christians hold dear.
” But Dreher told me , “ Donald Trump ran like Pat Buchanan but he ’ s mostly governed like Paul Ryan.
” And perhaps more concerningly for the future of social conservatism , Trump gave voice to a notion of conservatism largely untethered to any tradition , one the Week ’ s Matthew Walther said was “ libertarian , if not libertine.
” For example , in response to an American Conservative article decrying the subscription-based pornography website OnlyFans , porn actress Brandi Love wrote in the Federalist @ @ @ @ @ @ @ important part of the conservative coalition : A Republican Party that would cater to the votes of Brandi Love and her fans would be unlikely to regulate and ultimately ban pornography as many social conservatives would like .
But a Republican Party that would cater to social conservatives — a driving force for the party on issues like abortion , particularly at the state level — would never get the votes of someone like Brandi Love , or her fan base .
And as Walther argued , those voters represent a large swath @ @ @ @ @ @ @ millions of Republican votes .
Rather than choose between the two opposing forces , the power base of the Republican Party has decided to largely throw in the towel , and hope that tax cuts and judicial appointments will do .
But it won ’ t .
And the risk for Republicans isn ’ t that social conservatives will vote for Democrats — it ’ s that they won ’ t vote at all .
Dougherty told me that Bostock represented a turning point for social conservatives .
“ There will have to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ approach politics , likely with an emphasis on realpolitik and the long term .
Playing rearguard defense in every election has been a way of losing the more important fights in education and the culture.
” And it ’ s those cultural losses that many social conservatives believe are piling up and putting their views at risk : Kantor told me he was concerned the left would ultimately “ force social conservatives to choose between their vocations and their faith or to make compromises to live underground.
” But the strongest sentiment I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was that many feel used by the GOP : used for their votes , used for their voices , used to get Republicans into positions of power where they would never do what they said they would .
“ The demoralization of social conservatives is profound , ” Dreher told me .
He said that , to be fair , he ’ d felt that way for years , since the failure of that constitutional amendment to bar same-sex marriage back in the mid-2000s .
But he told me , “ I really @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would be reliable on judges , because that was a way of supporting social conservatives without taking political risks .
I was wrong about that too .
I have no illusions left to lose.
” “ The point is that we can ’ t count on Republicans at all .
We really are on our own.
” Every day at Vox , we aim to answer your most important questions and provide you , and our audience around the world , with information that has the power to save lives .
Our mission @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
Vox ’ s work is reaching more people than ever , but our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources — particularly during a pandemic and an economic downturn .
Your financial contribution will not constitute a donation , but it will enable our staff to continue to offer free articles , videos , and podcasts at the quality and volume that this moment requires .
Please consider making a contribution to Vox today .

What is the purpose of the Republican Party?
That’s a question some social conservatives have been asking following the Supreme Court’s ruling on June 15 in Bostock v. Clayton County, a major Supreme Court decision holding that federal law prohibits employment discrimination against LGBTQ workers — a decision written by Trump-appointed Justice Neil Gorsuch.
Monday’s decision in June Medical Services LLC v. Russo, which found that a law requiring abortion providers to obtain hospital admitting privileges was unconstitutional, has only intensified that debate.
Both cases gave the Supreme Court the opportunity to prove to social conservatives that their faith in the Court — or, more accurately, in President Trump’s judicial nominations — was justified. Both cases saw those hopes dashed.
The promise the Republican Party makes to rank-and-file social conservatives and leaders of major conservative organizations — one Trump made in 2016, and again in 2020 — is transactional: If you vote for Republican presidents, and elect Republicans to Congress, they will put in place conservative judges who adhere to an “originalist” view of the Constitution and will deliver conservative rulings on some of the most important aspects of American life.
In 2016, Trump promised to put judges on the Supreme Court who would overturn the 1973 landmark abortion decision Roe v. Wade, and said he would choose conservative judges chosen from a list compiled in part by the Heritage Foundation.
That election-year announcement was made in response to then-presidential candidate Sen. Ted Cruz, who said in February 2016 that Trump would put his sister, Maryanne Trump Barry, on the Court, calling her a “hardcore pro-abortion liberal judge.” The message was clear: Putting conservative jurists on the Supreme Court was a top-level political priority.
This bargain helped put Trump in office in 2016: One poll from the Washington Post found 26 percent of Trump voters said the Supreme Court was the basis of their decision.
To be clear, the Trump Supreme Court has delivered victories to socially conservative Republicans — for example, a 2018 decision maintaining that crisis pregnancy centers do not need to provide information about abortion, and a decision Tuesday finding that religious schools cannot be excluded from a state program offering scholarships to private schools.
But this year’s Supreme Court term is shaking the terms of that bargain. One conservative writer told me in response, “The only way to make sense of the Supreme Court’s abortion jurisprudence is to assume it is guided by one principle: ‘Pro-lifers must lose.’”
Among some prominent social conservatives, discontent is starting to boil over. As a conservative writer and editor told me, some social conservatives are asking, “So what is the GOP actually good for, other than boring tax cuts?”
Social conservatives aren’t likely to begin voting for Democrats. But the discontent indicates a shift within the conservative movement.
The Republican Party hasn’t been immune to the societal shift on LGBTQ rights (although opinions on abortion tend to be more stable). As the party has changed, many social conservatives feel increasingly isolated on cultural and social issues — even from other conservatives. Now even judges handpicked by the conservative Federalist Society, appointed by Republican presidents who won elections on the promise of conservative jurists, have disappointed them.
Trump is again running for the White House in part on the issue of getting conservative jurists on the Supreme Court — he has repeatedly spoken about his hopes for a vacancy.
But some social conservatives are wondering: What’s the point?
“We have been the Republican Party’s useful idiots”
A number of prominent social conservatives, from the executive director of a conservative political action committee to independent writers and thinkers, have complained that the GOP makes social conservatives feel, as one writer told me, “isolated and estranged in our country.”
Social conservatism, as a part of the conservative movement, embraces a specific interpretation of “traditional values” in social issues — from abortion to LGBTQ issues to matters of religious liberty — that they feel need preservation in the face of societal change.
They see their beliefs as a necessary bulwark against the evils of modern society. Josh Hammer, an opinion editor at Newsweek, told me that social conservatism emphasizes the “religious and moral traditions that alone can anchor societies in truth and forestall the seductive allure of the day’s fashionable vagaries.”
Michael Brendan Dougherty, a writer for National Review, also defined social conservatism partly in religious terms: “Social conservatism is the political defense of institutions we deem necessary for the moral and spiritual formation of individuals, institutions that facilitate civil society and good government. Fallen humanity needs these institutions as aids to live together peacefully, tolerably, and well.”
Leaders of the Republican Party recognized decades ago that white social conservatives could make reliable GOP voters, making them integral not just to the Republican Party but to movement conservatism — the effort to put conservative ideas into political action.
As Rush Limbaugh said in February 2008, “The three stools or the three legs of the [Republican] stool are national security/foreign policy, the social conservatives, and the fiscal conservatives.”
Trump was not, and is not, a social conservative, and many of his 2016 attempts to speak the language of social conservatism — for example, saying during a March 2016 town hall that women who have abortions should be punished in some form — fell flat with his desired audience. But he recognized that he could gain their support by putting the Supreme Court at the center of his campaign.
The promise made to social conservatives by Trump and the Republican Party was clear: Vote for us and we’ll use our power to put in place conservative judges who will issue conservative decisions on the issues that matter most to you.
As Michael Wear wrote in the Washington Post earlier this month, “In 2016, Trump offered little in the way of concrete policy commitments, but he did promise social conservatives rock-solid judges and the protection of religious freedom, which would surely be eroded, he claimed, if Hillary Clinton became president.”
Trump has largely fulfilled his promise, appointing conservative jurists to federal courts at every level, as my colleague Ian Millhiser has detailed. And it’s worth noting that the choice of Gorsuch for the Supreme Court was widely feted by social conservatives in 2017.
