The 2020 Pandemic and Big Brother Rising. NewsWire

NEWSWIRE: 4/20/20

• As government leaders marshal to fight COVID-19, they’re amassing sweeping new executive powers. Democracies around the world are looking increasingly authoritarian as officials limit movement, expand surveillance, and postpone elections in the name of public safety. (The Washington Post)
• NH: If there is one absolute truth in history, it is that a genuine crisis--in the economy, in health and public safety, or in civic order--always and everywhere enhances the power of top-down authoritarian leadership.
• With well over half of the world's population under emergency lockdowns and with nearly every economy contracting rapidly, such a crisis has arrived. People everywhere are watching their national leaders (or, in America, their state governors) give daily addresses about what rules they must follow and what kind of future they can look forward to. Even democratic governments are shutting down borders. And many are mandating GPS, telecom, or drone surveillance (and other Stasi-like technologies... yes, even in Israel) to catch rule-breakers. Meanwhile, the fiscal regimentation of entire economies is turning most businesses and ordinary people into effective wards of the state. And you think that too doesn't come with rules?
• "End of Freedom" was the London Daily Telegraph's banner headline three weeks ago when the UK went under total lockdown.
• And now the second rule of history: In such crisis eras, leaders who have always favored a more authoritarian approach to governance will use this moment to strike. "Never let a crisis go to waste" was chief of staff Rahm Emanuel's advice to President Barack Obama back in 2008, which he recently invoked again in his call for Democrats to "think big" in their response to the pandemic. I'm not sure U.S. Democrats are in a position to do much. But many other leaders around the world sure are.
• In Latin America, the main subject of this WP story, authoritarians everywhere are using COVID-19 as an excuse to consolidate power. For Jeanine Áñez in Bolivia, it means postponing elections and throwing critics in jail. For Iván Márquez in Columbia, it means hunting down ex-FARC leaders. For Jair Bolsonaro in Brazil, it means shooting up the favelas to distract investors from massive capital flight. Harsh stuff. But maybe not as bad as the grinding poverty of Venezuela, the out-of-control death toll in Ecuador, or the economic prospects in Argentina after its expected (9th) default.
• Or let's turn to Eastern Europe, where aspiring authoritarians have never had it so good. In Hungary, Prime Minister Viktor Orbán has been granted emergency powers to "rule by decree." In Poland, the ruling Law and Justice (PiS) party is going ahead with a May election knowing that the opposition will find it almost impossible to field candidates under lockdown. (The EU finds itself too distracted to object to either of these moves.) Oh yes, and in Russia Vladimir Putin was finally able to push term-limit removal through the Duma, ensuring that he can now be czar for life.
• In South and East Asia, the resurgence in authoritarian leadership hardly requires elaboration. But let me mention the sweeping emergency measures recently put in place in India by Narendra Modi and in the Philippines by Rodrigo Duterte. Indonesia may be the next nation to move from utter denial to total crackdown.
• This global ascendance of authoritarianism (and populism) was not, by any means, triggered by the recent pandemic. It is a generational (or, to use my term, "turning") trend that has been with us for over a decade. According to Freedom House, 2019 was the 14th consecutive year of declining freedom worldwide. (It's been downhill ever since 2005; see "Free Speech Declining Around the World.") But there's no question that 2020 is going to push the world a lot lower in the Freedom House index. While the pandemic did not cause this trend, it is certainly accelerating it.
• Yet there's a deeper question to consider. And that is whether the pandemic not only raises the perceived need for authoritarian leadership at a time of crisis but also raises the popular appeal of authoritarian leadership as a default governing style. I have pointed out before that Millennials, as a global generation, have much less attachment to "democracy" or "due process" than older generations. (See "Are Millennials Giving Up on Democracy?") No, western Millennials are not enamored of autocratic regimes like Xi Jinping's China--but then again, they aren't as turned off by it as their parents or grandparents. At least, they think, these nations invest heavily in the future, enjoy rising living standards, and prioritize community. And what about regimes like Halimah Yacob's Singapore? Here, maybe, you can get a lot of Millennial nods.
• Why does the current pandemic pose this question yet again in stark terms? Well, let me quote myself here. "Today, the sweeping and centralized mobilization of citizens in Singapore, Taiwan, and South Korea is being compared favorably to the slower and less coordinated response of governments in western Europe and the United States. Confucian societies respond well to epidemics because citizens sign on quickly and fully to top-down authoritarian policies. Western cultures have many strengths, but this isn't one of them." (See "How Epidemics Change History.")
• Very simply, today's liberal democracies are being put to the test: Do they have the energy and flexibility to adopt top-down solutions when they make eminent sense? Or have they become so enervated and sclerotic that they have lost the capacity to save themselves even when facing a clear and present danger?
• These questions come to mind when I watch the huge civil-liberties controversy over plans by Slovakia (mimicking Singapore and South Korea) to introduce mandatory GPS tracing of infected and contacts. Italy, Czechia, Poland, and Serbia are apparently holding back on similar plans. Controversy? Are you kidding? Do you actually prefer indiscriminate mass lockdowns?
• The Carnegie Endowment recently took this question head-on in an excellent essay entitled "Do Authoritarian or Democratic Countries Handle Pandemics Better?" The authors note, correctly, that some authoritarian states are not handling this pandemic well (Iran, Russia). And that not all democracies are handling it poorly (South Korea). They conclude, rather, that the key endowment enjoyed by governments that do a good job--democratic or not--is public trust. And that points to the real challenge facing western democracies: Today, most of them are not much trusted by their citizens. And what's worse, the more they hesitate and vacillate in their response to this pandemic, the less they are trusted.
• In order to break out of the box they're in, what these democracies need are decisive and capable leadership. I hope it comes soon. The only alternative is the rising emergence and appeal and spread of illiberal autocrats, who don't want to defend democracy but rather want to undermine and replace it.
• The last time we saw that happen on the global scale was in the 1930s. This was also the last time we saw the spread of autarkic nationalism and the rolling back of globalization. (See "The COVID-19 Recession of 2020 Puts Globalization Into Deep Freeze.") The parallel between the 2020s and the 1930s may also extend to market behavior. But to hear that argument, don't listen to me. Listen instead to Ray Dalio in his recent "Ted Connects" interview. 

