In the last five months, Dr. Anthony Fauci, a physician, immunologist and director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, has been branded as everything from a “Chief fearmonger” to a “public health fossil” as he has sought to guide the nation’s response to COVID-19. Fauci has become arguably the most well-known disease expert in America during this pandemic, due in part to his appearances in White House briefings and various media updates. However, despite his credentials, some — including the president and many of his followers — continue to question his authority. Taking it further, some even believe him to be orchestrating a great conspiracy and have sent multiple death threats to the health leader.
This hostility towards expert advice is not isolated to the current pandemic but part of a dangerous trend: the rejection of scientific knowledge at a critical time to be heeding such information. While the majority of Americans do trust scientific experts, a sector of the population continues to dismiss intellectual authority and spread misinformation, increasingly over social media outlets and other internet platforms. As many of those who disregard scientific evidence do so when it conflicts with their pre-existing political beliefs, this leads to significant polarization surrounding an apolitical public health crisis. As America responds to the coronavirus pandemic, this politicization of the disease and ignorance of health guidelines hinders public health efforts. For Americans across the ideological spectrum to overcome this dangerous trend, they must put ideological biases aside and open up channels of conversation with scientific experts and fellow citizens with diverging views.
Roots of the Anti-Knowledge Pandemic
The resistance to established knowledge, which took the form of a movement composed of “anti-intellectuals,” gained traction in the early 1970s and has persisted throughout the modern era. At the time, the government was coming off what historian Brian Balogh calls the “prominstrative state,” a period in which the public held ardent faith in government officials and other experts, leading to a high-functioning bureaucracy. As documented by a 1966 Harris Poll, 70% of Americans reported “a great deal of confidence” in medical leaders, 60% felt the same of educational and military leaders, and 55% trusted the heads of major corporations.
However, as the government grew, so did its critics. Beginning in the 1960s, public intellectuals such as Daniel Bell and Daniel Patrick Moynihan decried experts as “pencil-pushers and weenies who had no respect or allegiance to ordinary citizens,” which garnered attention from both Democrat and Republican groups. These ideas, which were developing against the backdrop of a controversial ‘70s that brought Watergate, the Vietnam War, and conflict in the Middle East, put the final nail in the coffin of Americans’ trust in experts. By the end of the decade, the Harris Poll findings showed that only 32% of Americans had confidence in medical leaders, 20% in religious leaders, and 18% in corporate leaders.
In his book The Death of Expertise, Tom Nichols, a professor of national security affairs at the Naval War College and Harvard Extension School, roots modern America’s dwindling faith in a number of other factors as well — namely the rise of the internet, the changing political role of the media, and the shortfallings of higher education in instilling critical thinking skills. Nichols cites political scientist Richard Hofstadter, who documented how “the complexity of modern life” has left the ordinary citizen “at the mercy of smarter elites,” causing resentment between laypeople and intellectuals. “In modern democracies, and especially in the United States where we especially cherish this idea that all of us are completely independent and empowered, that just doesn’t go over well,” Nichols said in an interview with the HPR. He clarified that the opinions he shared with the HPR and sentiments he expressed in his book were completely his own and did not represent those of the government.
The trend of declining trust in expertise that Nichols has documented co-occurs with another important phenomenon: a decline of trust in the media. According to an article published by the American Association for the Advancement of Science, only 51% of Democrats and 14% of Republicans express “a fair amount” or “a great deal” of trust in mass media as a news source. This phenomenon is in part fueled by the increasing likelihood that people only take in information that agrees with their preexisting beliefs. Known as confirmation bias, this tendency to favor information that adheres to your own beliefs has further frustrated any efforts to create conversation between experts and laypeople.
The resulting lack of discourse has contributed to a resistance to authority that is now manifesting in various and dangerous ways — in individual patients eschewing the advice of doctors, in a collection of parents rejecting vaccinated medical treatment, and even in large campaigns denying the detrimental impacts of climate change. While individuals who reject expert advice inevitably cause harm to themselves, they also put a myriad of other people at danger, including those who do listen to science.
Taken together, these mirroring trends of distrust in expertise and in the media have set the stage for the disbelief of science during this trying time, putting millions of people in danger.
Two Pandemics: One of Science, One Against Science
Our present set of circumstances illustrates perfectly, albeit dangerously, the consequences of thoughtlessly repudiating the findings of scientific experts. During this pandemic, politicians and citizens have been asked to rely on medical authorities, such as Dr. Fauci and the Center for Disease Control. As some reject this plea in favor of fact-flouting conspiracies and ideological standpoints, they endanger the health and safety of all Americans.
Nichols and CNN Correspondent Nick Valencia, who spoke with the HPR, agreed that much of the public has generally observed expert advice; however, there have been more than a few people flouting social distancing guidelines in some areas, sometimes a product of distrust against the advice of medical experts. In his book, Nichols argues that this distrust goes beyond simple ignorance, but actually represents “a positive hostility to such knowledge.” During the pandemic, this positive hostility falls along partisan lines. “There’s going to be that distrust that’s not motivated by anything that’s happened or happening; it’s just distrust that is a partisan first-principle that experts are the enemy,” Nichols said. The partisan divide presents itself in various ways within the public: protests against stay-at-home orders, lack of adherence to social distancing guidelines, and even disagreement over the severity of the pandemic itself.
Partisanship within media reporting is also responsible for widening this divide. This has perhaps most visible through the conspiracy that the COVID-19 death count has been inflated. According to an Ipsos/Axios survey, 40% of Republicans believe the number is inflated while 7% of Democrats and 24% of Independents share that view. Although many experts have denounced this conspiracy as completely unfounded, with some even contending that the death count may be underreported rather than overreported, multiple Fox News analysts have entertained the falsehood. With 65% of Republicans professing trust in Fox News and 61% of Democrats stating the opposite, the numbers suggest that media coverage and following may contribute to the survey results. When media outlets intentionally pander to specific ideologies, expert advice that does not concur with their political doctrine falls by the wayside.
