The Perils of Populism in Times of Crisis: A Case Study of Trump’s Handling of COVID-19

In the throes of the COVID-19 pandemic, leadership across the globe has faced unprecedented challenges, with each nation scripting its own narrative of crisis management. At the epicenter of political and scientific scrutiny stands the United States, once lauded as a beacon of democracy and progress. The handling of the pandemic by former President Donald Trump has been a source of vigorous debate, with many critics lambasting his approach as emblematic of the perils of populism in governance. Benjamin Moffitt’s analytical paper, “What Donald Trump’s response to COVID-19 reveals about the nature of populism,” meticulously deconstructs Trump’s handling of the pandemic, providing an insightful examination of the interplay between populist strategies and crisis management. Moffitt argues that Trump’s response can be characterized by four tactics: denial, distraction, division, and defiance, which he claims are common features of populist politics. He also suggests that Trump’s populism was ill-equipped to deal with a complex and uncertain crisis that required scientific expertise and global cooperation.

The nature of populism, with its direct appeal to the ‘common people’ against a perceived corrupt elite, often simplifies complex issues into digestible narratives. However, as Moffitt suggests, the inherent reductionism of populist rhetoric is ill-suited to a crisis that requires nuanced understanding and global cooperation. Trump’s initial downplaying of the virus, which Moffitt attributes to denial, was not just a failure to comprehend the scientific evidence, but a gross misjudgment of the virus’s potential impact on the very fabric of American society. According to a Lancet commission, Trump’s denial and mismanagement of the pandemic resulted in 40% more deaths than if the US had followed the rates of other G7 countries. Moreover, Trump’s resistance to scientific advice and democratic norms damaged the credibility and integrity of public health institutions and eroded public trust in science.

Trump’s penchant for conspiracy and scapegoating, termed distraction in Moffitt’s paper, served to deflect criticism but also sowed deeper mistrust in international institutions and alliances at a time when global cooperation was most needed. The targeting of China, the World Health Organization, and political adversaries undermined the collective response to the pandemic, while concurrently stoking xenophobia and partisan divides. Trump repeatedly lied about the coronavirus, blamed China for its origin and spread, accused the WHO of being biased towards China, and dismissed the scientific evidence and advice from experts. He also politicized the pandemic by attacking Democratic governors and mayors, promoting anti-lockdown protests, and refusing to wear a mask. These actions not only hampered the national and global efforts to contain the virus, but also damaged the credibility and reputation of the United States as a leader and partner in the world.

The division that followed, Moffitt posits, further entrenched ideological rifts within American society, with mask-wearing and lockdowns becoming symbols of a political chasm rather than public health measures. Trump’s populism, often characterized by an ‘us versus them’ narrative, thus transformed a health emergency into a battleground for cultural and political identity. This polarization was reflected in the use of hashtags on social media, such as #MaskOn and #MaskOff, which showed semantic antagonism and asymmetric participation between pro- and anti-mask groups. Moreover, this polarization was influenced by Trump’s favorability ratings, which mediated and moderated the effects of psychological reactance and conflict orientation on individuals’ likelihood of wearing masks.

Defiance, the final trait Moffitt attributes to Trump’s approach, signals a deeper issue within populist frameworks: a tension with democratic institutions. Trump’s resistance to oversight and critique, and his undermining of the press and the scientific community, eroded the checks and balances central to democratic governance. By placing personal authority above institutional integrity, Trump not only jeopardized the immediate pandemic response but also risked long-term democratic erosion. Some examples of Trump’s defiance of democratic institutions are:

• He spread conspiracy theories about a “deep state” of bureaucrats working against him, undermining public trust in government institutions and officials.
• He undermined the FBI and other law enforcement agencies by firing or criticizing their leaders, interfering with investigations, and accusing them of political bias.
• He refused to cooperate with congressional oversight, blocking subpoenas, withholding documents, and preventing witnesses from testifying.
• He attacked the press as “fake news” and “enemies of the people”, violating the First Amendment and endangering journalists.

The stark consequences of these strategies were not merely political fodder; they translated into tangible detriments in public health response and economic stability. Moffitt’s analysis suggests that the populist tactics employed by Trump exacerbated the pandemic’s impact through delayed responses, public confusion, and politicized health strategies.

But it seems these Tactics backfired on Trump. A study found that voters living in counties with a high number of COVID-19 cases were less likely to vote for Trump, indicating that some Trump supporters may have switched to Biden because of the pandemic.

Moffitt’s conclusion that Trump’s response has laid bare the dangers of populism in times of crisis should not only serve as a retrospective evaluation but as a prophetic warning. Populism, with its intrinsic aversion to complexity and expertise, and its proclivity for divisive rhetoric, may be fundamentally at odds with the demands of crisis management where unity, scientific understanding, and cooperative governance are paramount. This is especially true in the context of a global pandemic that requires coordinated action and trust in scientific authorities. According to a study by The Lancet, countries with populist leaders had worse outcomes in terms of COVID-19 cases and deaths than countries with non-populist leaders. Therefore, populism not only poses a threat to democracy, but also to public health and human lives.

It is not enough to recognize the failures; there must be a dedicated effort to understand the allure of populism and its promise of simple solutions in a world that is intrinsically complex. The paper underscores the need for a reinvigorated commitment to pluralism, dialogue, and cooperation — an imperative that extends far beyond the confines of the pandemic to the broader sphere of democratic stability and governance.