In a piece for the Federalist that January, Andrew Walker, an associate professor of Christian ethics and apologetics at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, wrote that social conservatives should celebrate Gorsuch’s nomination given his “textualist and originalist interpretations of the Constitution” and support from prominent conservative legal thinkers like professor Robert George.
But in Bostock, that promise was seemingly broken. A conservative judge interpreted Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to mean that discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity was illegal discrimination based on sex.
Walker sounded significantly less enthusiastic about Gorsuch in the wake of the Bostock decision: “The argument that social conservatives like myself made in 2017 was significantly weakened after the Bostock ruling,” he said. “It does not negate the entire argument about Justice Gorsuch’s conservative credentials. Still, it certainly blunts the forcefulness of the argument, and the overall enthusiasm social conservatives once had for Justice Gorsuch.”
Missouri Sen. Josh Hawley, who argues that conservatives should wield the power of the government to uphold conservative norms and ideas, echoed the same message: “This decision, and the majority who wrote it, represents the end of something,” he said in a floor speech on June 16. “It represents the end of the conservative legal movement, or the conservative legal project, as we know it. After Bostock, that effort, as it has existed up to now, is over.”
Hawley’s ire about the decision wasn’t limited to the ruling, but pointed to the unspoken agreement social conservative voters had with the Republican Party: “The bargain is that you go along with the party establishment, you support their policies and priorities — or at least keep your mouth shut about it — and, in return, the establishment will put some judges on the bench who supposedly will protect your constitutional rights to freedom of worship, to freedom of exercise,” he said. “That’s what we’ve been told for years now.”
He added, “And if those are the things that we’ve been fighting for — it’s what I thought we had been fighting for, those of us who call ourselves legal conservatives — if — if we’ve been fighting for originalism and textualism, and this is the result of that, then I have to say it turns out we haven’t been fighting for very much. Or maybe we’ve been fighting for quite a lot, but it’s been exactly the opposite of what we thought we were fighting for.”
Other prominent social conservatives agreed. Rod Dreher, a writer at the American Conservative, told me the ruling in Bostock “really does lay bare how useless the bargain has been.”
“The GOP gives social conservatives little or nothing legislatively, and hasn’t for a very long time,” he said. “True, they have blocked some bad things over the years. That’s not nothing. But I think we’ve always known that judges are the real deal here.”
“Every institution — the media, academia, corporations, and others — are against us on gay and transgender rights, and GOP lawmakers are gutless. The only hope we had was that federal judges would protect the status quo. Now that’s gone.”
Social conservatives have been very successful at the state level, but many of those successes — abortion restrictions, for example — have been struck down by federal courts, like the case at the center of June Medical. And more worrying for social conservatives: Some of the most important decisions on LGBTQ rights — Lawrence (which ruled that laws barring private homosexual activity were unconstitutional), Windsor (which invalidated the Defense of Marriage Act), Obergefell (which found that the right to marry was guaranteed by the Constitution), and now Bostock — were written by Republican Supreme Court appointees.
“Social conservatives thought that having seen Anthony Kennedy — the author of Lawrence, Windsor, and Obergefell — off, things might finally change,” Dreher said. “Now we know we were fools.
“The month of June ought to have made the scales fall from the eyes of religious conservatives. We have been the Republican Party’s useful idiots.”
Other prominent commentators agreed: “Social conservatives have been treated like a client for whom the patron doesn’t actually have to deliver any goodies,” New York Post op-ed editor Sohrab Ahmari told me. “That’s not how that relationship is supposed to work.”
Social conservatives see Republicans winning on economic issues
At the top echelons of the party, Republicans have been far more effective at the economic side of their coalition’s agenda than the social conservative side.
“The ‘effective’ options for social conservatives are limited by the terms of their potential partners and public opinion,” Peter Spiliakos, a writer for the Christian magazine First Things, told me. “Those aren’t the only constraints, but there is no basis for remaking a majority Republican coalition based primarily on unpopular social conservative asks.”
The result has been that Republican presidential candidates make promises to get social conservatives to the voting booths, such as the Bush-era proposed constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage, that later do not materialize.
Dreher told me it was in part due to that experience back in 2004 that caused him to change his voter registration from Republican to independent. “Team Bush got out the vote the year before in large part by stoking turnout from social conservatives afraid of court-imposed gay marriage,” he said. “And then when Bush won his second term, he had a chance to repay voters by backing the Federal Marriage Amendment, which would have constitutionalized traditional marriage.
“So what happened? Bush came out and gave a tepid, pro forma endorsement of the amendment, and it never made it out of the Senate. Bush wasn’t going to spend any political capital on the issue, and neither were the Republicans.”
In 2004, a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage was divisive with voters, making the chances of an amendment to the Constitution (which requires ratification by three-fourths of the states) likely impossible. But it made for good election fodder.
Many social conservatives run successful elections leaning on culture war issues. But once elected, they’ve focused on passing new and more tax cuts while making loud noises about “cancel culture” and the radical left, well aware that actually taking action on purported culture war priorities — banning pornography, for example — would be politically costly. It’s easier to focus on tax cuts and let litigators handle cultural issues at the judicial level.
As conservative writer David French put it in the Dispatch:
Why would an enterprising member of Congress take on the very heavy lift of attempting to shepherd controversial free speech legislation through the House or Senate when he or she knew that the matter was pending before the courts?
But the agenda that has been delivered isn’t necessarily reflective of Republican voters’ preferences — particularly populist voters who are more economically liberal than the Republicans they vote for. And this isn’t the only part of the Republican bargain that may be beginning to collapse, as many social conservatives view the future as one where their views will be pushed from the public square altogether.
For decades, the conservative movement focused on fusionism — “free market” principles and libertarian ideas — in the larger fight against communism. But in recent years, many conservatives, particularly social conservatives opposed to the “business wing” of the GOP, have called for abandoning that approach to shape not just a wealthier America, but a morally better one. In the absence of powerful religious institutions, they argue, government has — or should have — a role in promoting the public good.
“Social conservatives can, and will, rally around a vision that is less overtly focused on the maximization of individual liberty and freedom as normative goals by themselves, and is more focused on using the levers of government to enhance virtue, order, family formation, reshored supply chains, and the common good of the citizenry,” Hammer told me.
When I asked what he meant by the common good, he directed me to this article he wrote in which he argued that a common-good conservatism would be against “hyper-literalist free speech absolutism” and support an idea of “natural law” that would reject “natural law-subversive, individual autonomy-maximizing cases like Lawrence v. Texas and Obergefell v. Hodges.” He quotes Aristotle in saying “a state exists for the sake of a good life, and not for the sake of life only.”
Conservatives and populists argue this sentiment hasn’t made it to Republican leadership. “Rank-and-file conservatives don’t think their leaders have protected them,” one prominent conservative television personality told me. “They’re right. That’s death.”
“I think the word “conservative” has come to mean too many things that are incompatible,” Hezekiah Kantor, a pseudonymous writer for the conservative outlet American Greatness, told me, explaining: “Does ‘conservative’ mean not exercising the raw political power to end abortion on demand, internet pornography, and legalizing heroin? If that’s what it means, then yes, many social conservatives feel estranged.”
“Things could fall apart very quickly”
The loyalty many social conservatives have for the Republican Party is, for some, a matter of necessity.
As Michael Brendan Dougherty told me, “So long as Democrats promise social conservatives 40 lashes, Republicans can win while only delivering 30 or so.”
Many social conservatives didn’t support Trump initially (Sen. Cruz was a first choice). And Trump as a vehicle for the political and social hopes and desires of social conservatives was always, as Kantor told me, a “Hail Mary” of sorts, a last-gasp attempt to prevent what Kantor saw as a future of “persecution and marginalization” for social conservatives.
Trump wasn’t from the conservative movement, but some social conservatives believed it would take a Trumpian figure — uncouth and unbound by convention — to take on an increasingly aggressive left, one the Federalist’s Ben Domenech said in 2019 were “culture war white walkers, bent on utter and total destruction of everything American Christians hold dear.” But Dreher told me, “Donald Trump ran like Pat Buchanan but he’s mostly governed like Paul Ryan.”
