Press "Enter" to skip to content

ResCon1

Trump’s Failure to Act Early on the Coronavirus Has Endangered American Lives

President Trump is obviously not responsible for the coronavirus. However, he is responsible for his administration’s weak and tardy response to the coronavirus— and for failing to anticipate the gravity of the problem, even as evidence mounted in other countries (such as Italy) that without early and decisive action tens of thousands of Americans, potentially, could die.

Trump, moreover, has repeatedly downplayed the problem; lied about the availability of testing to address the problem; shirked responsibility for confronting the problem; and, most pathetically and disgracefully, tried to blame others—mainly his predecessor, Barack Obama—for his own (Trump) administration’s belated and inadequate response to the problem.

Trump’s loyal base may not hold him accountable for his utter inability to lead during this crisis, but history surely will. Indeed, as Peter Wehner observes in The Atlantic

The president and his administration are responsible for grave, costly errors—most especially the epic manufacturing failures in diagnostic testing, the decision to test too few people, the delay in expanding testing to labs outside the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and problems in the supply chain.

These mistakes have left us blind and badly behind the curve, and, for a few crucial weeks, they created a false sense of security.

What we now know is that the coronavirus silently spread for several weeks, without us being aware of it and while we were doing nothing to stop it.

Containment and mitigation efforts could have significantly slowed its spread at an early, critical point, but we frittered away that opportunity.

Leadership. Let’s be clear. Bureaucratic errors happen. No one blames Trump for bureaucratic errors that are beyond his control.

But that’s why we elect political leaders: to ensure that bureaucratic errors are quickly corrected and do not forestall the type of timely and decisive action needed to safeguard the American people during a crisis

Yet, there is absolutely no evidence that Trump acted with dispatch even as the federal bureaucracy literally stopped or prevented early testing for the coronavirus.

To the contrary: Trump was more concerned with downplaying what he said was a minor problem that would soon disappear.

But we don’t elect presidents so that, in times of national crisis, they can throw up their hands and blame the bureaucracy (or their predecessor three years removed), which is what Trump has done. Instead, we elect presidents so that they can tame, manage, and rein in the bureaucracy.

The Republicans who foisted Trump upon us called this “draining the swamp” and “putting America first.” Yet, when it mattered most, Trump was asleep at the switch.

He didn’t drain the swamp; he bathed in it. And he didn’t put America first; he put his own twisted political priorities first. 

Trump admitted, for instance, that he preferred to leave Americans stranded on a cruise ship off the coast of California after it was discovered that some of the passengers there were infected with the coronavirus.

Politico’s Dan Diamond reports that “health department officials and Vice President Mike Pence came up with a plan to evacuate thousands of passengers” as a way to stop the virus from spreading and infecting many more people as had happened on a similar cruise ship, the Diamond Princess.

“But President Donald Trump had a different idea,” Diamond writes: “Leave the infected passengers on board—which would help keep the number of U.S. coronavirus cases as low as possible.”

Wehner reports:

“I like the numbers,” Trump said. “I would rather have the numbers stay where they are. But if they want to take them off, they’ll take them off.

“But if that happens, all of a sudden your 240 [cases] is obviously going to be a much higher number, and probably the 11 [deaths] will be a higher number too.” 

Cooler heads prevailed, and over the president’s objections, the Grand Princess [cruise ship] was allowed to dock at the Port of Oakland.

Travel Ban. Trump did one thing right. On Jan. 31, he banned most foreigners who had recently visited China from entering the United States. That bough us time and helped stop the spread of the virus.

But this was a relatively modest measure that, in itself, is woefully inadequate unless combined with rapid and comprehensive testing, which was never forthcoming.

Yet, Trump talks of his China travel ban as if it were a game changer, which it most definitely was not.

Trump’s subsequent actions have been uninspiring and largely beside the point.

Last week, he imposed more travel restrictions on Europe. But as his own former homeland security adviser, Tom Bossert, has explained, additional travel restrictions now aren’t of much help since the virus is already widespread.

