Isaac D Mehlhaff, Matías C Tarillo, Ayelén Vanegas, Marc J Hetherington
{"title":"Partisanship and the Pandemic: How and Why Americans Followed Party Cues on COVID-19.","authors":"Isaac D Mehlhaff, Matías C Tarillo, Ayelén Vanegas, Marc J Hetherington","doi":"10.1215/03616878-11066336","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The United States underperformed its potential in responding to the COVID-19 pandemic. The authors use original survey data from April 2020 to March 2022 to show that political partisanship may have contributed to this inconsistent response by distinguishing elites and citizens who took the crisis seriously from those who did not. This division was not inevitable; when the crisis began, Democrats and Republicans differed little in their viewpoints and actions relative to COVID-19. However, partisans increasingly diverged when their preferred political leaders provided them with opposing cues. The authors outline developments in party politics over the last half century that contributed to partisan division on COVID-19, most centrally an anti-expertise bias among Republicans. Accordingly, Republicans' support for mitigation measures, perception of severity of COVID-19, and support for vaccines gradually decreased after the initial outbreak. Partisan differences also showed up at the state level; Trump's vote share in 2016 was negatively associated with mask use and positively associated with COVID-19 infections. Diverging elite cues provided fertile ground for the partisan pandemic, underscoring the importance of political accountability even in an era of polarization.</p>","PeriodicalId":54812,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Health Politics Policy and Law","volume":" ","pages":"351-374"},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Health Politics Policy and Law","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1215/03616878-11066336","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
The United States underperformed its potential in responding to the COVID-19 pandemic. The authors use original survey data from April 2020 to March 2022 to show that political partisanship may have contributed to this inconsistent response by distinguishing elites and citizens who took the crisis seriously from those who did not. This division was not inevitable; when the crisis began, Democrats and Republicans differed little in their viewpoints and actions relative to COVID-19. However, partisans increasingly diverged when their preferred political leaders provided them with opposing cues. The authors outline developments in party politics over the last half century that contributed to partisan division on COVID-19, most centrally an anti-expertise bias among Republicans. Accordingly, Republicans' support for mitigation measures, perception of severity of COVID-19, and support for vaccines gradually decreased after the initial outbreak. Partisan differences also showed up at the state level; Trump's vote share in 2016 was negatively associated with mask use and positively associated with COVID-19 infections. Diverging elite cues provided fertile ground for the partisan pandemic, underscoring the importance of political accountability even in an era of polarization.
期刊介绍:
A leading journal in its field, and the primary source of communication across the many disciplines it serves, the Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law focuses on the initiation, formulation, and implementation of health policy and analyzes the relations between government and health—past, present, and future.