Gorsuch is another example proving my point that, all the bluster and tweeting aside, Trump has for the most part governed like any other establishment squish Republican. He gave us tax cuts, Gorsuch, and a little bit of fencing on the border. Wow what a victory. — Matt Walsh (@MattWalshBlog) June 15, 2020
And perhaps more concerningly for the future of social conservatism, Trump gave voice to a notion of conservatism largely untethered to any tradition, one the Week’s Matthew Walther said was “libertarian, if not libertine.” For example, in response to an American Conservative article decrying the subscription-based pornography website OnlyFans, porn actress Brandi Love wrote in the Federalist that she and her fans represent an important part of the conservative coalition:
I am both a conservative and a Christian. I am not, however, a zealot. I have travelled all over the United States meeting fans for more than 15 years. There are millions. My fan base is now, and has always been, what I like to refer to as Sex, Drink, and Rock ‘n Roll conservatives... We love God and our flag but generally dislike organized religion. We like to hang out on the deck drinking a beer, talking sports, listening to country, rock, and rap while using colorful words to describe Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, and Anthony Fauci. So when a conservative publication runs an article wishing for an Islamic caliphate because of OnlyFans and its people, it’s a slap in the face to this significant segment of population that votes Republican. It pushes us further away from Christian political conservatism.
A Republican Party that would cater to the votes of Brandi Love and her fans would be unlikely to regulate and ultimately ban pornography as many social conservatives would like. But a Republican Party that would cater to social conservatives — a driving force for the party on issues like abortion, particularly at the state level — would never get the votes of someone like Brandi Love, or her fan base. And as Walther argued, those voters represent a large swath of Trump’s base, and millions of Republican votes.
Rather than choose between the two opposing forces, the power base of the Republican Party has decided to largely throw in the towel, and hope that tax cuts and judicial appointments will do. But it won’t. And the risk for Republicans isn’t that social conservatives will vote for Democrats — it’s that they won’t vote at all.
Dougherty told me that Bostock represented a turning point for social conservatives. “There will have to be a rethinking of how social conservatives approach politics, likely with an emphasis on realpolitik and the long term. Playing rearguard defense in every election has been a way of losing the more important fights in education and the culture.”
And it’s those cultural losses that many social conservatives believe are piling up and putting their views at risk: Kantor told me he was concerned the left would ultimately “force social conservatives to choose between their vocations and their faith or to make compromises to live underground.”
But the strongest sentiment I got from my conversations with social conservatives was that many feel used by the GOP: used for their votes, used for their voices, used to get Republicans into positions of power where they would never do what they said they would.
“The demoralization of social conservatives is profound,” Dreher told me. He said that, to be fair, he’d felt that way for years, since the failure of that constitutional amendment to bar same-sex marriage back in the mid-2000s.
But he told me, “I really did think that at least the Republicans would be reliable on judges, because that was a way of supporting social conservatives without taking political risks. I was wrong about that too. I have no illusions left to lose.”
“The point is that we can’t count on Republicans at all. We really are on our own.”


vox--2020-07-01--Yes, you can travel this summer. But should you?

There was a brief period from about late March to mid-May , during the first spike in coronavirus cases in the US , when domestic air travel virtually ground to a halt .
Only about 100,000 people were traveling per day , compared to the pre-pandemic rate of more than 2 million daily travelers .
Some flyers were greeted with nearly empty planes .
Then , as states started to open up , the number of flyers began to rise significantly , averaging about 575,000 per day for the last week of June , with little sign of slowdown .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the traveling public who is ready to go , ” Spirit Airlines CEO Ted Christie told USA Today , as the budget carrier prepares to increase its daily flight offerings .
It ’ s likely a rash call to declare that people are “ ready to go ” anywhere , with more than 2.6 million coronavirus cases in the US as of June 30 .
After months of staying indoors , however , many Americans are growing restless .
A survey of more than 4,700 Americans from the Pew Research Center , taken @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that 40 percent of people believe the worst of the pandemic is over , up from 26 percent in early April .
Some are making summer travel plans — despite warnings from public health experts , who predicted it will be much harder to go back to lockdown the second time around .
Whether summer travel is safe or even feasible depends on a variety of factors : location , length of trip , transportation methods , and the number of people you encounter and are with during your vacation .
I ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s virtually no risk-free mode of transportation , whether you ’ re simply commuting to work or taking a short weekend trip .
Chances are , if you have to share a space with strangers in close proximity , there ’ s an increased likelihood of catching or transmitting the virus .
Still , with summer in full swing , people are inevitably going to travel .
What ’ s important is how they travel and whether they ’ ve considered options that can mitigate both personal and community risks .
So where @ @ @ @ @ @ @ federal government has refrained from declaring any domestic travel restrictions so far , which means Americans ( even those in places with rising Covid-19 cases ) are still able to move about and cross state borders .
Given how most states have at least partly reopened again , individual choice matters — especially when it comes to travel .
The US is witnessing an alarming surge in coronavirus cases , and it ’ s clear that certain states and regions have handled the outbreak more vigilantly than others .
Early hot spots like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are seeing either a plateau or a decline in Covid-19 cases with widespread testing available .
Meanwhile , states like Arizona , Florida , and Texas are starting to become overwhelmed and scrambling to accommodate a surge in patients .
Some states , like New York , New Jersey , and Connecticut , are starting to require visitors from certain hot spots to self-quarantine for 14 days , threatening to fine those caught flouting the rules .
Alaska also requires visitors from another state or country to self-quarantine for 14 days upon arrival @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The European Union , which plans to open its borders starting July 1 , is reportedly excluding travelers from countries like the US and Russia from traveling to the region , highlighting America ’ s inability to contain the virus .
And the Asia-Pacific region has begun establishing “ travel bubbles ” with select countries to offer limited travel without considering the US .
As a result , most Americans will probably be out of luck when it comes to planning international trips , likely until 2021 .
“ For years , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the most powerful in the world , ” said Annie Erling Gofus , founder of the travel consultancy Wunderbird .
“ Before the pandemic , there were very few places that we can ’ t go to or need visas to travel to , and all of a sudden , we ’ re essentially grounded and stuck at home.
” “ For years , the American passport has been one of the most powerful in the world ” Erling Gofus had ceased coordinating trips for most of her clients in late March , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reached out for help planning vacations to Europe in the fall .
While she said she was initially surprised at these requests , which primarily came from clients who lived in the Midwest , Erling Gofus told me she ’ s “ relatively confident ” Europe won ’ t reopen travel to American citizens until it ’ s safe to do so .
Domestic travel , she said , appears to be more concerning at the moment .
“ This summer , I suspect we ’ re going to see a lot of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to entice us to get back in the air , ” she said .
“ Obviously , US airlines have been hurting , but we ’ re still seeing an increase in Covid-19 cases nationwide.
” In late June , United and American Airlines announced that they will begin booking flights to full capacity in July , effectively ending any efforts at social distancing aboard its aircraft , even if passengers and crew are still required to wear masks .
( Delta is still blocking middle seats through September and reducing seat capacity @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) “ Airplanes don ’ t have social distancing … but an airplane environment is incredibly safe , ” said United CEO Scott Kirby in late May , when the airline was under scrutiny for not blocking some middle seats on its flights .
Although an aircraft ’ s ventilation might prevent droplets from spreading very far , additional measures , like wearing masks and reducing seat capacity to spread passengers apart , will further reduce the risk of transmission during a flight .
( On a subreddit specifically for flight attendants , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ required under airline policy , the crew are only “ informers , not enforcers ” when it comes to the rules .
Usually , the captain makes the final call of whether to keep a passenger on the plane . )
It ’ s true that empty middle seats on a plane likely won ’ t be enough to stop the coronavirus from spreading , but by filling a plane to 100 percent capacity , an airline will increase the likelihood that a sick person is on board .
TuAnh Dam , a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Journalism , was supposed to take a Southwest flight out of New York City to Houston , Texas , on June 29 .
She has plans to move to Houston for a post-grad internship , but after seeing the state ’ s surge in cases , she pushed her flight to July 10 .
