The Hostility of Man in U.S. Political Interactions

Thomas Hobbes’s Leviathan offers a comprehensive approach to constructing what he believes is the most ideal form of government: the commonwealth. While a majority of Hobbes’s Leviathan is spent in pursuit of identifying, and promptly refuting, various counterarguments to his proposed governmental structure, Hobbes also takes great care to delineate his perspective on the role of power therein. Defined as a commodity desired for its ability “to obtain some future good,” Hobbes states that ‘power’ is either “original” or “instrumental” in nature (206). The former category contains natural talents; whereas, the latter consists of powers attained by the use of those talents. While he claims the commonwealth is inherently “[t]he greatest of human powers” in its origin as a consolidation “of the powers of most men, united by consent,” Hobbes claims that man, in his natural state, constantly searches for ways in which to consolidate his own power over that of others (206). This occurs until such a time as man “see[s] no other power great enough to endanger him” and perceives he likely to maintain this power to “over-awe” others such that “his companion[s] should value him” (208). In the event that man, in his “natural condition,” is able to acquire such power, Hobbes states that “three principles of quarrel” will plague him in his pursuit to maintain it: competition, diffidence, and glory (208). It is through these principles, which Hobbes cites as the core issues driving men to “a time of war, where every man is enemy to every man” that the political relationship between the White House and Dr. Anthony Fauci will be examined (208).

First and foremost, to accurately describe the relationship between the White House and Dr. Fauci as one symptomatic of a state in its “natural condition,” the groundwork must first be laid for the characteristics of a sovereign in Hobbes’s ideal commonwealth by comparison. By Hobbes’s definition, a commonwealth is comprised of “one person of whose acts a great multitude, by mutual covenants one with another, have made themselves every one the author, to the extent he may use the strength and means of them all” (222). On the surface, considering the establishment of a commonwealth requires the implementation of what we now call a social contract, the beginning of stages Hobbes’s ideal government may not seem too different from that of the United States’. The chief point of divergence between the two governmental structures lies in the right of the people to regulate the powers of their sovereign structure. Though the authors of the Constitution took great pains in detailing the power limitations of all three branches of government, Hobbes states that, in a true commonwealth, everyone “shall authorize all the actions and judgements, of [the sovereign], […] as if they were his own” (222). Furthermore, should the sovereign cause injury to his citizens, he is incapable of being punished “in any manner by his subjects” (224). This departs greatly from American founding governmental concepts which clearly state, “[w]henever any Form of Government becomes destructive of [its] ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it,” and also outline provisions to hold government leaders accountable (like impeachment). Thus, due to these points of inconsistency, among others, the government of the United States will not be considered a commonwealth by Hobbes’s standards for the purposes of this paper. Consequently, the citizens therein will be considered to live in a state somewhat similar to Hobbes’s “natural condition.”

Having established the United States’ divergence from Hobbes’s own form of government, the presence of the “three principles of quarrel” between the White House and Dr. Fauci can now be examined. Often referred to as “the nation’s top infectious disease expert,” Dr. Anthony Fauci has been a fixture of the Trump administration’s coronavirus task force since its conception in January of this year, in addition to lending his advice and knowledge to numerous White House press briefings on the same subject. While the White House initially showed a somewhat united front in regards to handling the virus and disseminating information to the public, tensions began to rise shortly thereafter as prominent White House officials and medical advisors began competing for the public’s trust and cooperation, exhibiting the first principle of quarrel. One highly publicized point of contention was the largely untested use of the drug hydroxychloroquine, an anti-malaria drug, to treat or lessen the severity of coronavirus infections. While Dr. Fauci remained firm that there was not enough evidence to “definitively say it works,” the White House ultimately decided “to surge the supply of [the drug] to hot spots,” thereby sending mixed messages to the public (Culver and Morin).