“We have nearly as much disease here in the U.S. as the countries in Europe,” Bossert tweeted. “We must focus on layered community mitigation measures. Now.”

Testing. For this same reason, even additional testing is, at this late point, of limited use. The time to test was six to weight weeks ago, when Trump was still in denial and insisting that everything was manageable and well contained.

Testing, after all, is most important early on before a virus has spread throughout a country or region. When relatively few people are infected, it is more feasible to limit or contain contact spread of the virus from person to person.

But we are long past that point with the coronavirus, which epidemiologists say is now widespread, albeit underreported, in the United States.

That doesn’t mean we should give up on testing; we shouldn’t and we aren’t. But at this point, extreme social distancing is our best and most effective preventative measure. Testing will have limited public health utility or benefit.

Meanwhile, in the absence of presidential leadership, leaders in state and local government, as well as the private sector, have stepped forward to fill the leadership void left by Trump. Indeed, as the New York Times Peter Baker and Maggie Haberman report

Within the United States, as the coronavirus spreads from one community to another, he [Trump] has been more follower than leader.

While he presents himself as the nation’s commanding figure, Mr. Trump has essentially become a bystander as school superintendents, sports commissioners, college presidents, governors and business owners across the country take it upon themselves to shut down much of American life without clear guidance from the president…

Beyond travel limits and wash-your-hands reminders, Mr. Trump has left it to others to set the course in combating the pandemic and has indicated he was in no rush to take further action.

That was Thursday, March 12. On Friday, March 13, in an effort to regain the initiative and control the political and media narrative, Trump gave another, better-received address with business executives at the White House. But it was too little too late I’m afraid.

The die has been cast. Trump’s failures of leadership are too many too count, too grave, and too consequential.

Buck Passing. Harry Truman famously said that, as president, “the buck stops here,” with him. The president is responsible for what happens on his watch.

Truman was right then, and what he said then still applies today: The buck stops with the president.

Unfortunately and sadly, as president, Trump is more interested in buck passing than in assuming the responsibilities of the office to which he was elected.

We can only hope and pray that tens of thousands of American do not pay the ultimate price for Trump’s inability and unwillingness to lead, and his failure to act with dispatch when it mattered most.

Feature photo credit: Bastiaann Slabbers /Nurphoto /Getty via The Atlantic.

‘Don’t Panic!’: What I Got Right—and Wrong—About the Coronavirus

The similarities to the influenza virus or flu are important; but more important right now are the differences, and those differences can be stark.

As ‘social distancing’ fast becomes national policy to avert the worst potential ravages of the coronavirus, the Wall Street Journal’s Peggy Noonan makes a good point about the commonplace advice, “Don’t Panic!”, and the much-used qualifier, “out of an abundance of caution.”

Now it’s time to lose the two most famous phrases of the moment. One is “Don’t panic!” The other is “an abundance of caution.”

“Don’t panic” is what nervous, defensive people say when someone warns of coming trouble. They don’t want to hear it, so their message is “Don’t worry like a coward, be blithely unconcerned like a brave person.”

One way or another we’ve heard it a lot from administration people.

This is how I’ve experienced it:

“Captain, that appears to be an iceberg.” “Don’t panic, officer, full steam ahead.”

“Admiral, concentrating our entire fleet in one port seems tempting fate.” “We don’t need your alarmist fantasies, ensign.”

“We’re picking up increased chatter about an al Qaeda action.” “Your hand-wringing is duly noted.”

“Don’t panic,” in the current atmosphere, is a way of shutting up people who are using their imaginations as a protective tool. It’s an implication of cowardice by cowards.

As for “abundance of caution,” at this point, in a world-wide crisis, the cautions we must take aren’t abundant, they’re reasonable and realistic.

Reason and realism are good.

Point well made and point well taken, Ms. Noonan. I should, therefore, offer up my own mea culpa.

In Obesity Is a Much More Dangerous Public Health Problem Than the Coronavirus (March 10), I wrongly downplayed the risk of the coronavirus and criticized the resultant “public panic (or at least [the] media panic).”