While Southwest is continuing to limit the number of seats sold on each flight through July , Dam is still worried about getting on board .
“ I ’ m already scared and nervous to fly a flight that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ told me .
“ I wouldn ’ t fly a full flight right now .
There could be asymptomatic carriers , or people who might not care about the rules.
” It ’ s frustrating to survive a brief lockdown period in New York , she said , only to willingly travel to another one months later : “ I ’ m flying because I have to relocate for a job , but it worries me that people could be traveling for fun.
” Given the current state of the pandemic , Erling @ @ @ @ @ @ @ me she isn ’ t personally comfortable taking any domestic flights , although she has considered taking a short road trip somewhere nearby .
Americans generally appear to be most comfortable traveling by car , rather than by plane or train .
According to a survey by MMGY Travel Intelligence , 67 percent of responders plan to travel by car during the next six months , and a third of this group are willing to drive 300 or more miles one way to reach their destination .
“ The instinct now , for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ destination , would be to get in your car and drive to different places , ” Gofus said .
However , she urges people to consider the length of their trip , the number of pit stops they take , and potential activities that could expose them to other travelers , even something as simple as using the bathroom .
“ My family is from North Dakota , and driving there would require me to make frequent stops at gas stations and use bathrooms with questionable cleanliness , ” she said .
For @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it ’ s important to research ahead of time or inquire about specific policies , such as whether a hotel will have decreased occupancy or a longer vacancy period between guest departures .
“ People probably need to do some homework beforehand to ensure they ’ re going to places that are complying with basic public health recommendations , ” said Alan Katz , a professor of epidemiology at the University of Hawaii .
Most hotels and Airbnbs have implemented coronavirus safety policies by setting higher standards for cleanliness and introducing new cleaning @ @ @ @ @ @ @ For example , Airbnb is introducing a new cleaning protocol that will inform guests if their hosts are abiding by that process ; if not , there is an option for hosts to have a 72-hour booking buffer between guests to reduce the risk of exposure to the virus , which could linger on surfaces for up to three days .
Many hotels and short-term rentals are taking safety precautions to reduce interactions between visitors and staff through measures like contactless check-ins .
Regardless , you should continue to wear a mask and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ your social bubble , Katz said .
This is for not just your own well-being but that of everyone you encounter , including hotel workers .
Some hospitality workers are speaking out and even suing their employers for not enacting significant protections .
Recently , the unions representing Las Vegas casino workers filed suit against resort operators , alleging that the companies ’ policies have endangered employees .
Workers in Los Angeles are also worried about the sudden reopening of hotels in the county , which reportedly provided the companies less than 24 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
John Marroni of National Restoration , a disaster recovery company that works with hotels , told Business Insider that guests can figure out if a hotel room has been properly cleaned by checking certain areas , like the bathroom or heating vents , to make sure they ’ re free of dust and dirt .
“ [ Hotels ] should each have some kind of certificate that indicates the place has been disinfected , ” he added .
While a person could technically catch Covid-19 by touching an infected object , Katz @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a major route of transmission.
” The most important thing to keep in mind wherever you ’ re heading , he said , is close proximity to others .
“ People are no longer as focused on simple behaviors that can really have dramatic impacts on mitigating transmission , ” he said .
“ Even here in Hawaii , we ’ ve seen people not being as diligent as they should be , and when you start bringing in more people from other locales , that could be very dangerous.
” It ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the tourism industry — are eager to bounce back and resume planning vacations and trips after a months-long hiatus .
Still , the focus should be on risk mitigation .
Think about where you ’ re going to eat , whom you ’ ll encounter , and whether those interactions can be minimized .
“ Travel may reopen , but we ’ ll see whether airlines will be able to pack planes or have full bookings at resorts , ” Katz said .
“ I would hope people are still concerned and thinking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Vox , we aim to answer your most important questions and provide you , and our audience around the world , with information that has the power to save lives .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
Vox ’ s work is reaching more people than ever , but our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources — particularly during a pandemic and an economic downturn .
Your financial contribution will not constitute a donation , but it will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ free articles , videos , and podcasts at the quality and volume that this moment requires .
Please consider making a contribution to Vox today .

There was a brief period from about late March to mid-May, during the first spike in coronavirus cases in the US, when domestic air travel virtually ground to a halt. Only about 100,000 people were traveling per day, compared to the pre-pandemic rate of more than 2 million daily travelers. Some flyers were greeted with nearly empty planes. Then, as states started to open up, the number of flyers began to rise significantly, averaging about 575,000 per day for the last week of June, with little sign of slowdown.
“There is clearly a segment of the traveling public who is ready to go,” Spirit Airlines CEO Ted Christie told USA Today, as the budget carrier prepares to increase its daily flight offerings. It’s likely a rash call to declare that people are “ready to go” anywhere, with more than 2.6 million coronavirus cases in the US as of June 30. After months of staying indoors, however, many Americans are growing restless.
A survey of more than 4,700 Americans from the Pew Research Center, taken from June 16 to 22, found that 40 percent of people believe the worst of the pandemic is over, up from 26 percent in early April. Some are making summer travel plans — despite warnings from public health experts, who predicted it will be much harder to go back to lockdown the second time around.
Whether summer travel is safe or even feasible depends on a variety of factors: location, length of trip, transportation methods, and the number of people you encounter and are with during your vacation. I’ve previously written about how there’s virtually no risk-free mode of transportation, whether you’re simply commuting to work or taking a short weekend trip. Chances are, if you have to share a space with strangers in close proximity, there’s an increased likelihood of catching or transmitting the virus. Still, with summer in full swing, people are inevitably going to travel. What’s important is how they travel and whether they’ve considered options that can mitigate both personal and community risks.
So where can you actually travel to? The federal government has refrained from declaring any domestic travel restrictions so far, which means Americans (even those in places with rising Covid-19 cases) are still able to move about and cross state borders. Given how most states have at least partly reopened again, individual choice matters — especially when it comes to travel. The US is witnessing an alarming surge in coronavirus cases, and it’s clear that certain states and regions have handled the outbreak more vigilantly than others. Early hot spots like New York, Maryland, and Massachusetts are seeing either a plateau or a decline in Covid-19 cases with widespread testing available. Meanwhile, states like Arizona, Florida, and Texas are starting to become overwhelmed and scrambling to accommodate a surge in patients.
Some states, like New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut, are starting to require visitors from certain hot spots to self-quarantine for 14 days, threatening to fine those caught flouting the rules. Alaska also requires visitors from another state or country to self-quarantine for 14 days upon arrival or take a test prior to arrival.
The European Union, which plans to open its borders starting July 1, is reportedly excluding travelers from countries like the US and Russia from traveling to the region, highlighting America’s inability to contain the virus. And the Asia-Pacific region has begun establishing “travel bubbles” with select countries to offer limited travel without considering the US. As a result, most Americans will probably be out of luck when it comes to planning international trips, likely until 2021.
“For years, the American passport has been one of the most powerful in the world,” said Annie Erling Gofus, founder of the travel consultancy Wunderbird. “Before the pandemic, there were very few places that we can’t go to or need visas to travel to, and all of a sudden, we’re essentially grounded and stuck at home.”
“For years, the American passport has been one of the most powerful in the world”
Erling Gofus had ceased coordinating trips for most of her clients in late March, although in recent weeks, several have reached out for help planning vacations to Europe in the fall. While she said she was initially surprised at these requests, which primarily came from clients who lived in the Midwest, Erling Gofus told me she’s “relatively confident” Europe won’t reopen travel to American citizens until it’s safe to do so. Domestic travel, she said, appears to be more concerning at the moment.
“This summer, I suspect we’re going to see a lot of good airfare deals domestically that are going to entice us to get back in the air,” she said. “Obviously, US airlines have been hurting, but we’re still seeing an increase in Covid-19 cases nationwide.”
In late June, United and American Airlines announced that they will begin booking flights to full capacity in July, effectively ending any efforts at social distancing aboard its aircraft, even if passengers and crew are still required to wear masks. (Delta is still blocking middle seats through September and reducing seat capacity by about 50 to 60 percent.)
