During Covid, legislatures became extraordinarily deferential to their executives. Congress deferred to the President, yes. But more shockingly, state legislatures across the country virtually abdicated in favor of their governors. On everything Covid-related – and what isn’t “Covid-related”? – governors have essentially ruled by decree since March of 2020.
In short, America is now an elective dictatorship. Unlike almost all historical dictatorships, however, these are dictatorships within a federal system. Every governor makes it up as he goes along… but he only makes it up for his own state. Elections will still happen, possibly replacing one dictator with another. But until those days of reckoning, whoever won the last election has a remarkably free hand to do as he pleases.
What has this freakish experiment in federalist dictatorship taught us? I’m curious to hear your thoughts, but here are the biggest lessons I’ve drawn thus far.
1. The variance of policy under federalist dictatorship has been vast. My friend in Alabama barely remembers the lockdown because it lasted so briefly. Californians endured major – and repeated – restrictions on their freedom for months at a time.
2. Part of this high variance, no doubt, comes from the compromises inherent in divided government. But variance seemed to grow even in one-party states. Compared to one-man rule, even one-party rule is centrist.
3. The governor’s political party turned out to be a powerful predictor of how he rules. Love them or loathe them, the governors of Florida, Texas, and Tennessee haven’t just aggressively moved to normalcy. These governors have stood by their decisions even though the media keeps putting bereaved family and distressed doctors on TV. The same goes for Democratic governors, though that’s less surprising since “We’ll do everything we can to fight this menace” is the political path of least resistance.
4. Republicans have been paying lip service to “freedom” and “liberty” for decades, but all they’ve made me do is roll my eyes. During Covid, Republicans started taking their freedom talk seriously. It’s not just on the news; during Covid, I’ve spent many months in Florida, Texas, and now Tennessee, and the difference is blatant. (I also visited California a week after they opened up, and heard the locals’ tales of relief). True, some governors are using their dictatorial powers to force businesses to set laxer measures; but this pales compared to all the ways governors have used their dictatorial powers to force businesses to set stricter measures.
5. All 50 US governors have been vaccinated, so none of them are literal “anti-vaxxers.” Still, many governors staunchly oppose mandatory vaccination. What’s their motive? High vaccination rates don’t merely make governors’ lives easier. They also reduce resistance to every other expression of normalcy. Could it be that governors who oppose vaccines mandates actually do so… because freedom?
6. For the last few years, virtually every major organization in society has embraced the mantra of “Out of an abundance of caution…” K12 schools live by the mantra. Colleges live by the mantra. The media lives by the mantra. Even many businesses live by the mantra. And of course most Democratic governors live by the mantra. Prominent Republican governors, in contrast, have repeatedly embraced risk. They’ve opened up earlier, and usually stayed open despite fierce media criticism and rising deaths.
7. What explains the wide policy variation we’ve seen under federalist dictatorship? Social scientists will be tempted to appeal to the Median Voter Model, but it’s hard to believe that’s close to the whole story. Ron DeSantis won the 2018 election by a nose. Contrary to some odd gaslighting, Florida remains a swing state. But dictator DeSantis rules like his reelection is guaranteed. Nor is he a strange outlier. Jarringly, Democratic and Republican governors tend to follow their own ideologies, or even their own consciences.
8. Standard models of politics assume that voters have independent preferences that politicians try to satisfy. Another possibility, however, is that voters have dependent preferences that politicians try to mold. This is especially plausible during an emergency, when the public desperately looks to rally around a heroic leader. If the Great One says vaccinated people need to wear masks indoors, then vaccinated people need to wear masks indoors. If the Great One says they don’t, then they don’t. Upshot: Perhaps governors are hoping that they can make their ideas popular simply by adopting them with great confidence and self-righteousness. And perhaps they’re right.
9. Our era of federalist dictatorship has been a great “Obedience to Authority” experiment. And the experiment replicates. People in fifty different states have been given fifty different (and fluctuating) sets of often arbitrary rules. And people in fifty different states have, by and large, obeyed. You could protest, “Each governor is just ‘ordering’ their citizens to do what they would have done on their own volition.” But that’s grossly overstated. The store mask mandates in Virginia and Texas were very similar this winter, and almost universally observed. But when both states dropped mask mandates, most northern Virginians kept wearing masks in stores for a month and more. In Texas, in contrast, masks in stores vanished almost overnight. As individuals, Texans wanted less caution than Virginians. Yet both groups obeyed their authorities.
10. Will voters punish extreme governors in the next election? Lax governors? Strict governors? My poll respondents lean moderately in the direction of, “Dems are more likely to be punished for strictness than Reps for laxity.” I’m not so sure, but I hope they’re right.
True or False?
(D) On net, Dems are losing votes for being too strict on COVID.
(R) On net, Reps are losing votes for being too lax on COVID.
(In both cases, holding the *other* party's position constant).
