In a Crisis, People Want Pragmatic Leadership
By Ray La Raja and Brian Schaffner
Crises often give rise to new public attitudes, and the response to coronavirus is no different. A line of research in political science suggests that in moments of anxiety the public shifts its views on a range of policies and what they expect from leaders. It reflects a complex process but some patterns tend to recur according to scholars Bethany Albertson and Shana Gadarian. In their book Anxious Politics: Democratic Citizenship in a Threatening World, they look at three types of changes as people try to grapple with the source of anxiety and seek protection: learning, trust and political attitudes.
With respect to learning, it appears that citizens increase their intake of political news, seeking out more information about the issue that causes the anxiety. Some voters tend to focus heavily on the details (which may not alleviate their anxiety), but regardless, they become more engaged in following news.
Concerning trust, previous research suggests that when citizens are anxious about a threat they tend to increase their confidence in established leadership. Albertson and Gadarian suggest it is not nilly-willy confidence. Instead, trust in government increases toward individuals and institutions who appear to have relevant expertise. So we should not be surprised that during a pandemic Americans will put relatively greater trust in experts like Anthony Fauci, Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, and organizations like the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
A third observation has to do with political attitudes about democracy and policies. Much of the research, including that of Albertson and Gadarian, suggests that the public is more likely to be supportive of protective policies, perhaps at the expense of democratic principles. We observed this in the aftermath of 9/11 when Congress rapidly voted for the USA PATRIOT Act, with public support, despite its encroachments on civil liberties.
Conditioning most attitudinal shifts is another factor: voter attachments to political parties. That is to say, voters tend to see things through their partisan lens, even in times of crisis. So they are more likely to trust policies and actions that appear to come from politicians in the party they identify with.
Nonetheless, in the immediate aftermath of a crisis the nation typically experiences a ‘rally around the flag” effect that creates a sense of patriotic solidarity. The head of state – the president – benefits from this dynamic and his approval numbers surge. A notable example was George W. Bush in the aftermath of 9/11, whose approval numbers rose from 50 percent to 86 percent by late September 2001. Trump, however, saw only a small and fleeting increase in public approval. His inability to garner widespread support is a reflection of his divisive leadership even during a moment of crisis.
A recent Data for Progress survey finds evidence that these theories about crises apply to our current moment with coronavirus. We are fortunate to have identical survey questions fielded on a poll before the outbreak (in November 2019) and during the outbreak (in March 2020), which gives us a lens to see attitude shifts in the electorate. Both surveys were conducted online using respondents recruited from the Lucid platform. Both polls were also cleaned and weighted with the exact same approach, ensuring that the samples are comparable and that they represent American adults on factors like gender, age, region, education, race, and the interaction of education and race.
First, as the existing research would predict, we found that Americans are consuming more news now than they were just a few months ago. Both polls asked respondents whether they had gotten news from any of 18 different sources during the previous week (including both traditional news outlets and social media). In November, Americans reported receiving news from an average of 3.4 sources during the previous week, but by March that number had increased to 3.9. We also asked a standard question about how often the respondent follows news about government and public affairs. In November 2019, 37 percent said they did this most of the time but that figure increased to 43 percent by March 2020.
Second, we probed for support of compromise by posing a statement about political accommodation and willingness to work with the other side. The statement read , “In a democracy it is important that people you disagree with get the policies they want some of the time.” Only 38% of Americans somewhat or strongly agreed with this statement in November. This unwillingness to “hear the other side” is hardly surprising given the state of polarized politics in the nation. But feelings shifted quite a bit after the outbreak of the coronavirus. In March, 46% of Americans agreed that people they disagreed with should get some of what they want, an increase of 8 percentage points.
We also asked a question related to political leadership. In times of crisis, research shows the public seeks out those with expertise and wherewithal to address the threat. This is exactly what we see post-outbreak in response to the statement, “The best politicians are pragmatic and detail-oriented”. In November, only 48 percent of voters agreed with this statement, perhaps reflecting the ongoing populist impulse of Americans, particularly those who elected an outsider with no experience in government as president. After the coronavirus outbreak upended the nation, fully 59 percent of voters agree with this statement, an increase of 11 points. The shift in attitude could be bad news for President Trump, who since his first day of office has displayed a disdain for the nitty-gritty of policy, preferring a slashing style of symbolic politics geared toward attracting media attention.
Finally, we offered a broad statement about democracy to see who voters perceived to be the key decision-makers. The statement read, “The people, not the politicians, should make our most important policy decisions.” While not a terribly big shift, moving from 69 percent to 62 percent, the direction is in line with the theory that citizens are willing to give up more power to those in authority during times of crisis.
Notably, these shifts were bipartisan in nature -- both Clinton voters and Trump voters moved in a remarkably similar fashion. Clinton voters, however, started from a position of favoring more compromise and pragmatism compared to Trump voters.
What should we make of these attitude shifts after the COVID19 outbreak?
It appears that the public is more open to bipartisan approaches to governance that rely on good data, attention to details and application of expertise. This is good news for progressives who champion such approaches. Perhaps there is a window of opportunity to accept a stronger government role in reducing the public’s anxiety by erecting a stronger safety net with access to good health care for all citizens. We are in a moment when there are increased expectations among citizens for politicians to look beyond partisanship to protect the public.
This is also a moment of democratic vulnerability. Anxious citizens might be willing to sacrifice democratic principles in the name of public safety. This situation can be exploited by unscrupulous politicians, unaccountable media and other institutions to benefit their own interests. Scapegoating and anti-democratic strategies have been pursued in the past and even before the outbreak the president consistently sought to undermine the institutions of government and media for his personal benefit. The public is right to value pragmatism and defer to expertise during this crisis, but it is also important to be vigilant against attempts to sidestep constitutional principles or attempts to reduce transparency and accountability in the name of protecting the public.