“Airplanes don’t have social distancing … but an airplane environment is incredibly safe,” said United CEO Scott Kirby in late May, when the airline was under scrutiny for not blocking some middle seats on its flights.
Although an aircraft’s ventilation might prevent droplets from spreading very far, additional measures, like wearing masks and reducing seat capacity to spread passengers apart, will further reduce the risk of transmission during a flight. (On a subreddit specifically for flight attendants, some have said that although masks are required under airline policy, the crew are only “informers, not enforcers” when it comes to the rules. Usually, the captain makes the final call of whether to keep a passenger on the plane.)
It’s true that empty middle seats on a plane likely won’t be enough to stop the coronavirus from spreading, but by filling a plane to 100 percent capacity, an airline will increase the likelihood that a sick person is on board.
TuAnh Dam, a recent graduate of the Columbia School of Journalism, was supposed to take a Southwest flight out of New York City to Houston, Texas, on June 29. She has plans to move to Houston for a post-grad internship, but after seeing the state’s surge in cases, she pushed her flight to July 10. While Southwest is continuing to limit the number of seats sold on each flight through July, Dam is still worried about getting on board.
“I’m already scared and nervous to fly a flight that isn’t capacity,” she told me. “I wouldn’t fly a full flight right now. There could be asymptomatic carriers, or people who might not care about the rules.” It’s frustrating to survive a brief lockdown period in New York, she said, only to willingly travel to another one months later: “I’m flying because I have to relocate for a job, but it worries me that people could be traveling for fun.”
Given the current state of the pandemic, Erling Gofus, the travel consultant, told me she isn’t personally comfortable taking any domestic flights, although she has considered taking a short road trip somewhere nearby. Americans generally appear to be most comfortable traveling by car, rather than by plane or train. According to a survey by MMGY Travel Intelligence, 67 percent of responders plan to travel by car during the next six months, and a third of this group are willing to drive 300 or more miles one way to reach their destination.
“The instinct now, for people who would typically fly to their destination, would be to get in your car and drive to different places,” Gofus said. However, she urges people to consider the length of their trip, the number of pit stops they take, and potential activities that could expose them to other travelers, even something as simple as using the bathroom. “My family is from North Dakota, and driving there would require me to make frequent stops at gas stations and use bathrooms with questionable cleanliness,” she said.
For those on the road this summer, it’s important to research ahead of time or inquire about specific policies, such as whether a hotel will have decreased occupancy or a longer vacancy period between guest departures. “People probably need to do some homework beforehand to ensure they’re going to places that are complying with basic public health recommendations,” said Alan Katz, a professor of epidemiology at the University of Hawaii.
Most hotels and Airbnbs have implemented coronavirus safety policies by setting higher standards for cleanliness and introducing new cleaning technologies, like electrostatic disinfectant sprayers. For example, Airbnb is introducing a new cleaning protocol that will inform guests if their hosts are abiding by that process; if not, there is an option for hosts to have a 72-hour booking buffer between guests to reduce the risk of exposure to the virus, which could linger on surfaces for up to three days.
Many hotels and short-term rentals are taking safety precautions to reduce interactions between visitors and staff through measures like contactless check-ins. Regardless, you should continue to wear a mask and try to interact only with those in your social bubble, Katz said. This is for not just your own well-being but that of everyone you encounter, including hotel workers.
Some hospitality workers are speaking out and even suing their employers for not enacting significant protections. Recently, the unions representing Las Vegas casino workers filed suit against resort operators, alleging that the companies’ policies have endangered employees. Workers in Los Angeles are also worried about the sudden reopening of hotels in the county, which reportedly provided the companies less than 24 hours to train staff on health protocols.
John Marroni of National Restoration, a disaster recovery company that works with hotels, told Business Insider that guests can figure out if a hotel room has been properly cleaned by checking certain areas, like the bathroom or heating vents, to make sure they’re free of dust and dirt. “[Hotels] should each have some kind of certificate that indicates the place has been disinfected,” he added.
While a person could technically catch Covid-19 by touching an infected object, Katz told me “that’s not a major route of transmission.” The most important thing to keep in mind wherever you’re heading, he said, is close proximity to others. “People are no longer as focused on simple behaviors that can really have dramatic impacts on mitigating transmission,” he said. “Even here in Hawaii, we’ve seen people not being as diligent as they should be, and when you start bringing in more people from other locales, that could be very dangerous.”
(Hawaii, which has largely managed to suppress the spread of the coronavirus, is planning to reopen its tourism industry to out-of-state travelers starting August 1. However, the state government is still finalizing the details of the plan, which could include a test-based approach for visitors, much like Alaska.)
It’s understandable that travelers — and certainly the tourism industry — are eager to bounce back and resume planning vacations and trips after a months-long hiatus. Still, the focus should be on risk mitigation. Think about where you’re going to eat, whom you’ll encounter, and whether those interactions can be minimized. “Travel may reopen, but we’ll see whether airlines will be able to pack planes or have full bookings at resorts,” Katz said. “I would hope people are still concerned and thinking about the risks.”


vox--2020-07-01--Beauty companies are changing skin-whitening products. But the damage of colorism runs deeper.

Growing up in Mumbai , India , Seema Hari was used to being ridiculed and bullied for having darker skin than most people .
When she was about 7 years old , moms would warn their kids not to play with her on the playground .
People called her “ kali kaluti , ” an Indian derogatory slur for being dark-skinned , or a “ bhangi , ” which means a scavenger member of the lowest untouchable castes .
She was also used to her relatives berating her parents for not taking measures to lighten her skin , and telling @ @ @ @ @ @ @ marry her .
“ I knew very early on that something was wrong with me , because of how people addressed me and my dark skin , ” Hari , who is now an engineer , model , and anti-colorism activist , told Vox .
While her parents never pressured her to use skin-lightening products , the constant discrimination from other people traumatized her to the point that she became depressed and suicidal .
“ I didn ’ t have a lot of friends .
I always thought I was defective or something @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for having darker skin.
” Colorism — a form of prejudice that places a higher value on people with lighter color skin — differs from racism because discrimination commonly occurs within , rather than between , racial groups .
Historically , darker skin has been deemed undesirable and equated with being poor in many cultures due to Western colonialism and exposure to Eurocentric wealth and beauty .
As a result , the beauty industry has long played into these insecurities for profit , perpetuating the cultural cycle .
However , as the world @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the police killings of George Floyd , Breonna Taylor , and other Black people , a slate of companies unveiled major changes to address the longstanding controversy of selling and marketing skin-whitening products in Asian , African , and Middle Eastern countries .
Johnson & Johnson announced this month it will halt selling certain Neutrogena and Clean & Clear product lines in Asia that were promoted as dark spot reducers and skin whiteners .
Unilever followed suit , announcing it will revamp certain terms and names of skin-lightening products , especially its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ prominent in India .
Similarly , the cosmetics giant L ’ Oréal — whose Garnier product line in South Asia was widely advertised to whiten skin — announced this weekend it will remove the words “ white , ” “ fairness , ” and “ light ” from its products .
While the announcements come as pressure mounts for companies to address any perpetuation of anti-Blackness and racism , South Asian activists , including Hari , have been sounding the alarm on the issue of colorism for decades .
Hari explained that colorism @ @ @ @ @ @ @ happens within an ethnic group , meaning “ the people close to you may also harbor the same prejudices against you as a darker-skinned person.
” Societies with widespread colorism have long histories of European colonization and Western influence .
According to research by scholar Sarah L. Webb , colorism began to take root the moment when societies associated superiority and privileges with people of European descent , who possess features such as white skin , bright-colored eyes , and straight hair that were heavily promoted as the standard of beauty , wealth @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fashion industries have long profited from the perpetuation of Eurocentric beauty standards that created insecurity in many dark-skinned communities .
“ Skin-lightening products have been the cornerstone of that perpetuation , and it ’ s extremely insidious the way it was presented , ” said Aditi Mayer , a photojournalist and sustainability advocate who grew up in Los Angeles .