I was not entirely wrong. For the vast majority of us, obesity is a much more dangerous public health problem than the coronavirus.

And the media does have a tendency to sensationalize and distort public health problems—especially, when these problems (or at least the tardy and weak response to these problems) can be attributed to President Trump and his administration. 

However, as I made clear in my last piece, Social Distancing’ Will Stop the Coronavirus and Save Lives (March 13),  the risk posed by COVID-19 is very real, albeit much less real to any one of us than to the healthcare system in general.

Case in point: Italy’s healthcare system, which is being overwhelmed by the sheer volume of COVID-19-infected patients who require care.

Similarly, in The Coronavirus Is a Public Health Problem, But It Is Not a Death Sentence (Feb. 29), I compared the coronavirus to the influenza virus or flu, and noted that “despite the surprisingly high number of flu-induced deaths or fatalities, there is no widespread fear or panic over the influenza virus.”

Influenza v. Coronavirus. Again, this is true, but it misses the point: While the coronavirus and influenza virus are similar, there are important differences—differences that legitimately can and should cause much greater public concern over the coronavirus.

The most significant differences appear to be the fatality rate and the incidence of severe and complicating illness.

The fatality rate for both the coronavirus and flu are low; however, the fatality rate for the coronavirus is significantly higher, and not just for the elderly, but for younger age groups as well. Ditto the incidence of severe and complicating illness.

Tomas Puyeo, who has done an extensive analysis of the coronavirus, says “countries that are prepared” will see a fatality rate of roughly .5 percent (South Korea) to roughly .9 percent (mainland China excluding Wuhan, where the virus originated).

“Countries that are overwhelmed” by the virus (Italy, for instance) will have a fatality rate of between three percent and five percent, roughly, he notes.

Scott Gottlieb, a medical doctor and former head of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the Trump administration, appears to concur with this estimate.

Here in the United States, Gottlieb told CBS News’ Face the Nation, “the fatality rate [from the coronavirus] might not reach one percent,” but it’s also not gonna be as low as we routinely see for the seasonal flu (.1 percent) or a mild flu outbreak (.05 percent). 

While these obviously are small percentages either way, the differences are significant—and they can have large and dramatic effects on our healthcare system, especially when dealing with a U.S. population of more than 327 million people. One percent, of course, is 10 times .1 percent.

Severity. Which means that the fatality rate for the coronavirus could be 10 times what we see for the flu.

“And it’s not just older Americans, as tragic as that is,” says Gottlieb. “If you look at 40-year-olds, the case fatality rate has been anywhere between .2 and .4 percent. So that means as many as one in 250 forty- to fifty-year-olds who get this [virus] could die from it.”

Moreover, as Julie McMurry, MPH, observes at FlattenTheCurve:

Mortality is not the full picture: Italy reports that 10% of cases need not just hospitalization but also ICU care—and they need that care over a period of 3-6 weeks. This is unsustainable.

Even if these figures are inflated because they reflect the experience of other countries with less capable and less advance healthcare systems, the fact remains that, as National Public Radio’s Fran Kritz and Pien Huang report, relying upon data from the World Health Organization and China:

[For] about 1 in 5 patients, the infection gets worse. About 14 percent of cases can develop into severe disease, where patients may need supplemental oxygen.

And 6 percent of cases become critical and may experience septic shock—a significant drop in blood pressure that can lead to stroke, heart or respiratory failure, failure of other organs or death.

“The bad news is the other 20 percent get the illness severe enough to require hospitalization,” reports NBC News’ Elizabeth Chuck

These patients may not be reflected in the mortality rates for the coronavirus. However, their condition is quite serious and imposes a real burden on the healthcare system.

And that is the point. If too many people contract the coronavirus too quickly and it spreads too rapidly, we risk overwhelming our healthcare system such that it cannot cope with the volume of patients who require care.