In addition to this harmful partisanship, many politicians themselves have been spreading misinformation regarding COVID-19, only exacerbating the issue. Even while medical experts warned of the major impact COVID-19 would have on the United States, many Republican leaders, most notably President Trump, downplayed the virus during the early stages in February and March. Further, conservative figures have insisted that liberals and the media are exaggerating the impact of the pandemic as a way to deter a reelection of President Trump.
The election does play a significant role in the misinformation pandemic, though not in the way these conservative figures contend. Instead, the upcoming election is most likely a reason why President Trump has been downplaying the pandemic. Since the president was relying on economic prosperity to ensure his reelection, the pandemic’s impact on commerce has become a significant concern for the Republican Party. In the debate over reopening, these politicians have presented the economy and public health as two diametrically opposed concerns: We can either continue the stay-at-home orders and save lives, or quickly reopen states and save the economy. Illinois State Senator Ann Gillespie labeled this a false dichotomy in an interview with the HPR, stating, “The economy will not recover until the virus is under control. … They go hand-in-hand.”
Despite Gillespie’s sentiments, COVID-19 responses into April and May across different states still seemed to be politically divided. States with Repubican governors tended to respond slower than their Democratic counterparts but were quicker to reopen. For example, the Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis’ Florida, one of the last states to issue a stay-at-home order on April 3, began planning for reopening on May 4 despite warnings from medical experts about the lack of testing and the probability of a second wave. Since the reopening, Florida’s cases have risen to record-breaking numbers in the state. However, even in states that boasted a quick and expert-led response, such as the Democratic Gov. J.B. Pritzker-led Illinois, there were political obstacles to overcome, as Pritzker soon faced a lawsuit from Republican Rep. Darren Bailey claiming he exceeded his authority and violated the civil rights of Illinois residents by issuing the stay-at-home order. In addition to possibly deterring an effective response, the lawsuit also sends a message to citizens across the country encouraging them to push back against scientific approaches to the pandemic.
Overall, the politicization of the COVID-19 pandemic is a dangerous phenomenon and threatens the safety of Americans of all political identities. Valencia expressed frustration over the implications of the pandemic on experts’ standing in the public eye. “Right now there is a third of the country presumably that thinks it is just about politics and [health experts are] trying to make the president look bad, when at the end of the day, we need to lean into our public health experts and listen to them because they’re doing the work to try to save your life,” Valencia said. As the lack of trust in public health experts during this crisis is concerning, the current situation may be a dangerous precursor for how this country will deal with future crises. As Valencia shared, bringing partisanship into these public health issues muddles important information from experts that are needed at the time.
The Need to Change
The United States’ deep-rooted political polarization and subsequent rejection of expert knowledge, which has been brought out into the open in our response to this pandemic, only continues to grow. If we are to change, we must recognize our own biases and be open to conversations with those we do not agree with.
While acknowledging that there will likely continue to be a group of people that deny science, some have expressed hopes that this change may come about through the younger generation. “I think the next time we face a crisis that requires this kind of reliance on science you’re going to see exactly the same kind of … split in the public,” Nichols said. “That’s institutionalized at this point, and I think the only thing that’s going to change that is generational change.” Gillespie is also optimistic about the younger generation in America, as she has witnessed young people wearing masks during Black Lives Matter protests in her district. “That gives me hope that we will get past the point we are today and restore the ability to work together and to bridge these political gaps,” Gillespie said.
One key difference among the younger generation is that they are more digitally literate. Younger citizens are digitally savvy and more likely to accurately separate opinion from fact. However, it is still important for people of all ages to understand the changing landscape of media and information, and be able to recognize whether information is being accurately represented.
While critically assessing the information we consume will help us separate factual statements from misleading ones, it will be much more difficult to address the denial of evidence that contradicts people’s pre-existing political beliefs. This, in turn, requires us to have tough and challenging conversations with those who disagree with us. In our current state of the union, it is especially necessary to open up this conversation in order to save lives. “You can’t stop trying to have the dialogue, and we have to do it in a way that is not attacking,” Gillespie said. “It’s exhausting work but I don’t know how else you get past it.” Studies show that Gillespie’s suggestion is effective: intergroup contact can reduce prejudice between various social groups, but the context of such meetings is of particular importance. According to UC Berkeley’s Greater Good Magazine, contact should be sustained with more than one member of the group and should also include a genuine exchange of ideas, which is most effective between those with similar social status.
Although it may be difficult to meet all of these situational requirements, scholars point to actively open-minded thinking in every conversation, especially with those with different views, as a way to improve our current situation. At its base, this frame of mind requires us to remain open to new perspectives and examine evidence while avoiding personal bias. As noted by the University of Pennsylvania, this method of thinking also charges us with the responsibility of pointing out when others employ faulty logic in defense of their political beliefs. Practicing actively open-minded thinking is easier said than done, but it is necessary to implement the core conversational principles of humility, self-reflection and a willingness to change.
If we are not open to difficult political discussions during this pandemic, the current situation will invariably worsen as people who reject science-driven public health efforts continue to put others at danger. In order to successfully overcome the pandemic, we must trust and follow the medical experts who have dedicated their careers to understanding outbreaks such as this one. This is not a request for the public to blindly follow any and all expert advice; instead, it is a call to be more open and receptive to those who do in fact know more than we do. This can only be accomplished through humility and open-mindedness, which will allow us to overcome not only the challenge of the present day, but those of the future.
Image by United Nations COVID-19 Response is licensed under the Unsplash License.