Was the COVID-19 Period a Clear Example of Fascism? An Analysis of Power, Control, and Messaging Part 2

The COVID-19 pandemic brought about sweeping changes to daily life, marked by government mandates, economic restructuring, corporate enforcement of public health directives, and divisive social policies.

While framed as necessary responses to a global health emergency, these actions revealed patterns that echo fascist government and governance: centralized state control, enforced unity, corporate complicity, suppression of dissent, and mass manipulation. 

This article, which is part 2 of 2, examines how the pandemic-era approach to public health displayed elements associated with fascism, making it one of the most authoritarian and ideologically charged periods in recent history.

Government Mandates and Corporate Compliance: Unity as a Tool for Control

The COVID-19 mandates introduced by the Biden Administration in September 2021, alongside directives from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) under Dr. Rochelle Walensky and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) overseen by then-Labor Secretary Marty Walsh, exemplified the use of centralized authority during the pandemic. 

As Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) and Chief Medical Advisor to President Biden, Dr. Anthony Fauci played a pivotal role in shaping these policies, including advocating for vaccine mandates. 

These measures required vaccination for federal employees, contractors, and large private-sector businesses, with critics arguing they infringed on personal autonomy and expanded federal authority.

The mandates bypassed legislative processes and placed heavy compliance burdens on small businesses, forcing many individuals to choose between vaccination and their livelihoods. This exacerbated labor shortages and economic instability, while inconsistent messaging from the CDC eroded trust in public institutions. The use of surveillance measures, such as vaccine passports, fueled concerns over privacy and long-term state control. 

These centralized, one-size-fits-all mandates highlighted a troubling precedent for government overreach during emergencies, with critics warning of the risks posed to individual freedoms and the ideals of choice and autonomy.

Throughout the pandemic, the phrase “We’re in this together” became a widespread slogan, echoed by businesses, government officials, and media. This phrase promoted a sense of collective responsibility, encouraging compliance with health measures as a moral duty. In practice, however, it often served as a directive, pressuring individuals and businesses to follow state-mandated policies. Grocery stores, restaurants, and private businesses enforced mask mandates, vaccination proof, and social distancing measures, often under the implicit threat of penalties or shutdowns.

Businesses as State Enforcers 

Businesses became extensions of the state, enforcing mandates to ensure compliance. Employees were tasked with policing these mandates, and customers were expected to comply under a sense of moral obligation. This dynamic reflects the fascist principle of corporatism, where private entities exist to serve state goals and enforce social order, making business a direct tool of government control.

Selective Unity as Compliance

While slogans like “We’re in this together” implied solidarity, the reality often became selective support that relied on strict adherence to public health measures. 

Austrian economist F.A. Hayek observed the inherent risks of such unity through enforced conformity, writing in The Road to Serfdom: “Emergencies have always been the pretext on which the safeguards of individual liberty have been eroded.” 

Hayek warned that, when unity is enforced, societies risk slipping into authoritarianism under the guise of safety, a sentiment that echoes through the pandemic era’s conditional solidarity.

Divisive Rhetoric and Stigmatization of the Unvaccinated: A Tool for Enforced Conformity

Public messaging during the COVID-19 pandemic often employed divisive rhetoric to pressure compliance with health mandates, creating sharp distinctions between vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals. This tactic bears hallmarks of mass manipulation, where fear, moral superiority, and social division were used to coerce adherence to state-enforced measures—a pattern reminiscent of authoritarian systems.

U.S. President Joe Biden’s declaration that “This is a pandemic of the unvaccinated” placed blame for the ongoing crisis squarely on those who chose not to get vaccinated, fostering public hostility toward them. 

Similarly, Dr. Anthony Fauci reinforced this sentiment, asserting, “There comes a time when you do have to give up what you consider your individual right of making your own decision for the greater good of society.” 

Such statements echoed the authoritarian principle of subordinating individual choice to collective needs, marginalizing dissenters as dangerous and socially irresponsible.

Prominent figures like Arnold Schwarzenegger and Jimmy Kimmel further amplified this rhetoric. Schwarzenegger dismissed objections to mandates with “Screw your freedom,” likening public health measures to traffic laws designed to protect others. 

Kimmel, meanwhile, mocked the unvaccinated, joking, “Take their bed away and give it to someone who’s vaccinated.” 

While framed as humor, such remarks reinforced the moral hierarchy where compliance signaled responsibility and dissent signaled recklessness or ignorance.

This stigmatization aligned with tactics identified by F.A. Hayek, who warned in The Road to Serfdom that “The most effective way of making everybody serve the single system of ends toward which the social plan is directed is to make everybody believe in those ends.” 

The engineered unity created by this divisive rhetoric silenced diverse opinions, enforcing a singular, state-endorsed ideology.

By framing the unvaccinated as the enemy of societal well-being, public messaging became a tool for enforced conformity. This tactic highlights how authoritarian systems exploit fear and division to suppress dissent and justify the subordination of individual freedoms under the guise of collective safety.

Public Figures Advocating for Extreme Measures

Some public figures went further, suggesting imprisonment or violence against the unvaccinated. While these weren’t official policies, this discriminatory rhetoric served to normalize extreme views and further demonize non-compliers.

Calls for Imprisonment or Violence: A few commentators suggested that unvaccinated individuals should face jail time. While these opinions weren’t representative of official policy, they contributed to an environment where unvaccinated people were increasingly seen as enemies, fostering division and hostility that mirrors authoritarian tactics.

Proposals for Punitive Measures Against the Unvaccinated

In extreme cases, officials and commentators suggested punitive actions for the unvaccinated, including restrictions on rights, social exclusion, and even legal repercussions. These measures exceeded health advocacy, crossing into authoritarian territory.

