One of the most evident signs of the widespread opposition to the COVID vaccine – aside from the many protests being staged by anti-vax groups around the country – is the refusal of police officers to get vaccinated. One report this week found that COVID-19 has killed more cops than anything else. Yet, law enforcement officers have been among the most reluctant to get the vaccine. In cities are diverse as New York City, Tulsa, Seattle, and Chicago, law enforcement unions have resisted city and state orders requiring vaccinations for those in public service.
Most of the law enforcement vaccine resistance has come through their unions – which is a bit strange considering the unions’ job is to protect its members from workplace-related deaths (as well as from losing your job and getting good benefits).
While police chiefs – appointed by mayors or the city council – cannot and generally do not oppose federal, state, or local mandates, there are the sheriffs. Over the past week, since Biden announced a federal vaccine/ testing mandate, several sheriffs have issued statements opposing vaccine mandates in language rooted in the “constitutional sheriff” movement and patriotic Christian nationalism.
One of the first was Pinal County, Arizona, Sheriff Mark Lamb who released a “viral
video.” Others thus far that I have found have included sheriffs in Oklahoma, Arkansas, Missouri, Oregon, Iowa, Texas, and California. The South Carolina Sheriffs’ Association appears to have done so as well.
Sheriff resistance to health mandates at this point is old hat, or, as one journalist unromantically put it, “relatively standard.” While sheriffs opposed masks and business closures under the guise of protecting the economy and the “producers” right-to-work, their arguments against the vaccine mandates are necessarily more theoretical, based on an interpretation of the Constitution favored by the Bundy’s, tax protestors, and Christian nationalists (along with constitutional sheriff).
What gets a little left out of the discussion is the context for the mandates and how to interpet the resistance as a political stance rather than an individual choice.
In many ways, the sheriffs’ opposition to vaccines simply echoes the 2013 sheriff opposition to gun regulations sponsored by the Constitutional Sheriff and Peace Office Association. Then (just like the opposition to gun regulations now) the justification was that the then-Democratic president Barak Obama was intruding on Second Amendment rights. Then, as now, the regulations were in response to a mass tragedy. In 2012, 27 people, including 20 children, died at the hands of Adam Lanza, which prompted the legislation. In 2020, a pandemic struck with a death toll of over half-a-million people to date, prompting federal, state, and local leaders to require vaccinations, masking, and business closures.
Against this backdrop, sheriffs opposing regulations imposed after a tragedy is truely “relatively standard.” Tragedy occurs. People die. Government responds (as government is wont to do).
Now, the sheriffs have their justification. Their argument is that they are uniquely situated to protect their constituents from tyranny both from the outside and from their own government. While this view is far from politically mainstream – and is largely associated with the “constitutional sheriff” movement -- it is widely held and routinely propagated by sheriffs with little to no push-back from others. Sheriffs are a “line of defense” against the tyranny of the state, these backers say, and sheriffs have pretty successfully rooted this myth in American history.
(Perhaps it need not be said, but none of what they say is true. Sheriffs are created by state constitutions, not the federal government, and in over 40 states, they take the same oath as every other elected official. There is no real difference between elected sheriffs and any other elected politician except that sheriffs are entrusted with a lot more weapons and the legal ability to use them. Further debunking to come in another edition.)
Most people who read this agree that constitutional sheriffs “go too far.” Usually, I hear people call them kooks or conspiracy theorists. But I disagree. I think this is an intentional propaganda campaign designed to ensure that a large swath of law enforcement remains free to do whatever they want. The idea that sheriffs are completely independent is too strong and so prevalent that local leaders find themselves paralyzed when there’s a problem with the sheriff. They are flummoxed. And thus, the sheriffs get their way.
This should not be ignored for at least two reasons.
One is the power of the current anti-vax movement, which has managed to sweep different groups of people under the umbrella of resistance to what they perceive as liberal (or “communist”) tyranny by the state. There is cross-pollination between the groups of people. Some are gun fanatics, militia members, and Tea Partiers. But it also includes people who would not have participated in January 6 or other violent acts; rather, they understand their role as part of a Christian nationalist project to influence school boards and local government.
Opposing the vaccine isn’t about a group of people who are somehow uneducated or oppressed by circumstance; it’s about opposing liberals who are using the mechanism of the state to impose their (democratically legitimate) will. And, while anti-vaxxers aren’t all massive supporters of constitutional sheriffs, those sheriffs do echo the same themes and provide a counter-narrative in a political environment that has become incredibly volatile.
Really, the anti-vax movement personifies some of the extremes of the USA nationalist project: self-reliance, faith healing, resistance to outsiders, and a belief in exceptionalism. And this echoes what sheriffs see in themselves – not as radicals, but all-American.
And second, police and deputy unions are picking up on the sheriffs’ language and claiming that pretty legitimate regulations do not apply to them.
In addition to the low rate of vaccination among law enforcement, there are other signs that law enforcement officers increasingly view all regulations, not just vaccine requirements, as liberal encroachment designed to make them feel small. This poses a greater danger in terms of criminal system reform more generally. If exceptions are made for law enforcement officers and vaccines, what happens when the same officers demand greater latitude in use of force? The pushback is already happening in Washington State. How long before police unions use their power to argue that there are no laws that apply to them? Many already have.