How will the coronavirus crisis affect American politics?
The focus, for now, is naturally on the emergency itself. As of Friday evening, more than one million people in the U.S. had been infected by the coronavirus and more than 59,000 had died, according to the Covid Tracking Project.
But here are five areas where the crisis could have a political impact over the longer term.
ADVERTISEMENT
Universal health care
The global nature of the health crisis has been a reminder of the United States’ status as the only first-world nation without universal health care coverage.
Additionally, the underpinnings of the U.S. system — where many people’s health insurance is linked to their employment — is under new scrutiny as enormous job losses scythe across the nation. More than 30 million Americans have filed new unemployment claims in the past six weeks.
There is some evidence that the crisis is shifting public views of health care.
A Morning Consult poll in mid-March, just as the crisis was beginning to hit the U.S. hard, found increasing support for universal, government-provided coverage.
The poll found 26 percent of all adults saying it was “much more likely” they would support such a concept and an additional 15 percent saying it was “somewhat more likely.”
Fifty-nine percent of Democrats chose one of those options, but so too did 25 percent of Republicans. Only 12 percent of adults said the crisis made it less likely they would support universal health care.
In a March op-ed for CNN, written before he suspended his presidential campaign, Sanders asserted that universal health care was vital because people would otherwise be discouraged from seeking medical treatment because of the cost. “When somebody is not treated for the virus, that means the infection can spread to many others, putting whole communities at risk,” he wrote.
Still, there is no guarantee that the coronavirus crisis will move opinions on universal health care in a permanent way. And, even if it did so, it is an open question whether legislation to achieve it could be enacted.
The coronavirus crisis may yet herald a change in Americans’ perceptions of voting itself — specifically, the desirability of casting ballots by mail rather than in person.
If the virus were to still be a danger in November, many people would be reluctant to wait in long lines for protracted periods.
There are already signs that the nation is warming to the idea of voting by mail.
An AP-NORC poll released last week found almost 40 percent of adults supported holding elections exclusively by mail — an approximate doubling of the popularity of that opinion since 2018.
In the same poll, an outright majority — 56 percent — said people should be allowed to vote by mail without having to provide a specific reason for doing so.
Five states currently hold elections entirely by mail, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures: Colorado, Hawaii, Oregon, Washington and Utah. Several other states permit some elections to be conducted by mail, or allow individual counties to decide to hold mail-in elections if they wish.
Trump has been notably skeptical of the idea, asserting at one point simply that “mail ballots, they cheat…Mail ballots are very dangerous for this country because of cheaters.” Trump himself, however, voted by mail earlier this year, casting an absentee ballot in Florida.
There are some concerns across the partisan divide that mail-in voting may carry a higher potential for fraud than in-person voting.
But the states that have adopted it have not incurred widescale problems, and the coronavirus crisis could see its acceptability reach critical mass.
ADVERTISEMENT
Immigration
President Trump announced on Twitter on April 20 that he would move to “temporarily suspend immigration into the United States” in response to the crisis.
He subsequently issued an executive order but it was not quite so sweeping. It paused green cards from being issued for at least 60 days but it included a number of exceptions. It did not, for example, affect green card applicants who are already in the United States.
Immigrant advocates blasted the move nonetheless, accusing the president of using the crisis to pursue the kind of hard line on the issue that he has long favored.
Some opinion polls, however, suggest many Americans share Trump’s views — at least for now.
A Washington Post/University of Maryland poll conducted from April 21-26 found 65 percent of adults backing the idea of temporarily blocking “nearly all immigration into the United States during the coronavirus outbreak.”
Republicans in that poll supported such a pause overwhelmingly, 83 percent to 17 percent. But Democrats, usually seen as more pro-immigration, were split evenly: 49 percent supporting and 49 percent opposed.
ADVERTISEMENT
Immigrant groups argue that such results could be a temporary blip in the midst of a crisis, and should not distract from the fact that most Americans think immigration is a net benefit to the nation.
But the nature of the crisis — a threat that began in China and went on to cause havoc across the globe — could yet affect views not just of immigration, but of freedom of movement and globalization more generally.
The social safety net
Could the coronavirus crisis — and the sheer scale of the economic devastation it has wreaked — also lead to a reappraisal of the need for a stronger social safety net in general?
The fact that the nation is experiencing a once-in-a-lifetime shock suggests to some people that sizable changes could be made.
There are also new questions about unemployment benefits and whether some states lack the infrastructure to get such assistance promptly to those who need it.
But many experts are skeptical that even such a major crisis will fundamentally alter how most Americans view the social compact.
Joshua Clinton, a professor of political science at Vanderbilt University, recently told CNBC: “There might be a slight shift, but I don’t think that you’ll see a grand shift in how people think about the structure of the state and the relationship of the state to their own lives.”
Political campaigning
One of the most obvious political impacts of the coronavirus has been on the nature of campaigning.
With mass rallies out of the question, candidates and campaigns have had to think about other ways to reach voters.
The Democratic National Convention has already been pushed back from its originally scheduled date in mid-July to a month later. Trump has insisted the equivalent Republican event will go on as planned the following week.
