I’ve frequently heard (as far as I can tell, virtually always from conservative people), that anti-vaxxers are mostly from the far left. So I was puzzled by two recent results from legislative committees about this issue.
First, in the Washington state legislature, a proposed law to reduce opt-outs for vaccinations was approved by a House committtee by a 10-5 vote. That law was sponsored by a Republican, yet he couldn’t get any other R’s to vote with him. The other 9 legislators in favor were all D’s.
Second, in Arizona, a law sponsored by a Republican to increase opt-outs for vaccinations was approved by committee on a 5-4 party-line vote, R’s being in favor.
So are these anomalous results, or are the people who cast it as a left-wing issue wrong, or perhaps just disingenuous? I suppose we’ll find out for sure when these bills get to the floors of their respective Houses, but it sure looks like the R’s are in favor of more measles.
This is one of those cases where the left-right spectrum loops around and connects the nutjobs on either side.
Yeah, you got the whacko left-wingers who think nature is always kind and good. And then you got the anti-science, anti-government right-wingers who just happen to land in the same spot.
This is not a partisan issue, it’s a scientific one.
I don’t think it’s necessarily disingenuous, because anti-vaxxing cuts across party lines in a way that most anti-science issues do not. Some people might not see the anti-vaxxers on their own end of the political spectrum, or might No True Scotsman them out of their side by dismissing them as fringe.
But yes, some who paint this as a far left phenomenon probably are being disingenuous, almost but not quite as badly as saying “the liberal Dems are the real racists since lots of conservative dems were racist 50 years or so ago!”
Distrust and fear can motivate people to join one of the extremes, depending on what they see as more in their interest.
In the case of anti-vaxx, a significant factor may be that women are more likely to be Democrat than Republican, to make most childcare decisions, to have anxiety issues and to be overprotective of their children*. Pregnancy can also mess with people’s hormones and minds even after childbirth. I’ve failed to find surveys that break down the anti-vaxx movement by gender aside from a study of Facebook**. I don’t know if that fully accounts for the difference but it seems significant.
Imagine someone who’s kinda dim and scaredy to start with, someone with a hyperactive amygdala and hypoactive prefrontal cortex, gets pregnant and can’t really keep what little head she has with all the hormonal changes, gets undiagnosed postpartum depression, becomes hyperalert and hyperresponsive towards any shadow that might possibly hurt little Timmy and then spends too much time getting whipped up by online scaremongering, especially mommy sites. That person was likely a Democrat to start with but it’s not being a Democrat that influenced her into being anti-vaxx, it’s being a woman that influenced her into being both a Democrat and anti-vaxx.
*That’s not to say that women are worse than men but that particular flaws like anxiety and overprotective tendencies are influenced by biology and socialisation and not likely to be randomly distributed across genders. For example, men are more likely to have the opposite flaws in taking dumb risks and not being sufficiently protective of children.
Legislatively, though, do we see much from Democrats today in favor of opt-out laws?
When you have a party-line vote to increase opt-outs, that seems significant.
AFAICT, Republicans really, really like letting religious folks ignore laws, and really, really dislike having the government tell you that you can’t abuse your children.
Democrats really, really dislike corporations, and really, really like nature.
But the Republicans who have reasons to be antivax seem to hold more political power and to pass more laws that are antivax.
I could be wrong, and would welcome examples to the contrary.
Dseid, somehow I got confused and thought you’d written the post immediately above yours, and was like, Christ, dude, what a shitty way for a pediatrician to see parents!
It strikes me that on the right it’s a libertarian anti big government thing, and on the left it’s an anti corporation (specifically “big pharma”) thing.
ETA: It looks like I was ninjaed by Left Hand of Dorkness who said more or less the same thing.
I don’t see parents in general that way. I see anti-vaxx parents that way; They’re child abusers. If I were a pediatrician, I would be more diplomatic while dealing with their non-sense but fortunately for everyone, I’m not one.