Taking the competition for the public’s trust one step further, the battle between the White House and Dr. Fauci, facilitated by numerous passive-aggressive interviews, soon took on Hobbes’s second principle of quarrel: diffidence. As the consistency gap widened between White House advice and that of medical professionals, like Dr. Fauci, so too did the public’s trust in both sources. A CBS News poll conducted in May of this year showed that while 62% of the American public trusts Dr. Fauci for coronavirus information, only 38% trust President Trump (“White House”). Similarly, according to the Pew Research Center, as of June 29, “64% of U.S. adults say [the] CDC mostly gets the facts about the outbreak right;” whereas, only “30% say the same about Trump and his administration” (Mitchell et al.). In an attempt to close the gap, and presumably regain some of their instrumental powers in the form of public support, some White House officials have made efforts to undermine Dr. Fauci’s authority and trustworthiness. In contrast to Dr. Fauci’s tactic of using scientific data and treatment studies to advise the public (and consequently bolster his credibility), the White House’s most recent approach was to leak old statements made by Fauci about COVID-19 and inform the press that “several White House officials are concerned about the number of times Dr. Fauci has been wrong on things” (Porter).

Glory, the last of Hobbes’s “three principles of quarrel,” is arguably the most easily-identified in competitions for public attention and cooperation. It would be an understatement to say that both Dr. Fauci and the White House will be defined by their current actions, statements, and public recommendations for years to come. Their reputation lies not only in whatever consequences the public will inevitably suffer, but also in the ability to claim they made the best decisions based on the information they had available. If one or both parties are incapable of doing so, they will resort to distorting the character or credibility of their competitor, as aforementioned, or intentionally giving false context to information provided to the public. For instance, President Trump attributes the increased toll in coronavirus cases to more testing, rather than reopening businesses or the public’s general disregard for health and safety recommendations (Dale and Lybrand).

While the United Sates may not necessarily be on the path to civil war, the unwelcome presence of political polarization is abundantly clear in this matter of public health. Though Hobbes asserts that “fear of death” and “desire of such things necessary to commodious living” are among “[t]he passions that incline men to peace,” it is unclear whether this theory will apply to the battle for power between the White House and Dr. Anthony Fauci, as each stands diametrically opposed to the other: one warding off economic collapse, and the other, death (209). Perhaps if the political divide continues to split the country, we may well indeed be on our way to lives that are “nasty, brutish and short” (208).

Works Cited:

Culver, Jordan and Rebecca Morin. “Trump interrupts when reporter asks Fauci about

hydroxychloroquine.” USA Today, https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/ 2020/04/06/coronavirus-trump-interrupts-fauci-hydroxychloroquine-question/ 2952931001/. Accessed 15 July 2020.

Dale, Daniel and Holmes Lybrand. “Fact check: No, more testing isn't the reason US

coronavirus case numbers are getting worse.” CNN, https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/09/politics/fact-check-coronavirus-cases-donald-trump-testing/index.html. Accessed 16 July 2020.

Mitchell, Amy, et al. “Three Months In, Many Americans See Exaggeration, Conspiracy

Theories and Partisanship in COVID-19 News.” Pew Research Center, https://www.journalism.org/2020/06/29/three-months-in-many-americans-see-exaggeration-conspiracy-theories-and-partisanship-in-covid-19-news/utm_source=AdaptiveMailer&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=20-06-29%20Pathways%20Report%2020%20COVID19%20News%20Trends&org=982&lvl=100&ite=6514&lea=1439214&ctr=0&par=1&trk=. Accessed 15 July 2020.

Porter, Tom. “The White House stepped up its campaign against Fauci, circulating a list of

times it said he was 'wrong' about COVID-19 in an attempt to discredit him.” Business Insider, https://www.businessinsider.com/white-house-seeks-to-undercut-fauci-by-circulating-mistakes-list-2020-7. Accessed 15 July 2020.

“White House press secretary on President Trump’s clash with Dr. Fauci.” Youtube, uploaded

by CBS this morning, 14 May 2020, youtube.com/watch?v=VJc7ZLKDRMU.