• Crime rates have plummeted as more people stay home, including in some of the world’s most violent cities. Yet officials warn that as lockdowns stretch on, certain crimes may start to rebound in areas that are economically insecure—not murders and muggings, but looting and robbery. (Associated Press)
• NH: Since the lockdown began a month ago, violent crime is down significantly in nearly every major city in America. The decline has happened despite lighter law enforcement (due to mounting COVID-19 illnesses in police forces); rising unemployment; and the widespread release of many nonviolent offenders from jails and prisons.
• What's going on? The lockdown, by taking young adults off the street, is essentially turning the dial way down on crimes of passion and opportunity. Drug deals are harder because any presence on the street is more conspicuous. And home burglaries have plummeted because homes are now nearly always occupied. The homicide rate has already declined over the past two years. If it goes down 10% this year, we could get below the rate in 2014--which was already at an all-time low going all the back to 1956.
• This improvement in crime due to the lockdown is not unique to the United States. It can be seen throughout the high-crime nations of Latin America, from Mexico and Columbia to Argentina and Brazil. El Salvador, until recently the murder capital of the world, reports that the murder rate has fallen by half. Ditto for South Africa, which has long held in murder rate record in Africa: South African Police Minister Bheki Cele says that murders in the first week of the lockdown were down two-thirds from the same week last year.
• To be sure, not all criminal trends are positive. With so many adults "locked down" in the same households, rates of domestic violence have almost certainly risen. (See "China Divorce Filings Climb to Record Highs.") And thefts of unattended autos and empty businesses may also have risen.
• But overall, you can point to falling crime as one of the many positives coming out of what the IMF calls the world's "Great Lockdown." Others include falling deaths from traffic fatalities, less youth violence in schools, closer families, and better health due to more sleep and more people preparing their own food. As a rule, recessions tend to be negatively correlated with the age-adjusted mortality rate for reasons such as these. (For additional discussion, listen to my April 2, COVID-19 REPORT UPDATE.)

• Sales of alcohol in the U.S. have soared since the end of March, but are Americans actually drinking more? New data indicate that about a quarter of those stuck at home are indeed drinking more—but conversely, an even bigger share have cut back since they can’t go out anymore. (The Wall Street Journal)
• NH: We have all seen the stories that retail stores are selling more alcohol than ever before. But are Americans actually drinking more? On one hand, the stress and the boredom of quarantine could lead to more people self-medicating with booze. But on the other hand, Americans could be drinking the same amount as before, but are now buying their booze from grocery and liquor stores instead of from bars and restaurants. And, for that purpose, they may have done a lot of "stocking up" for the lockdown. Total beverage sales by alcoholic content don't seem to be available in real time.
• Without sales data, we need to turn to our next-best source: Survey data. Here we do have a few studies with small sample sizes. One US survey found that 30% of US drinkers are drinking less, while 25% claim they are drinking more. A study from the UK showed that 33% of Brits are currently “taking steps” to limit their drinking, while 20% report an increase. These studies suggest that people may be drinking less, but again more data is needed to make a definitive claim.

