Living with Risk

It is a commonplace to say that America has become polarized politically. This observation is certainly confirmed by the current divide over pandemic lockdowns. Half the country appears to believe that ending the lockdowns will result in millions of deaths from disease. The other half believes that keeping the lockdowns in place will result in millions of deaths from starvation. The fact that these two horsemen of the apocalypse are jousting in our political arena illustrates at least three different dynamics in play. One is about economics, one about authority, and one about how our political views are shaped by differing perceptions of risk. Understanding this last element may help us most in understanding our way out of the mess.

The current debate over reopening seems, on the face of it, to be about competing approaches to economics. The “lockdown lobby” seems to regard any price paid to protect a human life from the virus as worthwhile; the reopeners regard the price of lockdown as too high, bringing with it costs of its own.

In this respect, the debate can be seen as reflecting a long-established divide between those who focus on the economic effects of one problem and try to solve it, and those who recognize that solutions often bring problems of their own. This is classic Bastiat—the debate between those who focus on the “seen” and those who are worried about the “unseen.”

Beneath this debate, however, there is another one simmering, one that aligns well with the economic argument. This is a debate about authority and expertise. Those who say “listen to the experts” tend to defer to the pronouncements of scientists without debate, and favor lockdowns on those grounds. Skeptics, on the other hand, pick apart the scientists’ arguments (sometimes without understanding them fully) and come to their own judgments. This explains the close correlation between global warming skeptics and lockdown skeptics.

A third, broader conflict may underlie both of these. America’s politics is shaped by the values Americans hold. These values, cultural researchers have found, can be placed in four value groups. Each of them is distinguished by a different concern about risk.

First is the group known as fatalists. Their attitude to risk is quite simple: Things will happen to them irrespective of what they do. Surviving is merely a matter of luck. As a result, they rarely engage in the political debates swirling around policy choices.

Second are the egalitarians. Their concern is that risk must be a matter of fairness. The central aim of politics should be to ensure fairness and to eliminate risk for those most exposed to it. No one should escape risk because of privilege.

Third are what the theorists call hierarchists. This group sees stability and order as most important, and believes risk is worst when it upsets the established order. Politics is a tool to preserve this establishment, or at least “the way we do things around here.”

Finally, there are the libertarians. They regard risks to freedom as the worst problem. To them, politics is about creating institutions to preserve freedom.

When these values clash, we see political polarization at its worst. When they align, we see consensus and reform. Today, when consensus is probably most needed, they are clashing hard.

Part of finding a safer approach to reopening is trial and error. In that respect, the American or German system of federalism is better suited than the centralization of a France or England.

We see these values clash over environmental risk regularly. Egalitarians believe commercial activity exacerbates environmental risk that hurts the poor, so they want commercial activity constrained and regulated. To libertarians and the hierarchists, those restrictions are the actual risks, threatening freedom and the way we have always done things (although some hierarchists regard environmental risk as threatening God’s creation).

The current clash over lockdowns is the same argument recast. Egalitarians think an end to the lockdowns would hurt the vulnerable. Libertarians view the lockdowns as threatening freedom—and even contact tracing as threatening civil liberties. Hierarchists particularly oppose restrictions on religious gatherings.

And the guy who walks straight into a store, ignoring lines, to get booze and cigarettes? Almost certainly a fatalist.

In thinking through this, we need to remember that risks are often relative. If we focus exclusively on the risks we are most concerned about, we can miss the other risks that obtain should our demands be met. It requires a degree of humility about the importance of our values to recognize this.

The cultural theorist Aaron Wildavsky would talk about the jogger’s dilemma: Jogging is a good way of getting fitter and thereby reducing health risks, but more than a few joggers drop dead owing to the extra exertion. Each group in this crisis faces its own version. Keep locked down to protect the vulnerable but risk the vulnerable falling prey to despair; open up but see liberty further eroded after a second wave; go to church and then find the entire congregation infected. There is no safe course, free from risks. We must instead find a “safer” course than the one each group currently favors.

Part of finding this safer approach is—and always has been—trial and error. In that respect, the American or German system of federalism is better suited than, say, the centralization of a France or England, particularly when differences in population density are taken into account. We can see what happens when Georgia reopens, while New York stays locked down. Lockdown supporters are horrified by this. This framework of risk tells us why: they view it as unfair to the vulnerable in the “experimental” states.

