We are currently entering the fourth month of major media coverage of the novel Coronavirus, COVID19, pandemic. At first the United states watched other countries struggle with outbreaks, and it seemed that many people and politicians held their breath. This silence was not shared by all; Washington State Governor, Jay Inslee, was one of the first prominent politicians to speak out about the dangers of COVID19 and the need for community and national preparedness. From the very beginning, Inslee spoke publicly about the need for supporting healthcare workers and potential resource shortages. Inslee also publicly rebuked the Trump Administration, admonishing them for their lack of a response; “enhance the manufacturing supply chain like happened in World War II. I think the federal government should do that immediately to expand the manufacturing capacity” (Villa, 2020). At first these reprimands were not intensely meaningful, at the time there had been no real alarming shortage of ventilators or masks, and Inslee’s words didn’t stick in my mind any more than other stories I had seen on the news criticizing Trump for one thing or another. The critique seemed on-brand and ordinary.
However, as time has passed and the COVID19 pandemic has worsened, and national shortages are occurring at an unsustainable rate, Inslee’s words--“It would be very helpful if the federal government could use its enormous levers, both statutory and economic, to try to increase the supply chain and bring new manufacturers to make some of these products that maybe have never made them before, but we really need them to make them now”-- have resurfaced in the media and people’s minds with new meaning (Villa, 2020). Not only has Washington effectively flattened its curve, but the issues Inslee warned the nation about have come to fruition. And, just as Inslee said, Trump has done very little and many now view the federal response as being “behind the eight-ball”. The idea that statements which previously carried little weight, are now garnering Gov. Inslee positive press is evidence of the shifting narrative of politics. In his book, The Performative Presidency Crisis and Resurrection during the Clinton Years, Jason Mast says, “politics flows in episodes, and actors work within and between episodes to control micro-events so that they are well positioned when large-scale events, which compel broad public attention, form and appear to take on a life of their own” (Mast, pg. 13, 2013). Inslee is a skilled political actor--he was prepared and actively engaged in his response to these micro-events--and this bode well for him. Although it meant little at the time, as the situation developed his words became important in the larger narrative, “...always engaged in mediating them in an effort to control their potential future meanings in case they do, in fact, become plot points in and event writ large” (Mast, pg 13, 2013).
If politicians are the actors, and citizens the audience, then we can understand the response to the pandemic as a struggle for control over narrative and a battle to be the protagonist. Mast says that these battles are not won after the fact, but by reacting to and gaining control over moments and minute occurrences, even if these “micro-events” don’t initially stick in people’s mind the first time they watch the episode. The key in politics is having enough control over episodic narrative, that when a plot twist comes, it is your character who has been the steady leader throughout the season. Inslee’s early and consistent response to the initial moments of COVID19 allowed him to maintain an image of power, stability, and legitimacy while casting Trump as a part of the problem.
No comments:
Post a Comment