In a recent conversation with Kentucky’s Democratic nominee for the Senate, Amy McGrath, Democratic Rep. Seth Moulton of Massachusetts said, “We certainly have this perception in the Northeast that all the red states are getting what was coming to them because they refused to follow these mandates, and they’re playing politics with this rather than listening to the science.”
McGrath responded in kind, saying, “The unfortunate thing, particularly with states in the South, is that as you said, Seth: This has become politicized.” She did temper her comments a bit. “No matter whether you’re red or blue, people do want to mitigate this coronavirus,” she continued.
These refrains have been commonly employed as takedowns, but accusations of Republican states “politicizing” the virus are mostly empty notions. What the two deride as “politicizing the virus,” the lesser partisan recognizes as a valid risk management effort.
For months, governors have been weighing risks in order to determine what to do about their states. South Carolina began its reopening in early May. During the week of May 3-9, the state recorded a lower number of cases than in the previous five weeks. Once numbers started climbing again, Republican Gov. Henry McMaster could have ordered businesses to close again, but he determined that with capacity restrictions and mask recommendations, restaurants and retail establishments were not going to become prevailing infection zones.
His decisions on reopening, and other similar ones, have been largely vindicated. Public health officials have not widely blamed dining and furniture shopping for spreading the virus. They have blamed things like private parties. With the recent caseload increases, McMaster has put restrictions on bars, as many other states have done. South Carolina is just one example, but the characteristics of its reopening have been shared by other states as governors work to balance virus mitigation and economic survival.
As for governors deciding not to mandate masks, there are legitimate motivations beyond political expediency, especially on the matter of enforcement. Should officers be dispatched to ensure that people comply? Think about how fluid many public interactions are. Many are simply passing. There is a good case to be made that sending officers to respond to enforce such orders is a waste of time.
In some cases, the foil to Republican approaches to masks is unreasonably draconian. Read the text of Washington’s mask order mandating masks outdoors: “Persons leaving their residences shall wear a mask when they are likely to come into contact with another person, such as being within six feet of another person for more than a fleeting time.”
No, officer — my contact with that person in the park was actually fleeting.
It is also worth pointing out that some of the states that saw a recent surge in cases are states that managed to avoid the worst of it during the first wave, and that seems much more likely to determine where the outbreaks are. Mask mandates and closures in Democratic-governed states such as California and New Mexico did not prevent a frightening surge in cases that is only now beginning to ebb. Note that California’s mask mandate has been in place since May.
None of it is easy. Elected officials everywhere are trying to do the right thing. It doesn’t make much sense to say that governors more sympathetic to reopening have “politicized” something that wasn’t political. The virus has always been political insofar as it is intrinsically linked to political decision-making. Chalking up Republican states’ actions on the coronavirus to bad faith politics is in itself a political strategy. It probably feels good, but it’s a farcical criticism.
