What social distancing is costing our politics

Say this much for social distancing: Putting public meetings on video conference has made it easier for more people to take part. When the coronavirus crisis first hit in spring 2020, government functions ground to a halt as everyone stayed home, or tried to. When it became clear that approach was untenable, many public meetings switched to video format, meaning people could stay safe from infection but still know what their elected officials were up to. This applied not just to local government, but at the state level.

This change had undeniable benefits. Testifying before a state legislative commission can take an entire day out of your schedule, maybe more, if it needs to happen in person. By opening up the possibility of video testimony, not only could more people take part, but more could watch at their convenience. That’s a step forward for government transparency and accountability.

That new paradigm has continued into this year’s campaign season. What had typically been in-person events are now sometimes held via Zoom, and in some cases candidates aren’t in the same place while they’re having debates. That, as mentioned, is a benefit for safety and lets more people take part. But there are some downsides becoming apparent, as well.

We’re at an interesting time in the COVID cycle. Numbers in Connecticut are down and have been for some time. Vaccination rates are among the best in the nation, and Connecticut is correspondingly one of the safest states in the union in terms of COVID. This is a far cry from the early days of the crisis, when Connecticut suffered as much as any state with high numbers and terrible death counts.

The memory of those days is affecting how people react today. Even though the danger may be at a low point since the start of the pandemic, many protocols remain in place. That’s for good reason, as there have been upticks in the past and there could be again. Until COVID is eradicated, there will be danger. But we shouldn’t pretend there aren’t trade-offs for safety.

One of those losses is often the interplay between opposing candidates at debates and forums. It’s one thing to see candidates answer questions on a computer screen, and quite another thing to see them deal with pressure-filled situations in person. A debate is not a perfect predictor of performance in office, but it can give a sense of who a person is in real life.

At the same time, some candidates simply don’t do well on video. Whether it’s technical troubles or a lack of familiarity with the platform, some people are at their worst in a video-only format. That doesn’t make them a bad candidate, but it can seriously affect people’s perceptions of how they would perform.

The state continues to follow many COVID protocols for good reason, and safety is a priority. But there is always reason to hope that things can get back to some version of normal. No matter how convenient, our video-conferencing world is not ideal for getting to know one another on a personal basis.

It’s great to see more people participating. But we can’t lose the human element.