— Bryan Caplan (@bryan_caplan) August 26, 2021
READER COMMENTS
Mark
Sep 3 2021 at 3:41pm
“During Covid, Republicans started taking their freedom talk seriously.”
I don’t agree with this. Republicans were the ones who pushed for and started the first COVID restrictions i.e. travel bans. Moreover, restrictions on private businesses adopting COVID measures are just as much an infringement as forcing private businesses to do so. I know a lot of people who are more COVID-conscious and only will patronize businesses with mask and/or vax mandates. It infringes their freedom to ban businesses from having those mandates every bit as much as it infringes the freedom of less COVID-conscious people to require businesses to have their mandates. Just like on other issues, neither party is consistently pro-freedom but both try to use government to push their substantive cultural values and restrict the freedom of people they don’t like.
Zeke5123
Sep 4 2021 at 8:13am
I am reminded of a quip from WFB that while it’s true to say both the US and USSR might push old ladies, the Soviets pushed the old ladies into the path of a train whereas the US is pushing the lady off the tracks.
You can’t look at business restrictions in a vacuum. First, we have a federal government (who is willing to throw around their power) strongly suggesting business must adopt these measures. Second, you have the CDC putting out ridiculous standards. The easiest thing as a business is to not make a decision but say you are merely following CDC guidance (ie blame a third party authority). They may also want to comply with CDC diktats to minimize lawsuit risk. The guidance from CDC is subject to basically zero oversight (eg doesn’t go through notice and comment).
So, the refrain that “Republican governs are also against freedom” rings hollow. There is strong government pressure to enforce these mask and vaccine mandates. Republican governors are providing a counter weight.
Also, would point out that even if you believe both ultimately are against freedom the Republican one generally permits more individual choice (eg doesn’t ban masks; just mandates) whereas the democrat rules eliminate individual choice.
Finally while not freedom specifically the Republicans are merely implementing the status quo ante. It therefore seems like significant less intrusive law.
BC
Sep 6 2021 at 10:41am
Early on, Covid was viewed as a foreign thing, so Republicans indeed were first to push restrictions, mainly travel bans, as they were targeted towards foreigners. (Although some Americans were ensnared by those restrictions, many measures tried to distinguish between returning Americans and incoming foreigners.) Democrats resisted because they feared stigmatization of foreigners (and also Asians domestically).
Once community spread started, measures shifted to population-wide restrictions devised by the “enlightened” class: public health officials and corporate managers complying with those officials’ “guidance”. That’s when Republicans and Democrats flipped.
So, Democrats are resistant to targeted measures, especially when the targeting has a disparate or potentially stigmatizing impact on historically marginalized groups (racial minorities, foreigners, women, gays, etc.). Republicans are resistant to the grand plans of the enlightened class to save/reform society by imposing lifestyle changes on the general population. As Zeke5123 points out, there is a sense in which favoring the Naturally Evolved status quo over an Intelligently Designed grand plan is a type of freedom, or at least decentralization. Neither party seems to distinguish much between measures implemented by government and measures implemented by compliant private corporate managers.
Wolf
Sep 7 2021 at 1:40pm
The only quibble I have with this generally insightful comment is:
Democrats are resistant to targeted measures, especially when the targeting has a disparate or potentially stigmatizing impact on historically marginalized groups (racial minorities, foreigners, women, gays, etc.).
The lockdown burden fell disproportionally on the working class (who are disproportionally poor and/or minorities), who had to work in person because their jobs can’t be done remotely, and Dems didn’t care – not once have lockdowners even addressed this as far as I know. Now that vaccine passports are in play in some cities, minorities, especially blacks, represent the least vax’d by % by a wide margin, and the Dems again don’t care about the disproportionate effect.
They only “care” about that when they can use it as a cudgel to increase their own power and accuse their opposition of racism, sexism, misogyny, etc. All of that goes out the window when the rubber meets the road and they become scared for their own lives.
That said, I think your analysis of why the Rs were originally more in favor of restrictions, and the Ds not at all, and then how and why that flipped is a very interesting one that I haven’t seen before. It certainly passes the smell test.
Aaron Stewart
Sep 3 2021 at 3:41pm
Maybe it’s just my browser (Chrome), but the last few paragraphs are messed up. Some text is missing or out of order. The first two letters of one line somehow ended up at the end of that line…
Doug
Sep 3 2021 at 3:52pm
I think at the start of 6. you mean “the last few months” or something other than minutes.
Scott Sumner
Sep 3 2021 at 6:51pm
Is it “freedom” when governors tell private companies like cruise ship lines what they can and cannot do? Neither the Dems nor the GOP believe in freedom; they simply favor different kinds of restrictions. Look at the recent Texas bill restricting abortions. The GOP is also somewhat more restrictionist on drugs and immigration, although the Dems are pretty bad as well.
