The big high-stakes political battle that’s now playing out in the media, and in some early presidential campaign commercials, is this:
Did President Trump act quickly and vigorously enough to confront the growing coronavirus pandemic and thereby save American lives, or was his response belated, tardy, and lacking—and, therefore, responsible for unnecessary and needless American deaths?
Trump’s reelection obviously hinges on how this question is adjudicated in the minds of the voting public.
Here at ResCon1 we have been highly critical of the president’s response to the coronavirus, arguing that his failure to act early and decisively has “endangered American lives and forced the United States to take even more draconian measures than otherwise would have been necessary.”
This is true, but arguably too harsh: because there are other salient considerations that must be weighed:
First, is it fair to fault Trump for his belated and tardy response, given that no one else—including the mainstream media and all of the Democratic presidential candidates—sounded the alarm either?
Yes, it is fair: because the president is the president. He’s supposed to be attentive to threats to the safety and well-being of the American people. He’s supposed to know more than the media and more than the rest of us.
U.S. taxpayers, moreover, spend tens of billions of dollars annually on intelligence personnel and intelligence capabilities precisely to give the president and other policymakers early warning of impending threats.
And in fact, as we’ve noted here at ResCon1, parts of the Trump administration were trying to inform the president early on (back in January) about the coronavirus. Yet Trump seriously downplayed the risk of a pandemic—in large part because he was too credulous of the assurances given to him by his “friend,” China’s dictator, Xi Jinping.
On the other hand, Trump administration actions re: the coronavirus are far better than Trump’s statements about the coronavirus. Indeed, while the latter are often contemptible the former are usually laudatory.
The media (ResCon1 included) tend to fixate on Trump’s statements, which are usually impulsive, scattershot, and misguided. But Trump administration actions are usually more focused and on target.
Thus Trump established a presidential task force Jan. 29 to tackle the coronavirus; and, two days later, he declared COVID-19 a public health emergency. On Feb. 23, he requested a $2.5- billion supplemental specifically to combat the virus.
Then of course, there is Trump’s so-called China travel ban, implemented Jan. 31.
The word “ban” is really a misnomer: because many categories of people traveling to and from China are excluded from its strictures. Consequently, as the New York Times reported April 4, nearly 40,000 Americans and authorized travelers have come into the United States from China since the “ban” was enacted.
Still, by limiting and restricting the entry of Chinese nationals, and by advising Americans against traveling to China, Trump was acknowledging that a serious public health problem had originated there, and he was buying us time to prepare for the fight ahead.
‘Racism’ and ‘Xenophobia’. It’s also important to note that while Trump was responding to COVID-19, Democratic politicians, liberal journalists, and the mainstream media were criticizing him for being unduly alarmist and “racist.”
As we noted here at ResCon1, for instance, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer called the travel restrictions “just an excuse [for Trump] to further his ongoing war against immigrants.”
The 2020 Democratic Presidential nominee, Joe Xi, likewise, criticized the president’s “xenophobia” and “fear-mongering,” reports White House National Security Adviser Rober C. O’Brien in the Wall Street Journal. Biden “stressed that ‘diseases have no borders,’” O’Brien writes.
(But if diseases have no borders, then why, according to Pew Research, does 93 percent of the world’s population now live in countries or territories that limit or ban travel in part because of the coronavirus?)
O’Brien catalogues five other “fateful coronavirus decisions” that Trump made. These include:
- stopping entry of foreign nationals from Europe;
- initiating a national social distancing campaign to dramatically slow the spread of the virus;
- pushing for innovative use of therapies (such as remdesivir) to fight the virus;
- issuing CDC guidelines that recommend the personal use of cloth masks to stop the spread of the virus; and
- initiating public-private partnerships to dramatically ramp-up production of ventilators and other personal protective equipment needed by patients and healthcare providers.
In short, even though Trump’s rhetoric has been lacking, and even though he was slow to recognize the true depths of the problem, he has, nonetheless, acted forcefully and vigorously to combat the COVID-19 pandemic.
What’s more, it is doubtful that Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders, or any other Democratic presidential wannabe would have responded any earlier or more effectively, given what they said (and did not say) when the coronavirus first emerged as a public health concern here in the United States, and given their obsession with “racism,” “bigotry,” and “xenophobia.”
Indeed, this obsession likely would have prevented a Democratic president from acknowledging Chinese culpability early on and then confronting China.
Ventilators. We also should note that one one crucial matter, the supply of ventilators, Trump has been proven right and his critics monstrously wrong.
New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, for instance, complained loudly and often that his state needed 30,000 ventilators; and that Trump and the federal government needed to step up and help.
Otherwise, he gravely warned, ventilators would have to be rationed, and patients who needed ventilators might not get them.
Well, as it turned out, New York did not need anywhere near 30,000 ventilators; and the Trump administration did a genuinely masterful job of managing the supply of ventilators to ensure that no patient nationwide who ever needed a ventilator was ever denied a ventilator.
National Review’s Rich Lowry reports this story in full, and it is well worth reading in its entirety. Suffice it to say: Trump has gotten a lot of bad and undeserving press over the ventilators when, in fact, he should be getting praise and plaudits.
Poor Spokesman. Of course, a big reason Trump doesn’t get the credit he sometimes deserves is because he is such a poor spokesman on his own behalf; yet, he feels compelled to hog the limelight.
Trump would be much better off if he said less and let his very able team—Vice President Pence, Drs. Fauci and Birx, CDC Director Robert Redfield, Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin et al.—do more of the talking and explaining.
Also, Trump sometimes seems to be at war with his own administration; and this, too, contributes to an overall sense of policy incoherence and confusion.
If Trump were a more disciplined and organized administrator, he’d get better and more consistent policy results, realize greater media plaudits and recognition, and achieve higher poll ratings.
In short, while it is easy to criticize Trump, it is important to view him and his administration in a broader and more inclusive context, and to consider the plausible alternatives.
For starters, the Trump administration, thankfully, is much more than just Donald Trump. And even Donald Trump is more than just his Twitter feed and bombastic statements.
For these reasons, a fair-minded and holistic assessment must give our president (or at least his administration) higher marks than most think might be warranted.
However, the story of the Trump presidency is still unfolding; it will have many twists and turns; and the American people will decide its fate on election day, Nov. 3, 2020.
Stay tuned.
Feature photo credit: WisPolitics.com.