• According to recent polls, Americans are much more likely to approve of their governors’ response to the COVID-19 outbreak so far than the federal government’s. Several governors have seen their approval ratings soar 30 percentage points or more, including New York’s Andrew Cuomo, California’s Gavin Newsom, and Ohio’s Mike DeWine. (FiveThirtyEight)
• NH: Across three national polls taken in April, 69% of Americans said that they approved of how their governor has handled the COVID-19 crisis. That’s considerably higher than the 44% who said the same about President Trump. And while there isn’t polling data for every individual state yet, those with data show the approval ratings for most governors shooting through the roof. The crisis-situation bump that used to go to the president (see “Will COVID-19 Help Trump’s Approval Ratings?”) is being doled out around the nation instead. Faring the best are Newsom (+41%, to 83%), Cuomo (+32%, to 79%), DeWine (+31%, to 80%), Wisconsin’s Tony Evers (+24%, to 72%), and Michigan’s Gretchen Whitmer (+24, to 66%).
• Some of this gap can be attributed to the nature of what we’re facing. In a public health crisis, the actions of state officials matter much more than they do after, say, a terrorist attack like 9/11. On a day-to-day basis, governors are the ones on the ground. They're making the rules, organizing the response, and setting the tone in their states. But the sheer magnitude of the gains says something deeper. It shows that it’s still possible to garner bipartisan support even in the most extreme of partisan climates. People will always support a leader who acts decisively, shows good judgment, and tries to unite Americans in times of crisis. This may not describe President Trump. It also doesn’t describe Florida’s beleaguered Ron DeSantis: He has the dubious distinction of being the only governor whose approval rating has declined recently (-7%, to 51%).

• If Joe Biden wants to appeal to young Democrats, he’d do well to pick someone who’s more liberal than him as his running mate. According to a new poll, Democrats under age 45 are more likely than voters overall to want a VP candidate who’s further left and to prioritize legislative expertise. (Morning Consult)
• NH: This commentary probably has it wrong. It supports the conventional media narrative that Joe Biden needs a VP who is young, progressive, and a woman of color to appease young Democrats. But if you look closely at the poll itself, Democrats under 45 showed that the most critical VP credentials are that he or she has legislative experience (40%) or executive experience (37%). Only 27% want a candidate more liberal than Biden. See chart below. 
• To be sure, there were plenty of young voters who supported plenty of progressive candidates who ran in the primary. But they didn’t win. At this point, the highest priority for most Democrats of all ages is a candidate who can beat Trump. While picking a progressive might help unify the party, it might also alienate independents and disaffected Republicans. Many Millennials may personally love a progressive like Warren or Bernie, but most of these risk-averse young voters would rather win the election than insist on their favorite. Someone with experience offers a return to normalcy, which could be more attractive to swing voters.  See “Reality Bites When it Comes to Gen X Support of Biden.”
• The emphasis over legislative or executive experience could also be an effect of COVID-19. A few weeks back we commented on the recent popularity of the CDC. Americans find comfort in its non-partisan, scientific approach to handing the pandemic.  See “Bipartisanship Rising in America's Response to COVID-19.”  Also, Americans favor a candidate who has experience working in government. Whoever wins the elections may well still be confronting an economic and health crisis in 2021, and voters know that.

• So far, Netflix is the winner of the shelter-in-place streaming wars: It’s the most likely service to have gained new subscribers in recent weeks. But the gains have been broad, with streaming consumption up across the board—-particularly among families with kids. (The Wall Street Journal)
• NH: Streaming services are one of the few industries whose fortunes have brightened in the era of COVID-19. (See “Products That Thrive in a Pandemic.”) This new WSJ survey shows just how much. Americans spent an average of $37 a month on streaming services in March, compared to $30 in November. Netflix is the service most likely to have gained new subscribers (with 30% of respondents saying they had purchased one), but other major players like Amazon Prime, Hulu, and Disney+ aren’t far behind. Disney+, in fact, just passed 50 million subscribers globally. The service launched five months ago. Execs originally expected to have at least 60 million subscribers by the end of 2024. 
• Who’s signing up? Not surprisingly, adults with children are more likely to have bought a new subscription than those without kids--and adults working from home are more likely to have purchased one than those who don’t. The good news for parents is that even as the pandemic stretches on, their restless kids aren’t likely to run out of stuff to watch, because animation can still be produced in isolation. The same can’t be said about traditional and TV movie shoots. Over time, this is going to give an edge to services with large libraries of older content (see: Netflix) over those that don’t (see: Apple TV+). There’s a chance the pipeline could literally run dry.
• If these services start running low on content, they should consider getting into the news business. Multiple surveys, including this one by GlobalWebIndex, have found that out of all leisure activities (e.g. listening to music, playing games, watching videos), reading the news is the most likely to have increased in recent weeks. What’s more, people are looking for uplifting stories on topics like recovery rates and tips on how to stay healthy.
• Admittedly, however, it might be tough to get audiences to believe the news they’re asking for. When it comes to getting trustworthy information about the virus, respondents in the GWI survey said that the WHO (61%) and government websites (49%) are the best sources of information. Only 39% trust what comes out of news channels.