Loss of Rights and Citizenship: Some public figures argued that unvaccinated individuals should lose rights or even face revocation of citizenship. Although not formally implemented, such rhetoric reinforced a climate where non-compliers were seen as threats to society—a sentiment that reflects Ludwig von Mises’ caution that state-driven unity can quickly devolve into punishment and control. 

In Liberalism, Mises wrote, “Whoever wishes peace among nations must seek to limit the state and its influence most strictly.” Mises warned that the state’s expansion of control inevitably comes at the expense of freedom.

Social and Economic Exclusion: In cities like New York, policies requiring vaccination proof for access to public spaces effectively ostracized the unvaccinated, isolating those who chose differently in ways that reflect the social exclusion seen in authoritarian systems. 

Vice President Kamala Harris framed these policies as “the price of admission to protect public health,” a phrase that underscored the punitive undertone of these policies.

Media’s Role in Promoting Conformity and Inciting Fear

Media played a powerful role in shaping public opinion through narratives that painted the unvaccinated as irresponsible. The tactics used were similar to mass manipulation, relying on fear and social pressure to drive compliance with health measures.

Fear-Based Messaging: News segments often portrayed severe health risks for the unvaccinated, creating a sense of urgency that pressured compliance. This approach aligns with the tactics Hayek described, where mass communication is used to foster a “single system of ends,” diminishing the diversity of thought crucial to a healthy society.

Social Division and Shaming: Media often focused on tragic stories of those who regretted not being vaccinated, promoting a singular, morally superior course of action. This selective messaging stigmatized non-compliance, aligning with Mises’ warning about the dangers of state influence in the public sphere, where “no other power can break the omnipotence of the state” once it assumes this degree of control.

Surveillance and Control Over Personal Data

The pandemic saw an increase in surveillance measures, from contact tracing and health passports to digital data tracking. Many individuals were required to disclose health information to businesses, raising concerns about privacy and data retention.

Health Surveillance and Privacy: While framed as necessary for public health, the collection of sensitive data and potential for misuse reflected practices common in fascist states, where surveillance is used to monitor and control citizens under the guise of safety.

Mass Data Collection: The normalization of data collection under the pandemic opens the door to potential long-term surveillance and tracing, creating conditions where public health concerns justify sweeping data retention, a tactic seen in authoritarian regimes.

Economic Restructuring and Wealth Redistribution

The COVID-19 pandemic exposed and exacerbated structural inequalities, resulting in a massive wealth transfer that aligned disturbingly with economic practices often associated with fascist systems. By disproportionately benefiting large corporations while marginalizing small businesses, government policies reshaped economic landscapes in ways that concentrated wealth and power.

Selective Economic Unity

One of the starkest examples of this wealth redistribution was the selective nature of economic restrictions and relief measures. Large corporations deemed “essential”—such as big-box retailers, e-commerce giants, and multinational grocery chains—were allowed to operate almost unimpeded. Meanwhile, small businesses, local shops, and independent contractors were forced to shut their doors for extended periods, with many never reopening.

This selective approach mirrors the economic unity often observed in fascist regimes, where the state collaborates with powerful corporate entities to create a centralized, controlled economy. By favoring these corporate giants, the government inadvertently—or perhaps intentionally—pushed wealth and market share into the hands of a few, further entrenching their dominance while leaving smaller competitors to falter.

Wealth Consolidation and Economic Control

Government relief measures, such as stimulus payments and paycheck protection programs (PPP loans), were ostensibly designed to stabilize the economy. However, these policies often favored larger firms that had the resources and expertise to navigate bureaucratic processes, secure loans, and take advantage of tax breaks. This left many small businesses without the support they desperately needed.

At the same time, unprecedented monetary policies—such as quantitative easing and historically low interest rates—fueled asset bubbles in stocks, real estate, and other investments. Wealthy individuals and corporations with significant holdings in these assets saw their net worth skyrocket. In contrast, everyday workers, renters, and small business owners struggled to keep up with rising costs and dwindling opportunities.

Undermining Economic Diversity and Freedom

The pandemic-era wealth redistribution also struck at the heart of economic diversity and individual freedom. Small businesses, often the backbone of local economies and a key driver of innovation, were disproportionately shuttered. Entrepreneurs lost their livelihoods, and communities faced an erosion of their economic independence. The centralization of wealth among a few corporations limited consumer choice and concentrated economic power, undermining free-market principles.

This dynamic parallels the economic control seen in fascist systems, where a symbiotic relationship between the state and dominant corporations marginalizes smaller players and entrenches hierarchical economic structures. The resulting environment stifles competition, innovation, and individual agency—key hallmarks of a healthy and diverse economy.

Conclusion

The COVID-19 pandemic revealed how quickly democratic systems can adopt characteristics resembling fascism. From divisive rhetoric that stigmatized the unvaccinated to selective solidarity, fear-based messaging, surveillance, and wealth consolidation, pandemic responses displayed authoritarian undertones that challenged American ideals of freedom, individual sovereignty, autonomy, and choice.

Slogans like “We’re in this together” and the reinterpretation of “E pluribus unum” to demand conformity over voluntary unity are reminders of how collectivist language can be repurposed to mask coercion. This period serves as a clear example of how crises can justify authoritarian tactics, with serious implications for individual freedom and autonomy.

The COVID-19 response underscores the importance of critical reflection on state power, corporate influence, and the need to protect individual rights in any crisis. True unity respects choice and diversity; enforced unity risks becoming fascism disguised as solidarity.

Written with AI. Directed and Edited by Joshua D. Glawson.