It is clear that the crisis will have a profound effect on this year’s presidential campaign.
But it is harder to imagine other changes — like a shift to virtual campaigning — sticking for good and becoming the norm in future election cycles.
The New Democrats have declared a federal byelection victory in their Winnipeg stronghold riding of Elmwood—Transcona.
The NDP candidate Leila Dance told supporters in a tearful speech that even though the final results weren’t in, she expected she would see them in Ottawa.
With several polls still to be counted, Conservative candidate Colin Reynolds conceded defeat and told his volunteers that they should be proud of what the Conservatives accomplished in the campaign.
Political watchers had a keen eye on the results to see if the Tories could sway traditionally NDP voters on issues related to labour and affordability.
Meanwhile in the byelection race in the Montreal riding of LaSalle—Émard—Verdun the NDP, Liberals and Bloc Québécois remained locked in an extremely tight three-way race as the results trickled in slowly.
The Liberal stronghold riding had a record 91 names on the ballot, and the results aren’t expected until the early hours of the morning.
This report by The Canadian Press was first published Sept. 16, 2024.
VANCOUVER – An incumbent BC United legislative member has reversed her decision not to seek re-election and has announced she’ll run as an Independent in the riding of West Vancouver-Capilano in the upcoming British Columbia election.
Karin Kirkpatrick has been a vocal critic of BC United Leader Kevin Falcon’s decision last month to suspend the party’s campaign and throw support behind the B.C. Conservatives under John Rustad.
Kirkpatrick announced her retirement this year, but said Monday that her decision to re-enter the race comes as a direct result of Falcon’s actions, which would force middle-of-the-road voters to “swing to the left” to the NDP or to move further right to the Conservatives.
“I did hear from a lot of constituents and a lot of people who were emailing me from across B.C. … that they didn’t have anybody to vote for,” she said. “And so, I looked even at myself, and I looked at my riding, and I said, ‘Well, I no longer have anybody to vote for in my own riding.’ It was clearly an issue of this missing middle for the more moderate voter.”
She said voters who reached out “don’t want to vote for an NDP government but felt deeply uncomfortable” supporting the provincial Conservatives, citing Rustad’s tolerance of what she calls “extreme views and conspiracy theorists.”
Kirkpatrick joins four other incumbent Opposition MLAs running as Independents, including Peace River South’s Mike Bernier, Peace River North’s Dan Davies, Prince George-Cariboo’s Coralee Oakes and Tom Shypitka in Kootenay-Rockies.
“To be honest, we talk just about every day,” Kirkpatrick said about her fellow BC United incumbents now running as Independents. “We’re all feeling the same way. We all need to kind of hold each other up and make sure we’re doing the right thing.”
She added that a number of first-time candidates formerly on the BC United ticket are contacting the group of incumbents running for election, and the group is working together “as good moderates who respect each other and lift each other up.”
But Kirkpatrick said it’s also too early to talk about the future of BC United or the possibility of forming a new party.
“The first thing we need to do is to get these Independent MLAs elected into the legislature,” she said, noting a strong group could play a power-broker role if a minority government is elected. “Once we’re there then we’re all going to come together and we’re going to figure out, is there something left in BC United, BC Liberals that we can resurrect, or do we need to start a new party that’s in the centre?”
She said there’s a big gap left in the political spectrum in the province.
“So, we just have to do it in a mindful way, to make sure it’s representing the broadest base of people in B.C.”
Among the supporters at Kirkpatrick’s announcement Monday was former longtime MLA Ralph Sultan, who held West Vancouver-Capilano for almost two decades before retiring in 2020.
The Metro Vancouver riding has been a stronghold for the BC Liberals — the former BC United — since its formation in 1991, with more than half of the votes going to the centre-right party in every contest.
However, Kirkpatrick’s winning margin of 53.6 per cent to the NDP’s 30.1 per cent and the Green’s 15.4 per cent in the 2020 election shows a rising trend for left-leaning voters in the district.
Mike McDonald, chief strategy officer with Kirk and Co. Consulting, and a former campaign director for the BC Liberals and chief of staff under former Premier Christy Clark, said Independent candidates historically face an uphill battle and the biggest impact may be splitting votes in areas where the NDP could emerge victorious.
“It really comes down to, if the NDP are in a position to get 33 per cent of the vote, they might have a chance of winning,” McDonald said of the impact of an Independent vote-split with the Conservatives in certain ridings.
He said B.C. history shows it’s very hard for an Independent to win an election and has been done only a handful of times.
“So, the odds do not favour Independents winning the seats unless there is a very unique combination of circumstances, and more likely that they play a role as a spoiler, frankly.”
The B.C. Conservatives list West Vancouver School District Trustee Lynne Block as its candidate in West Vancouver-Capilano, while the BC NDP is represented by health care professional Sara Eftekhar.
Kirkpatrick said she is confident that her re-entry to the race will not result in a vote split that allows the NDP to win the seat because the party has always had a poor showing in the riding.