“ Although I have lighter-skin privilege within the South Asian community , when I think about my experiences growing up , Fair & Lovely is something that was always on our vanity dressers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ understood at that point in time the ties between larger understandings of colonialism and how that affected our standards of beauty.
” Colorism can be found across the world .
In many Asian countries , dark-skinned people are discriminated against .
In the Philippines , Likas papaya soap is a common household brand that purports to make a person ’ s skin lighter .
Growing up a dark-skinned Filipina , I was also coerced into using skin-lightening products like papaya soap and a whitening brand called Eskinol .
In 2018 , American celebrity @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , to promote a skin-whitening cream .
In Japan , beauty pageants had a no-tanning rule , and during the Jim Crow era in the United States , the “ brown paper bag test ” was prevalent in black communities , in which skin color was compared to a brown paper bag and people with a darker skin tone weren ’ t allowed in certain social events or activities .
“ I didn ’ t think I understood at that point in time the ties between larger understandings of colonialism and how that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ skin-lightening products also contain hazardous chemicals that could lead to severe health risks .
Prolonged exposure to dangerous chemicals such as mercury and hydroquinone could lead to skin damage , poisoning , and liver and kidney malfunction .
Skin-lightening products that contain these chemicals , typically imported from Asia , are banned and illegal in Europe under safety regulations — yet business is thriving .
Colorism is deeply ingrained in South Asian cultures .
For centuries , India ’ s caste system has dictated almost every aspect of Indian society or way of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , having a darker skin color is a signifier of how much time a person worked outside and was exposed to the sun .
These darker-skinned Indians , who perform hard labor , are typically lower in India ’ s caste system as opposed to their lighter-skinned counterparts , who have the luxury of staying indoors .
Bollywood also played a role in perpetuating colorism .
Famous actors and actresses were typically light-skinned Indians , who made huge amounts of money not only from acting roles but also from advertising skin-whitening products in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ instance , has been the subject of criticism for the roles she played in several skin-whitening ad commercials in India .
In 2014 , the year that India ’ s advertising council imposed a ban on any ads that depicted dark skin as inferior and other discriminatory marketing that praised light skin , Chopra was asked about her appearance in Unilever ’ s Ponds White Beauty commercial and defended her endorsement .
But in 2017 , after moving from Bollywood to Hollywood , Chopra retracted her previous defense of the Ponds commercial in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and apology for endorsing the products .
Seeing Chopra ’ s reversal only deepened the wound for Hari .
“ It ’ s not okay to be the light-skinned superior beauty for all these years , then switch countries ... and just abuse the anti-colorism cause , ” Hari said .
The recent killings of Black people at the hands of police and the growing Black Lives Matter movement have become turning points for anti-colorism , especially regarding accountability with big brands , according to Mayer .
But anti-colorism activists , like Hari @ @ @ @ @ @ @ how discriminatory their skin-lightening products were and continued to ignore the concerns of activists .
It ’ s only because the Western world started to pay more attention and spotlighted the severity of the issue , she said , that companies decided to take further action .
“ It ’ s at this point now where brands have to say and do something , because their silence is seen as complicit , ” Mayer said .
“ But it ’ s hard to discern what is authentic and what is performative during this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ communities have always been a champion of pushing these conversations , in part because of the generational trauma they experience .
When Hari moved to the US , she reveled in how many Black women unapologetically celebrated their dark skin .
She said that was a moment when she realized how deeply colorism had affected her life .
Ironically , she began her modeling career after a trip back to India , where she met a makeup artist who admitted to not knowing how to do makeup on dark-skinned women and asked if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the artist brought in photographers and did a full photo shoot with Hari .
“ When I went back to visit India , I already had this perspective that dark skin is beautiful , ” Hari said .
“ Even though I still had some self-esteem issues , I realized that if I said no to that opportunity , then that just goes against my values that everybody is beautiful and everybody is worthy .
That changed everything for me.
” Rachel Ramirez is a reporter covering environmental justice , race , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ raised in the Northern Mariana Islands , a US territory in the Pacific Ocean .
Her work has appeared in Grist , the Financial Times , Rolling Stone , HuffPost , and other publications .
Find her on Twitter @ rachjuramirez .
Every day at Vox , we aim to answer your most important questions and provide you , and our audience around the world , with information that has the power to save lives .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is reaching more people than ever , but our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources — particularly during a pandemic and an economic downturn .
Your financial contribution will not constitute a donation , but it will enable our staff to continue to offer free articles , videos , and podcasts at the quality and volume that this moment requires .
Please consider making a contribution to Vox today .

Growing up in Mumbai, India, Seema Hari was used to being ridiculed and bullied for having darker skin than most people. When she was about 7 years old, moms would warn their kids not to play with her on the playground. People called her “kali kaluti,” an Indian derogatory slur for being dark-skinned, or a “bhangi,” which means a scavenger member of the lowest untouchable castes. She was also used to her relatives berating her parents for not taking measures to lighten her skin, and telling her that no one would love and marry her.
“I knew very early on that something was wrong with me, because of how people addressed me and my dark skin,” Hari, who is now an engineer, model, and anti-colorism activist, told Vox. While her parents never pressured her to use skin-lightening products, the constant discrimination from other people traumatized her to the point that she became depressed and suicidal. “I didn’t have a lot of friends. I always thought I was defective or something. Somehow everyone wanted to fix me for having darker skin.”
Colorism — a form of prejudice that places a higher value on people with lighter color skin — differs from racism because discrimination commonly occurs within, rather than between, racial groups. Historically, darker skin has been deemed undesirable and equated with being poor in many cultures due to Western colonialism and exposure to Eurocentric wealth and beauty. As a result, the beauty industry has long played into these insecurities for profit, perpetuating the cultural cycle.
However, as the world undergoes a racial reckoning in the aftermath of the police killings of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, and other Black people, a slate of companies unveiled major changes to address the longstanding controversy of selling and marketing skin-whitening products in Asian, African, and Middle Eastern countries. Johnson & Johnson announced this month it will halt selling certain Neutrogena and Clean & Clear product lines in Asia that were promoted as dark spot reducers and skin whiteners. Unilever followed suit, announcing it will revamp certain terms and names of skin-lightening products, especially its Fair & Lovely products, which are prominent in India. Similarly, the cosmetics giant L’Oréal — whose Garnier product line in South Asia was widely advertised to whiten skin — announced this weekend it will remove the words “white,” “fairness,” and “light” from its products.
While the announcements come as pressure mounts for companies to address any perpetuation of anti-Blackness and racism, South Asian activists, including Hari, have been sounding the alarm on the issue of colorism for decades. Hari explained that colorism can feel so isolating because it often happens within an ethnic group, meaning “the people close to you may also harbor the same prejudices against you as a darker-skinned person.”
Societies with widespread colorism have long histories of European colonization and Western influence. According to research by scholar Sarah L. Webb, colorism began to take root the moment when societies associated superiority and privileges with people of European descent, who possess features such as white skin, bright-colored eyes, and straight hair that were heavily promoted as the standard of beauty, wealth, and power. The beauty and fashion industries have long profited from the perpetuation of Eurocentric beauty standards that created insecurity in many dark-skinned communities.
“Skin-lightening products have been the cornerstone of that perpetuation, and it’s extremely insidious the way it was presented,” said Aditi Mayer, a photojournalist and sustainability advocate who grew up in Los Angeles. “Although I have lighter-skin privilege within the South Asian community, when I think about my experiences growing up, Fair & Lovely is something that was always on our vanity dressers. I didn’t think I understood at that point in time the ties between larger understandings of colonialism and how that affected our standards of beauty.”
Colorism can be found across the world. In many Asian countries, dark-skinned people are discriminated against. In the Philippines, Likas papaya soap is a common household brand that purports to make a person’s skin lighter. Growing up a dark-skinned Filipina, I was also coerced into using skin-lightening products like papaya soap and a whitening brand called Eskinol.
