Zeitgeist
Broadly speaking, the times in which we live are times of fear, uncertainty, and doubt (FUD). Many Americans fear the end of the world is near. Apocalypse now.
As a single example, this can be seen in our popular culture which is rife with movies and television shows about post-apolcayptic scenarios. From the realistic like deadly pathogens to the unrealistic like zombies. Sometimes both at the same time, i.e., deadly pathogens causing a zombies apocalypse.
Liberals fear what used to be known as the military-industrial complex. Climate change bringing about the destruction of coastal cities. Unimpeded population growth leading to worldwide food shortages and famines. Gun nuts going on mass shooting sprees.
Conservatives fear the education-news-media complex. The unrestricted flow if not flood of illegal immigrants who don’t care for American beliefs and values and as such who unintentionally or intentionally erode the foundations of our nation (e.g. consensual constitutional government). A fifth column of their fellow Americans working against them. Medical ethics gone awry, from abortionists killing babies to euthanasists killing the elderly. Muslim terrorists at the gates.
Parenting in the apocalypse
As a subset of the above, parents fear the worst could happen to their kids.
Hence all the overprotective parents. Helicopter parenting.
There’s a risk a kid could be seriously injured or killed playing sports (e.g. concussions, fractures), but parents have to balance the risk of the benefits of playing a sport vs. not playing the sport.
There’s a risk a kid could be injured or killed going to school every day (e.g. bullies, car accidents), but parents have to balance the risk of a kid going to school and learning vs. not going to school (e.g. homeschooling).
There’s a risk a kid could be injured or killed eating this or that type of food (e.g. allergies and anaphylaxis), but parents have to balance the risk of a kid getting this or that type of food vs. not getting it.
And so on and so forth.
Frankenstein’s monster
Interestingly, a small subset of both liberals and conservatives seem to find common cause in the anti-vaccination or anti-vaxx movement. Such as conservative fundamental Christians in the Midwest as well as famous Hollywood actors and wealthy soccer moms in coastal Northern California (e.g. Marin County), Oregon, and Washington state. For example, a recent PLOS: Medicine study as well as two Pew Research studies found that the more politically partisan one is (either conservative or liberal), the more likely they were to be anti-vaccination.
Critics often claim conservative anti-vaxxers don’t understand the science. At the same time, critics often claim liberal anti-vaxxers rely on fraudulent or shoddy science. So, I guess, conservative anti-vaxxers are dumb, while liberal anti-vaxxers are dishonest.
In my view, the truth is few conservative and liberal anti-vaxxers understand the science and both conservative and liberal anti-vaxxers rely on fraudulent or shoddy science. To be fair, I’d say many Americans in general don’t understand the science and don’t know how to properly read and interpret various scientific studies.
In this respect, it may be the case that many anti-vaxxers of either political stripe are reacting not to vaccines and vaccination as such. Instead, vaccines and vaccinations may be something of a bogeyman or scapegoat that anti-vaxxers have placed their fears, uncertainties, and doubts upon. A bogeyman or scapegoat that they can rally against and fight. Like villagers armed with torches and pitchforks marching against Frankenstein’s monster or Dracula’s castle.
Kernel of truth
Like most fears, there is a kernel of truth in anti-vaxxers’ fears:
1. Vaccines carry risk. No pro-vaxx physician or scientist has ever claimed vaccines are 100% risk-free. Sure, vaccines are amazingly harmless. It depends on the specific vaccine, but something like 95% to 99% of children who receive the most common vaccines emerge perfectly fine health-wise as well as protected against the vaccinated disease. However, there’s always a risk that in some kid the vaccine will harm them and/or not be effective for them. Hence parents have to balance the risk of using a vaccine vs. the risk of not using a vaccine and quite possibly getting a particular disease in its full-blown form.
2. What’s more, anti-vaxxers likewise argue for the right of parents to vaccinate or not vaccinate their children. Given the rising power of the state, and given the way progressives are laying the groundwork for a totalitarian state, there’s some truth in the fear that anti-vaxxers have over the government: it is indeed possible parents could have their children taken from them by the state due to their political and/or religious beliefs. In general, I completely agree it’s up to parents to decide what’s best for their kids. That said, given the nature of disease and outbreaks or epidemics, I would argue in some cases individual rights and choices may need to be weighed against the public good. However, I envision my argument would be something like a greater good argument, applicable in a democratic system of government like ours; not an argument for a totalitarian state or against the rights of parents and their children or anything like that.
Epistle of Dude 