Another thing the framework tells us is that we cannot expect perfect safety. As my mentor Fred Smith put it, “Once a society demands unattainable levels of safety—a risk-free world—public policy becomes divorced from reality.” If we are to find a safer world, we have to accept a level of risk we may be uncomfortable with, whether it be a risk to fairness, to freedom, or the established order.

Thus, a safer world might entail reopening the states at different speeds, changes to how we go about our lives and organize our religious gatherings, frequent testing—and yes, wearing face masks.

We are probably not going to agree about economics or expertise any time soon. Yet unless we are willing to understand why our fellow Americans differ in our perceptions of risk, we are not going to find the safer route out of our predicament.

Reader Discussion

Law & Liberty welcomes civil and lively discussion of its articles. Abusive comments will not be tolerated. We reserve the right to delete comments - or ban users - without notification or explanation.

on May 29, 2020 at 09:21:02 am

I think the author is forgetting that the attitude toward risk is often connected to what one expects for themselves, and that is often based on one’s own experience of fortune or blessings, or even in some cases a pathological narcissism. To be more specific, it seems like the author forgot a category of response to risk which is “There is no risk to me, X will not/does not happen to me”. And at this point reflection ends. That’s not really fatalism or any sort of normative commitment to freedom. Sometimes it overlaps with hierarchy, but it seems like another attitude toward fortune and an important one that pervades human responses to politics- now and always.

read full comment
Image of AMB
on May 29, 2020 at 10:54:21 am

Interesting one. Offers great correlation. Yet, correlation, doesn't imply causation. In this regard, the post, misses the point. For example:

It is stated, I quote:

"Egalitarians think an end to the lockdowns would hurt the vulnerable."

Yet, vulnerable, are not less hurt by lockdown. Even more. For, they don't have financial backup. They don't have savings. They would be the firsts, to starve(speaking of economic impact, and starvation mentioned).

Or, speaking of Libertarians, they are defined as, I quote:

"Finally, there are the libertarians. They regard risks to freedom as the worst problem. To them, politics is about creating institutions to preserve freedom."

Yet, freedom also from being affected. And how, if government, wouldn't impose lockdown? But, the author writes I quote:

" Libertarians view the lockdowns as threatening freedom—and even contact tracing as threatening civil liberties."

Yet, without lockdown, there is possible risk of infection. And if institutions need to preserve freedom, then the same institutions, need to preserve it, by contact tracing etc.... The same institutions have double roles, contradictory roles or duty.

Something bigger, deeper, greater, explains that causation, beyond correct correlation.


read full comment
Image of El roam
El roam
on May 29, 2020 at 19:43:42 pm

With regard to egalitarianism and effect of lockdown, yours was exactly my first reaction. We might be egalitarian with regard to risk of infection, or we might be egalitarian with regard to financial effects. And the economic effects of lockdown very clearly have different effects depending on social circumstances. But beyond that, even under lockdown, the risk of infection is hardly 'egalitarian' -- it is 'redistributed' in very significant ways. The pretense that lockdown might be egalitarian is a straw man.

read full comment
Image of cmcc_aus
on May 30, 2020 at 17:47:41 pm

What's missed by the author is the likelihood that our polarization is driven by a division between those reacting with emotion--there's a lot of fear and panic about--and those reacting based on reason. Many reacting with fear and panic do so because their emotions are overwhelmed by the torrent of information, directives, and death and disaster porn produced by media and govt officials alike. The rational among us are skilled in dealing with facts, information, and uncertainty, and are experienced with making risk-based decisions. My observations are it is as simple as this: emotion versus reason.

Cultural values might have something to do with the current dilemma, but I don't see their prominent expression. What I do see is an opposition media stoking hysteria, panic, and fear, attempting to make everything in the country as worse as possible--as has been the case since Nov 8, 2016.

read full comment
Image of Forbes
on May 31, 2020 at 12:07:36 pm

Let us not forget that for the atheistic materialist overpopulation alarmist globalists, abortion and euthanasia are essential because they believe such inhumane policies, “cuts costs”.

read full comment
Image of Nancy

Law & Liberty welcomes civil and lively discussion of its articles. Abusive comments will not be tolerated. We reserve the right to delete comments - or ban users - without notification or explanation.



Deadly Tradeoffs

The question is not the existence of tradeoffs, but whether the necessity of making tradeoffs will be honestly acknowledged or dishonestly denied.