In 2018, American celebrity Black Chyna traveled to Lagos, Nigeria, to promote a skin-whitening cream. In Japan, beauty pageants had a no-tanning rule, and during the Jim Crow era in the United States, the “brown paper bag test” was prevalent in black communities, in which skin color was compared to a brown paper bag and people with a darker skin tone weren’t allowed in certain social events or activities.
“I didn’t think I understood at that point in time the ties between larger understandings of colonialism and how that affected our standards of beauty”
Many skin-lightening products also contain hazardous chemicals that could lead to severe health risks. Prolonged exposure to dangerous chemicals such as mercury and hydroquinone could lead to skin damage, poisoning, and liver and kidney malfunction. Skin-lightening products that contain these chemicals, typically imported from Asia, are banned and illegal in Europe under safety regulations — yet business is thriving.
Colorism is deeply ingrained in South Asian cultures. For centuries, India’s caste system has dictated almost every aspect of Indian society or way of life. Mayer said that in India, having a darker skin color is a signifier of how much time a person worked outside and was exposed to the sun. These darker-skinned Indians, who perform hard labor, are typically lower in India’s caste system as opposed to their lighter-skinned counterparts, who have the luxury of staying indoors.
Bollywood also played a role in perpetuating colorism. Famous actors and actresses were typically light-skinned Indians, who made huge amounts of money not only from acting roles but also from advertising skin-whitening products in television commercials. Priyanka Chopra, for instance, has been the subject of criticism for the roles she played in several skin-whitening ad commercials in India. In 2014, the year that India’s advertising council imposed a ban on any ads that depicted dark skin as inferior and other discriminatory marketing that praised light skin, Chopra was asked about her appearance in Unilever’s Ponds White Beauty commercial and defended her endorsement. But in 2017, after moving from Bollywood to Hollywood, Chopra retracted her previous defense of the Ponds commercial in an interview with Vogue, expressing regret and apology for endorsing the products.
Seeing Chopra’s reversal only deepened the wound for Hari. “It’s not okay to be the light-skinned superior beauty for all these years, then switch countries ... and just abuse the anti-colorism cause,” Hari said.
The recent killings of Black people at the hands of police and the growing Black Lives Matter movement have become turning points for anti-colorism, especially regarding accountability with big brands, according to Mayer. But anti-colorism activists, like Hari, claim these companies have always known how discriminatory their skin-lightening products were and continued to ignore the concerns of activists. It’s only because the Western world started to pay more attention and spotlighted the severity of the issue, she said, that companies decided to take further action.
“It’s at this point now where brands have to say and do something, because their silence is seen as complicit,” Mayer said. “But it’s hard to discern what is authentic and what is performative during this time.”
Mayer also emphasized that Black communities have always been a champion of pushing these conversations, in part because of the generational trauma they experience. When Hari moved to the US, she reveled in how many Black women unapologetically celebrated their dark skin. She said that was a moment when she realized how deeply colorism had affected her life. Ironically, she began her modeling career after a trip back to India, where she met a makeup artist who admitted to not knowing how to do makeup on dark-skinned women and asked if she could practice on Hari. Eventually, the artist brought in photographers and did a full photo shoot with Hari.
“When I went back to visit India, I already had this perspective that dark skin is beautiful,” Hari said. “Even though I still had some self-esteem issues, I realized that if I said no to that opportunity, then that just goes against my values that everybody is beautiful and everybody is worthy. That changed everything for me.”
Rachel Ramirez is a reporter covering environmental justice, race, and business. She was born and raised in the Northern Mariana Islands, a US territory in the Pacific Ocean. Her work has appeared in Grist, the Financial Times, Rolling Stone, HuffPost, and other publications. Find her on Twitter @rachjuramirez.


vox--2020-07-01--Trumpism, not polarization, drives America’s disastrous coronavirus politics

On June 25 , the Pew Research Center published a startling poll .
The difference between Democratic and Republican attitudes on Covid-19 was growing .
Thirty-seven percent of Democrats , but 72 percent of Republicans , said they ’ d feel comfortable getting a haircut .
Twenty-eight percent of Democrats , but 65 percent of Republicans , were willing to eat in a restaurant .
Eight percent of Democrats , but 31 percent of Republicans , would attend a crowded party .
All in all , the Pew poll found that partisanship was the single biggest driver of attitudes toward @ @ @ @ @ @ @ geography , age , gender , or race .
Now America ’ s coronavirus rate is on the rise , racing into uncharted territory even as Europe , Canada , and Japan hold new case rates to about 100 per million residents , or under .
This chart , compiled by the New York Times using data from Johns Hopkins University , is a stark reminder that the outbreak we ’ re experiencing isn ’ t an inevitability of the disease , but a staggering failure of policy and public health compliance : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and elite signals : States are reopening despite meeting few of the guidelines to end lockdowns .
The president is holding indoor rallies , his campaign aides removing stickers encouraging social distancing at the venue .
Masks have become part of America ’ s culture war .
America is headed for a disaster driven not so much by the disease as by the politics that surround it .
“ America is the global exception right now , ” says Gregorio Millett , director of public policy at amFAR .
“ Just look at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ across Asia .
These places have vastly different cultures , different geographies , different institutions , different everything — but the one thing they have in common is that everyone is following public health measures .
And they ’ ve all kept this virus at bay .
Our leaders decided to politicize a scientific issue and as a result , our curve looks different than the rest of the world ’ s. ” Which raises the question : Is political polarization literally killing us ?
The two types of polarization There are two @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : I ’ ll call them structural polarization and discretionary polarization .
Structural polarization stems from the core incentives of American politics .
Elections are zero-sum affairs , and voters reward the majority party for successful , popular governance .
The minority party ’ s default tendency to oppose the majority party ’ s signature initiatives is an example of structural polarization .
It can be resisted or overcome , but it flows from the basic structure of our political system .
Discretionary polarization reflects the idiosyncratic decisions leaders make .
Take face @ @ @ @ @ @ @ alternative universe , where President Mitt Romney is in the final year of his second term , would there be a politicized culture war over face masks ?
I doubt it .
President Romney would be wearing a mask and urging others to do the same , just as Sen. Romney , and many of his colleagues , are doing now .
“ We must have no stigma , none , about wearing masks when we leave our homes and come near other people , ” Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ coverings is not about protecting ourselves , it is about protecting everyone we encounter .
There is nothing cowardly about common courtesy.
” There is nothing intrinsic to the structure of American politics , or the composition of the Republican Party , that made Trump turn against masks .
If anything , Trump ’ s opposition is an act against self-interest .
A successful Covid-19 response would improve Trump ’ s reelection prospects .
Widespread mask-wearing is key to a successful Covid-19 response .
That Trump refused to wear a mask while touring @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , not polarization .
“ I think we have to place this one pretty squarely on presidential leadership , ” says political theorist Danielle Allen , head of Harvard ’ s Safra Center for Ethics .
“ Polarization hasn ’ t helped , but polarization , in this instance , has been driven by presidential leadership.
” In this way , Covid-19 is the exception that should remind us of the rule .
Public health policies — and particularly public health emergencies — have often been an area of bipartisan unity , even @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s been bipartisan support for PEPFAR , for combating malaria globally , for tons of public health initiatives , ” says Jennifer Kates , director of global health and HIV policy at the Kaiser Family Foundation .
“ And those are for epidemics that aren ’ t happening primarily within our borders .
The fact that this is happening right here and we still have this division is a tragedy and an aberration.
” Americans trusted Trump , and he misled them Sara Wallace Goodman , a political scientist at the University of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a team repeatedly surveying the same group of Americans to see how their behaviors and attitudes have changed over the course of the virus .
Even controlling for factors like the prevalence of the disease in the place respondents live , Wallace Goodman and her colleagues find a significant and growing partisan gap in terms of fear of the disease , perceived safety of different behaviors , and preferred policy solutions .
The key to understanding this , Wallace Goodman says , is that “ when people are operating in areas of high @ @ @ @ @ @ @ take cues .
We can only be rational if our leaders are rational .
If you see the president not wearing a mask in meetings , you ’ re going to model what he does.