“So, even if there is competition between myself and the Conservative candidate, it is highly unlikely that anything would swing over to the NDP here. And I believe that I have the ability to actually attract those NDP voters to me, as well as the Conservatives and Liberals who are feeling just lost right now.”
This report by The Canadian Press was first published Sept. 16, 2024.
WASHINGTON (AP) — Secretary of State Antony Blinken heads to Egypt on Tuesday for his 10th trip to the Middle East since the war in Gaza began nearly a year ago, this one aimed partly at refining a proposal to present to Israel and Hamas for a cease-fire deal and release of hostages.
Unlike in recent mediating missions, America’s top diplomat this time is traveling without optimistic projections from the Biden administration of an expected breakthrough in the troubled negotiations.
Also unlike the earlier missions, Blinken has no public plans to go to Israel to meet with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on this trip. The Israeli leader’s fiery public statements — like his declaration that Israel would accept only “total victory” when Blinken was in the region in June — and some other unbudgeable demands have complicated earlier diplomacy.
Blinken is going to Egypt for talks Wednesday with Egyptian Foreign Minister Badr Abdelatty and others, in a trip billed as focused both on American-Egyptian relations and Gaza consultations with Egypt.
The tamped-down public approach follows months in which President Joe Biden and his officials publicly talked up an agreement to end the war in Gaza as being just within reach, hoping to build pressure on Netanyahu’s far-right government and Hamas to seal a deal.
The Biden administration now says it is working with fellow mediators Egypt and Qatar to come up with a revised final proposal to try to at least get Israel and Hamas into a six-week cease-fire that would free some of the hostages held by Hamas in exchange for Palestinian prisoners held by Israel. Americans believe public attention on details of the talks now would only hurt that effort.
American, Qatari and Egyptian officials still are consulting “about what that proposal will contain, and …. we’re trying to see that it’s a proposal that can get the parties to an ultimate agreement,” State Department spokesman Matthew Miller said Monday.
The State Department pointed to Egypt’s important role in Gaza peace efforts in announcing last week that the Biden administration planned to give the country its full $1.3 billion in military aid, overriding congressional requirements that the U.S. hold back some of the funding if Egypt fails to show adequate progress on human rights. Blinken told Congress that Egypt has made progress on human rights, including in freeing political prisoners.
Blinken’s trip comes amid the risk of a full-on new front in the Middle East, with Israel threatening increasing military action against the Hezbollah militant organization in Lebanon. Biden envoy Amos Hochstein was in Israel on Monday to try to calm tensions after a stop in Lebanon.
Hezbollah has one of the strongest militaries in the Middle East, and like Hamas and smaller groups in Syria and Iraq it is allied with Iran.
Hezbollah and Israel have exchanged strikes across Israel’s northern border with Lebanon since the Oct. 7 attack by Hamas started the war in Gaza. Hezbollah says it will ease those strikes — which have uprooted tens of thousands of civilians on both sides of the border — only when there’s a cease-fire in Gaza.
Hochstein told Netanyahu and other Israeli officials that intensifying the conflict with Hezbollah would not help get Israelis back in their homes, according to a U.S. official. The official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the private talks, said Hochstein stressed to Netanyahu that he risked sparking a broad and protracted regional conflict if he moved forward with a full-scale war in Lebanon.
Hochstein also underscored to Israeli officials that the Biden administration remained committed to finding a diplomatic solution to the tensions on Israel’s northern border in conjunction with a Gaza deal or on its own, the official said.
Netanyahu told Hochstein that it would “not be possible to return our residents without a fundamental change in the security situation in the north.” The prime minister said Israel “appreciates and respects” U.S. support but “will do what is necessary to maintain its security and return the residents of the north to their homes safely.”
Israel Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, meanwhile, warned in his meeting with Hochstein that “the only way left to ensure the return of Israel’s northern communities to their homes will be via military action,” his office said.
In Gaza, the U.S. says Israel and Hamas have agreed to a deal in principle and that the biggest obstacles now include a disagreement on details of the hostage and prisoner swap and control over a buffer zone on the border between Gaza and Egypt. Netanyahu has demanded in recent weeks that the Israeli military be allowed to keep a presence in the Philadelphi corridor. Egypt and Hamas have rejected that demand.
The Hamas-led attacks in southern Israel on Oct. 7 killed about 1,200 people. Militants also abducted 250 people and are still holding around 100 hostages. About a third of the remaining hostages are believed to be dead.
Israel’s offensive in Gaza has killed more than 41,000 Palestinians, said Gaza’s Health Ministry, which does not distinguish between civilians and militants in its count. The war has caused widespread destruction, displaced a majority of Gaza’s people and created a humanitarian crisis.
Netanyahu says he is working to bring home the hostages. His critics accuse him of slow-rolling a deal because it could bring down his hardline coalition government, which includes members opposed to a truce with the Palestinians.
Asked earlier this month if Netanyahu was doing enough for a cease-fire deal, Biden said, simply, “no.” But he added that he still believed a deal was close.
___
Associated Press writer Aamer Madhani contributed to this report.
