By Ira Bedzow
We are approaching a potential inflection point of political and economic instability that may have dire social consequences. While many among us who haven’t left our homes in weeks to months are beginning to see this time as one that calls for solidarity, there has also been a rise in extremist sentiment, on both the left and the right. Much, though not all, of this radicalization is occurring online, and it is being heightened by continued isolation and the echo chamber of social and other media.
The extremism is more than the traditional anti-Semitic rhetoric, where Jews and Zionists are being blamed for the COVID-19 pandemic as part of a grand conspiracy, though this is also occurring both in the United States and abroad. Extremist groups are using the pandemic to increase radicalization in two ways, namely accelerationism—or adding fuel to the fire that is burning down society—and pushing their own narratives of societal collapse. The latter is the more nefarious, since it intentionally misinterprets political and economic responses to the global pandemic as being in support of their extremist ideologies. This includes “political criticism” of Israel, where leaders of radical groups claim that the state of Israel should be held culpable for deaths resulting from COVID-19, or that Israel has used the pandemic to militarize the country.
Both in the United States and abroad, populist and nativist movements have gained greater stronghold in national politics, even before the COVID-19 pandemic broke onto the world stage. President Trump’s “America First” campaign of de-globalization and Brexit were not products of the pandemic, yet the pandemic has made many of their policies, such as border closings, common political practice. Closing borders to stop contagion is easily transformed to build a wall to stop diseased immigrants. Similarly, even when countries are still using international networks to supply goods and medical resources, such as personal protective equipment, the stakes are much higher to source needed goods, making economic competition turn into political tension. Radicalizing rhetoric will focus on the criticism made against countries while ignoring the fact that those countries are still trading with each other.
Again, in many cases, it is not the political or economic decisions themselves that stem from nativist or populist sentiment. Oftentimes, political leaders are trying to save their countries from public health crises and economic depression. It is the cherry picking of information and misinterpreting the motivations of political and economic policies to support extremist agendas.
The reason why radicalization can be successful during this crisis is not only due to people spending more time on the internet. The narratives seem coherent when people constantly hear how people are getting sick, losing their jobs, and finding food supply chains disrupted. Though populist movements on the left and right seemed to be losing political support across Europe before the pandemic, down does not mean out. Many social and economic vulnerabilities, such as growing income inequality, job disruption, and the erosion of civic communities, that fuel political extremism have not been abated.
Political instability in the United States and Europe seem to be very similar. Both the United States and Europe look like they are going through a process of devolution, where power is being transferred from a more centralized authority to a more regional one. Yet the reasons for the change in political dynamics and resultant instability is very different for each. In the former, the increase in gubernatorial recognition and leadership is based on the president’s purposeful loosening of the bonds of the federal system. For the latter, it is because the European Union is first and foremost an economic and not a political union, even if it does entail political ties.
This may be the first time in a long time that the American public can name governors in their own states, let alone states they don’t live in. In the Midwest, in the Northeast Corridor and on the West Coast, governors are forming regional coalitions to coordinate efforts in response to the pandemic, since they do not see any leadership on the national level. Yet before forming coalitions, states competed for medical resources in ways akin to independent countries.
In Europe, where previously there was a push towards greater consolidation of the European Union—both economic and political—recently there has been an about face. Only a little while ago President Emmanuel Macron and Chancellor Angela Merkel called for global cooperation; today France and Germany have hoarded face masks and critical medical gear, and disrupted food supply chains. Exasperated by the lack of EU assistance, Italy’s permanent representative to the EU, Carlo Callendra recently commented, “Why do we want to stay in the EU? It is useless.” President of the European Council, Charles Michel, in a letter to the people of Spain on March 25, wrote, “Europe stands by your side in full solidarity, and we will spare no effort to help you–and all EU countries.” However, EU member countries, Germany, Austria and Holland have been reticent about supporting other member states financially, through corona bonds or otherwise.
While the pandemic, economic downturn, and lack of political stability are prime ingredients to create a “perfect storm” of radicalization, extremist politics is not inevitable. Yet that also does not mean that leaders should not be wary of how their policies—and even personal actions—can be misconstrued and politicized in deleterious ways. They should also be highly aware that many of the economic and political decisions they must make today—while necessary to save the world from viral contagion—have further social alienation as a consequence.
To hinder radicalizing narratives from taking hold of political discourse, which may start at the fringes but can creep towards the center if not checked, leaders must work to build civil society along with their economies. Civil society is not the domain of either politics or business yet it influences both. It is the space where individuals can build trust through interconnectedness and the exercise of shared values. Because it allows people to develop informal bonds that are not grounded in financial contracts or political ideology, but is increased through a sense of physical and financial safety, it can serve to mollify tensions in times of political or economic disruption. In a word, civil society is the grease that spins the wheels of democracy.
Civil society in general has been suffering a slow death for decades, ever since bowling alleys lost popularity and online chat rooms became the place where people met. This will be a big lift for leaders to undertake. However, now, in this global crisis, people are ready to come back together. Time alone has demonstrated to all of us the need to be among others.
Moreover, the shared experience of loss–personal and financial—gives people familiarity with each other’s plight and more empathy for another’s struggle. Also, because people are working and living at home, there are less distractions even amidst the chaos of trying to work and homeschool children in the same room. Time with family is teaching us how to voice differences without creating dividing lines. Neighbors helping each other out—while keeping appropriate social distance—is extending interconnectedness that is not contingent on party lines.
If political and business leaders can join with social leaders to increase social capital, they may find themselves not only providing their respective countries with much needed voices to flatten the current curve of political anxiety, they might also demonstrate the leadership that the world needs right now.
Ira Bedzow, Ph.D., is associate professor of medicine in the School of Medicine and director of the Biomedical Ethics & Humanities Program at New York Medical College (NYMC), where he is in charge of the direction, oversight, and management of the Biomedical Ethics and Humanities Program in the School of Medicine (SOM).