” This is , from a certain perspective , reasonable : The president has more information than you do , and if you ’ ve decided you trust him , then it makes sense to follow his lead .
Few of us — liberal mask-wearers included — have personally conducted studies on the behavior of the novel coronavirus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ elite cues , listening to epidemiologists and science journalists and Dr. Anthony Fauci .
The central question in a political system is whom to trust .
Once that decision has been made , everything else follows .
The tragedy of American politics in 2020 is that many Americans sincerely trusted an untrustworthy man .
And the cost of that mistake will be devastating , for Trump ’ s supporters and detractors alike .
“ The virus doesn ’ t care if you ’ re a Democrat or Republican or live in the US @ @ @ @ @ @ @ says Kates .
“ When things like politics define what people are willing to do and what laws are put in place , that can have deadly consequences.
” There were always going to be arguments over how best to respond to Covid-19 , but it was Trump ’ s choice to politicize basic public health measures like face masks , to sideline scientists and hold indoor rallies , to waste the time bought by lockdowns in petty political fights and wild tweeting sprees .
It wasn ’ t the abstract forces of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Covid-19 , but the specific decisions of the Trump administration .
There are signs that the harms of Trump ’ s failures are breaking through the firewall of polarization .
Disapproval of Trump has reached new highs ; former Vice President Joe Biden is leading by almost 10 points in polling averages , and Republican satisfaction with the state of the country is in a nosedive .
But in this case , the political consequences will lag the human consequences , and no matter what happens in the election , the country has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s leadership .
“ There was nothing inevitable about the polarized response to Covid-19 , ” says Wallace Goodman .
“ This outcome is a policy choice .
The unnecessary lives lost .
The long-term effects we don ’ t even know about yet on our vital organs .
It ’ s all a policy choice.
” Every day at Vox , we aim to answer your most important questions and provide you , and our audience around the world , with information that has the power to save lives .
Our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
Vox ’ s work is reaching more people than ever , but our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources — particularly during a pandemic and an economic downturn .
Your financial contribution will not constitute a donation , but it will enable our staff to continue to offer free articles , videos , and podcasts at the quality and volume that this moment requires .
Please consider making a contribution to Vox today .

On June 25, the Pew Research Center published a startling poll. The difference between Democratic and Republican attitudes on Covid-19 was growing. Thirty-seven percent of Democrats, but 72 percent of Republicans, said they’d feel comfortable getting a haircut. Twenty-eight percent of Democrats, but 65 percent of Republicans, were willing to eat in a restaurant. Eight percent of Democrats, but 31 percent of Republicans, would attend a crowded party. All in all, the Pew poll found that partisanship was the single biggest driver of attitudes toward the coronavirus — dwarfing the effects of geography, age, gender, or race.
Now America’s coronavirus rate is on the rise, racing into uncharted territory even as Europe, Canada, and Japan hold new case rates to about 100 per million residents, or under. This chart is a stark reminder that the outbreak we’re experiencing isn’t an inevitability of the disease, but a staggering failure of policy and public health compliance:
Behind those lines lie the obvious mistakes and elite signals: States are reopening despite meeting few of the guidelines to end lockdowns. The president is holding indoor rallies, his campaign aides removing stickers encouraging social distancing at the venue. Masks have become part of America’s culture war. America is headed for a disaster driven not so much by the disease as by the politics that surround it.
“America is the global exception right now,” says Gregorio Millett, director of public policy at amFAR. “Just look at the EU or New Zealand or countries across Asia. These places have vastly different cultures, different geographies, different institutions, different everything — but the one thing they have in common is that everyone is following public health measures. And they’ve all kept this virus at bay. Our leaders decided to politicize a scientific issue and as a result, our curve looks different than the rest of the world’s.”
Which raises the question: Is political polarization literally killing us?
The two types of polarization
There are two types of polarization worth separating out here: I’ll call them structural polarization and discretionary polarization.
Structural polarization stems from the core incentives of American politics. Elections are zero-sum affairs, and voters reward the majority party for successful, popular governance. The minority party’s default tendency to oppose the majority party’s signature initiatives is an example of structural polarization. It can be resisted or overcome, but it flows from the basic structure of our political system.
Discretionary polarization reflects the idiosyncratic decisions leaders make. Take face masks, for example. In an alternative universe, where President Mitt Romney is in the final year of his second term, would there be a politicized culture war over face masks? I doubt it. President Romney would be wearing a mask and urging others to do the same, just as Sen. Romney, and many of his colleagues, are doing now.
“We must have no stigma, none, about wearing masks when we leave our homes and come near other people,” Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said on the Senate floor. “Wearing simple face coverings is not about protecting ourselves, it is about protecting everyone we encounter. There is nothing cowardly about common courtesy.”
There is nothing intrinsic to the structure of American politics, or the composition of the Republican Party, that made Trump turn against masks. If anything, Trump’s opposition is an act against self-interest. A successful Covid-19 response would improve Trump’s reelection prospects. Widespread mask-wearing is key to a successful Covid-19 response. That Trump refused to wear a mask while touring a factory that makes masks reflects Trumpism, not polarization.
“I think we have to place this one pretty squarely on presidential leadership,” says political theorist Danielle Allen, head of Harvard’s Safra Center for Ethics. “Polarization hasn’t helped, but polarization, in this instance, has been driven by presidential leadership.”
In this way, Covid-19 is the exception that should remind us of the rule. Public health policies — and particularly public health emergencies — have often been an area of bipartisan unity, even in polarized times.
“There’s been bipartisan support for PEPFAR, for combating malaria globally, for tons of public health initiatives,” says Jennifer Kates, director of global health and HIV policy at the Kaiser Family Foundation. “And those are for epidemics that aren’t happening primarily within our borders. The fact that this is happening right here and we still have this division is a tragedy and an aberration.”
Americans trusted Trump, and he misled them
Sara Wallace Goodman, a political scientist at the University of California Irvine, has been part of a team repeatedly surveying the same group of Americans to see how their behaviors and attitudes have changed over the course of the virus. Even controlling for factors like the prevalence of the disease in the place respondents live, Wallace Goodman and her colleagues find a significant and growing partisan gap in terms of fear of the disease, perceived safety of different behaviors, and preferred policy solutions.
The key to understanding this, Wallace Goodman says, is that “when people are operating in areas of high misinformation and lack of information, they take cues. We can only be rational if our leaders are rational. If you see the president not wearing a mask in meetings, you’re going to model what he does.”
This is, from a certain perspective, reasonable: The president has more information than you do, and if you’ve decided you trust him, then it makes sense to follow his lead. Few of us — liberal mask-wearers included — have personally conducted studies on the behavior of the novel coronavirus. We, too, are taking elite cues, listening to epidemiologists and science journalists and Dr. Anthony Fauci.
The central question in a political system is whom to trust. Once that decision has been made, everything else follows. The tragedy of American politics in 2020 is that many Americans sincerely trusted an untrustworthy man. And the cost of that mistake will be devastating, for Trump’s supporters and detractors alike.
“The virus doesn’t care if you’re a Democrat or Republican or live in the US or South Korea or France,” says Kates. “When things like politics define what people are willing to do and what laws are put in place, that can have deadly consequences.”
There were always going to be arguments over how best to respond to Covid-19, but it was Trump’s choice to politicize basic public health measures like face masks, to sideline scientists and hold indoor rallies, to waste the time bought by lockdowns in petty political fights and wild tweeting sprees.
There are signs that the harms of Trump’s failures are breaking through the firewall of polarization.
Disapproval of Trump has reached new highs; former Vice President Joe Biden is leading by almost 10 points in polling averages, and Republican satisfaction with the state of the country is in a nosedive.
But in this case, the political consequences will lag the human consequences, and no matter what happens in the election, the country has at least seven months left of Trump’s leadership.
“There was nothing inevitable about the polarized response to Covid-19,” says Wallace Goodman. “This outcome is a policy choice. The unnecessary lives lost. The long-term effects we don’t even know about yet on our vital organs. It’s all a policy choice.”