I think the “Leftists are Anti-Vaxxers” claim is a partisan issue, but it’s a second-level partisan issue. The right wingers who push this narrative don’t actually care about anti-vaxxers, they’re just trying to create a “whataboutism” argument that lets them claim that both parties have their anti-scientific wings.
This way, whenever someone mentions the GOP denying evolution, or climate change, they can turn around and say, “What about vaccines? You guys are just as bad!” They don’t care that lots of anti-vaxxers are right wing conservatives, they just want a cheap ploy to avoid having to discuss the overwhelming support for anti-scientific causes on their side.
They don’t always do that. Sometimes they use nuclear energy Which in that case does have more opposition from liberals, although the proportion grows much closer the nearer the proposed nuclear facility is to the opposers.
Not a paediatrician but yeah, in my limited experience this one seems to run the gamut.
If it’s more likely to crop up at government level on the far-right, I’d put that down to the far-right having a stronger tendency to elect its whackadoodle fringe than the rest of the political spectrum, which has the same percentage of loons but is less likely to put them in office.
Both anti-vax and anti-nuclear are genuine “both sides do it” issues, though for different reasons. Others have already covered the reasons for anti-vaxers on both sides, and for nuclear, it tends to be motivated by (misguided) environmental concerns on the left, and by fears of proliferation and terrorism on the right.
MichaelEMouse, remember that being hyperprotective of children can (and should) also lead a person to be strongly pro-vaccination. It depends on what information one is exposed to.
It’s in the Texas GOP platform more or less, among a lot of other politically motivated stupidity (“Abortion is not healthcare”?), while the Democrats explicitly support it.
From the official Texas GOP 2018 platform, section 243:
Meanwhile, this is what the Texas Democratic party platform says in the section labeled “Prevention”:
Can and should =/= does. You’ve never met people who were so concerned with something that they ended up responding to that concern in counter-productive ways? Hypervigilance can cause people to have an exaggerated or skewed assessment of how much of a threat something is so that even the smallest risk is myopically focused on. Hypervigilance isn’t just about motivation, it’s also about distorting perception.
It partly depends on what information one is exposed to but there has to be more otherwise, the solution would be straightforward; Expose people to good info. That hasn’t been done? There hasn’t been, for several years now, a public debate about vaccination where one side presents good info?
Although I suspect that in many cases, the way the info is presented may matter very much. Some doctors have a God complex or just want the patient to shut up, not ask questions and follow orders and that could result in some unnecessary resistance from the patient.
As a practice we engage with anti-vax parents respectfully, listening to their concerns, addressing them, and explaining about how their choice has impacts on others as well. I explain* the real conspiracy* between Wakefield and some lawyers to make money based on his faked data and how kids died as a result. We have some track record of bringing some around, at least to the most important ones (and yes some vaccines are more important than others). When it happens it usually takes a few visits. Many practices have moved to dismissal instead (which brings none into the immunized fold and concentrates refusers/delayers together, exactly what we do not want to happen as that increases the risks for all).
Still I think Right or Left the decision to not vaccinate is whackadoodle. It is very frustrating to spend so much time combatting whackadoodle. But again it is not exclusively a Right or Left domain.
Like most decent human beings, all sides are against strap-em-to-a-chair forcible vaccinations as far as I can tell. Some hysterics interpret this as anti-vax.
This seems to be one of the first posts that actually addresses the title of the OP. The OP title doesn’t ask whether it’s a left or right thing, but rather which party supports anti-vaxxing. While it wouldn’t be accurate to say that the national GOP is anti-vax, it seems like some of their local chapters are, including the large and powerful Texas GOP. Is there anything similar on the Democratic side?
It’s true that it’s a pretty fringe belief – far right and far left, but only the GOP seems to put these far fringe nutters into power.
Which in that case does have more opposition from liberals, although the proportion grows much closer the nearer the proposed nuclear facility is to the opposers.