• The number of hours people spend playing video games has skyrocketed—but the amount they spend on them, not so much. Compared to the people who are gaming more, only about half as many are increasing their spending; mostly, what’s on the rise are free options. (Bloomberg)
• NH: This Bloomberg piece fundamentally misses the point of the freemium to premium video game model. The biggest games in the industry like Fornite, Apex Legends, and Call of Duty: Warzone all offer their basic game at no cost. But they also offer $10-$20 “passes” that include exclusive perks. The games lure players in for free, and then once players are invested they pay for the extra content. As more people begin to play video games during quarantine, you would expect to see a lag of a few weeks before players start spending money. I expect as people receive their stimulus checks and realize America may be closed for a while longer, they will start coughing up the $10. See “Esports: Put Me In Coach!”

• The results from the 2020 Census aren’t here yet, but demographer William Frey recently presented an overview of what we can expect. He covers several of the big demographic shifts of the past decade, including the rapidly aging population and ever-increasing racial and ethnic diversity among youth. (Brookings Institution)
• NH: It's nice to know that, even during a pandemic crisis, there are certain tasks mandated by the U.S. Constitution that certain federal institutions will carry out on time. I'm talking about the U.S. Census. You may have the form sitting on your desk right now.
• Bill Frey at Brookings does his usual able job at summarizing the findings of this 2020 Census when the final results are known--sometime over the course of next year. There will be no big surprises. But there are a few expected milestones about the 2010-2020 decade that are worth pointing out. See charts at the end.
• First, the Census is likely to show that total population growth during the 2010s was the slowest thus far in U.S. history--at 7.1%. The slowest earlier decade was the 1930s, at 7.3%.
• Second, the fastest-growing states of the 2010s were Texas, Florida, and the mountain states. In four states, the population shrank: Illinois, West Virginia, Connecticut, and Vermont. After combining state growth rates with absolute numbers, you can get a pretty good idea of which states will gain and lose U.S. Representatives. Texas will gain 3, Florida 2, and five other states 1. Meanwhile, ten states--including California--will lose 1.
• Third, the fastest-growing age bracket in the 2020s was 65-74 (thanks, Boomers). And the slowest-growing was 45-54 (thanks, Xers).
• Fourth, in terms of racial-ethnic self-identification, whites grew at the slowest rate (+0.6%) and Latinos (23%), Asian-Americans (32%), and mixed-races (36%) grew at the fastest rates.
• Finally, following a decade (2000-10) in which the suburbs grew much faster than cities, the 2010s will be remembered as the decade in which city growth played catch up. A lot of this happened during the "Great Recession" recovery years.

• Mystified by what your teen is saying? Consult this “dictionary” of youth slang terms. The list, which includes terms like “lit” and “salty,” helpfully includes translations to their Boomer-era equivalents. (Business Insider)
• NH: Need a break? Take a look at what the kids are saying nowadays. If you don’t know your “fit” from your “lit,” your yikes from your “Big Yikes,” or your looks from your “lewks,” now’s your chance. If you can’t get enough, there’s an expanded version of the list here.
• Teen slang might seem silly. But language is special in that it’s both specific and universal. Different phrases will always be tied to the generations who grew up with them, but the ideas and concepts they express don’t change. What’s now “fire” to them was once "groovy" or “cool" or "far out" or "wicked" or "extreme" to their parents and grandparents. Once Boomers gave the skinny; today, Homelanders and Millennials spill the tea. With entire families cooped up together, will there ever be a better time for a cross-generational slang exchange? Keep this link open for reference when you crash your teen’s next Houseparty call. You’re welcome.

DID YOU KNOW?

Take Me Out of the Ball Game. The COVID-19 pandemic has put all manner of group activities—conventions, concerts, festivals—on hold. But there’s one group activity in particular that may not survive once the threat has passed: youth sports. As detailed in The New York Times, the $15 billion industry has basically gone silent. A fully stacked roster of tournaments and camps—and the participation fees that came with them—has evaporated overnight. Even after venues start reopening, parents are going to be wary of putting their children in close proximity to others, unless it’s a sport that more easily allows for social distancing like swimming or tennis. But even more importantly, many families just might not be able to bear the high cost of participation. In 2014, a study from Utah State University found that parents spend an average of $2,292 a year on youth sports. And when related costs like travel and personal trainers are added, this amount can balloon to $20,000 a year or more. See "Is Hockey Becoming Too Expensive for the Next Generation?"