I think the differences between states on Covid is greatly overstated. I visited Arizona last year and didn’t notice much difference from California, other than fewer people wearing masks.
MikeP
Sep 3 2021 at 8:50pm
To be fair, you live in Orange County. I live in Santa Clara County. The difference between Orange County and Arizona is probably much smaller than the difference between Santa Clara County and Arizona.
When people I know went to Orange County last autumn, they came back with stories of how free it was. And I could see and feel the great difference even traveling down in May. Your county was much more liberal, presumably because it is much more conservative.
As another example, though through no choice of residents, people in southern California were able to have regional sports leagues last fall since the counties are large. In northern California we could not, as Marin County is three counties away from Santa Clara County.
And, yes, the differences are often seen in masks. I had to wear a mask last Friday at a high school football game. Outdoors of course. I expect you don’t. The vice principal was sitting near me and correcting the students who didn’t have their masks all the way up.
This normalization of mask-wearing is a slow walk into hell, dragging our children along.
Zeke5123
Sep 4 2021 at 8:22am
Of course there are large differences. I don’t need to show my papers in say Florida to eat in a restaurant. I do in NYC. And since you can do anecdote, well I’ve spent time in NY and FL during the last year plus and FL is much more open and normal.
And your comment on abortion is just silly. Yes, preventing me from killing you is I guess restricting my liberty but it is also protecting your liberty. The question on abortion isn’t one of freedom in the first instance but of whether the fetus is worthy of rights protection and who gets to decide. A priori there is no clear answer which side is correct. This is well known.
Finally it is sophomoric to say both sides favor restrictions and therefore neither side is for freedom. One side can be for more freedom compared to the other side. Support what side you deem to be for more freedom until a new side who is even more in favor of freedom comes around.
MarkW
Sep 3 2021 at 7:19pm
For what it’s worth, the Republican-majority legislature in Michigan did fight the governor’s emergency powers in court and ultimately revoked them entirely in law. The governor has made no attempt to reinstate state-level mandates during the Delta outbreak. So not all legislatures willfully abdicated power to their governors.
Joe Denver
Sep 3 2021 at 8:54pm
I largely agree, and have had similar observations.
The only thing I will add, is on point 9. While most people did obey mask mandates, I did see variation in the extent to which people obeyed.
In my own state, I noticed people in rural areas were much more likely to wear “minimally compliant” masks, masks below the nose, or just look the other way when someone wasn’t wearing a mask.
Whereas, in the urban areas, people went above and beyond what was required from mask mandates. Wearing masks when they weren’t required, reprimanding people when they forgot their mask, etc.
Infovores
Sep 3 2021 at 9:31pm
This may be a counter-example to the idea that strong personalities can simply mold the preferences of their constituents (Point 8):
https://www.al.com/news/2021/08/watch-trump-get-booed-in-alabama-for-telling-crowd-to-get-covid-vaccine.html
Lizard Man
Sep 3 2021 at 11:40pm
Maybe I am wrong about this, but I thought that Ohio and North Carolina showed that governor’s that played against their party’s type were rewarded either electorally or with very high approval ratings. Governor Dewine seemed to take a much more restrictionist approach to things than many Republican governors, and also had a conspicuously sober and serious public demeanor when talking about the pandemic. That seemed to gain him a lot of respect from Democratic voters and cost him little support from Republicans. Of course, when push came to shove, he also knew when restrictions would be taking it too far and risk losing support among the public (i.e. not cancelling high school football in 2020).
Governor Cooper of North Carolina took a less restrictionist tack then many other Democratic governors. Which you would expect a successful Democratic politician from the Southeast to do. His public persona was also that of a serious, sober, and even keeled official. He largely left decisions about in-person versus virtual schooling to local school boards for the 2020-2021 school year, while publicly expressing support for in-person schooling, based upon the recommendation of the head of the state’s HHS department. He never seemed to support shuttering businesses except for the initial Spring 2020 “lockdown”. He waited to issue a mask mandate until the summer of 2020, by which time he could cite some evidence from the US that mask mandates did have some effectiveness at slowing the spread of the virus. And then in 2020 he won re-election in a state that Trump won easily.
Were I politician, the thing that I would take away from this is that presenting a calm and serious persona during a time of crisis is good for a politician, as is tailoring your response to the cultural peculiarities of your constituents. It seems like this should be politics 101 stuff, but then you see all these governors garnering a whole lot of press and seemingly going out of their way to really piss off and motivate their political opponents.
Frank
Sep 4 2021 at 8:51pm
As long as people can move between states, there is no problem. 🙂
A Country Farmer
Sep 5 2021 at 2:39pm
Point 9 is particularly poignant.
dave hood
Sep 6 2021 at 9:06am
Widespread obedience of mask mandates may not reflect a population of sheep as much as the ability of the state to come down hard on organizations (businesses) that decline to act as police.
Comments are closed.