We then could be in the unenviable position of northern Italy—which, as I have reported, is now forced to ration care and make heart-wrenching decisions about whom to treat and whom to let die.

Acknowledging Error. I offer up this mea culpa because, as I’ve explained, my intent here at ResCon1 is to pursue the truth regardless of the consequences. That means acknowledging my own errors in reporting and analysis, even as I criticize others for theirs.

As a classical (19th Century) liberal or modern-day (20th Century) conservative, I believe that truth is best served by a free and unfettered marketplace of ideas, where open competition and public scrutiny enhance knowledge and understanding.

Indeed, none of us has—none of us can have—a monopoly on the truth. And this is especially true when it concerns a rapidly unfolding story about a new and challenging topic such as the coronavirus. 

For this reason, we must acknowledge our mistakes and strive to do better. It is in that spirit, that I readily acknowledge my own mistakes and misperceptions. 

Feature photo credit: Peggy Noonan as shown in the Wall Street Journal.

‘Social Distancing’ Will Stop the Coronavirus and Save Lives

‘Social Distancing’ is said to be the key to combating and containing the coronavirus. What does it mean and why is it important? Well, consider the experience of northern Italy.

“Two weeks ago,” reports Yascha Mounk in The Atlantic

Italy had 322 confirmed cases of the coronavirus… One week ago, Italy had 2,502 cases of the virus… Today, Italy has 10,149 cases of the coronavirus.

There are now simply too many patients for each one of them to receive adequate care. Doctors and nurses are unable to tend to everybody. They lack machines to ventilate all those gasping for air.

Tragically, because Italian hospitals and medical facilities are overwhelmed, with many more coronavirus-infected patients than they can handle, they must make heart-wrenching decisions about whom to care for and whom to let die. They literally have no other choice.

Social Distancing. “But if Italy is in an impossible position, the obligation facing the United States is very clear,” Mounk writes:

To arrest the crisis before the impossible becomes necessary. This means that our political leaders, the heads of business and private associations, and every one of us need to work together to accomplish two things:

Radically expand the capacity of the country’s intensive-care units. And start engaging in extreme forms of social distancing.

Cancel everything. Now.

This is fast occurring. Maryland, for instance, has closed its public schools and banned public gatherings of 250 or more people because of the coronavirus. Michigan, likewise, is literally shuttering its public schools until April 6.

Moreover, according to CBS Sports:

  • The National Basketball Association (NBA) has suspended regular season play, indefinitely.
  • The National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) has canceled the 2020 Division 1 men’s and women’s basketball tournaments. No “March Madness,” not this year.
  • The National Hockey League has put a halt to all of its games.
  • “Major League Baseball has canceled the remainder of spring training and is pushing back the start of the regular season by at least two weeks.”
  • Michigan, Notre Dame and Ohio State have all canceled their spring football games.”

The indefinite suspension of these treasured sporting traditions is, of course, sad and disappointing. But as Mounk points out, “Only one measure has been effective against the coronavirus: extreme social distancing.” So we really have no choice.

Canceling these large indoor gatherings, explain Scott Gottlieb and Caitlin M. Rivers in the Washington Post, “will help mitigate the spread of [the virus], slowing it down and allowing medical facilities to deal with the sickest among us without being overwhelmed.”

To be sure, this will cause significant economic pain and dislocation—look, for instance, at the dramatic collapse in the U.S. stock market—but that is a temporary and short-term phenomenon.

What is most important is averting the calamitous and heart-wrenching tragedy that we see unfolding in northern Italy. And we all have a role to play in that.

Scrupulously avoid large public gatherings, especially those that are indoors or in enclosed environments; try to telework if you can; and remain inside your home—or out in the countryside—away from others to the greatest extent possible.

Most of all: keep your distance. Keep your “social distance.”

Feature photo credit: FlattenTheCurve.com via Jackson Hole News and Guide.

Biden Emerges from the Primary Race with Big Political Advantages, But His Age and Record Are Looming Problems

Biden won big Tuesday night (March 10). Thus the pundits who wrongly insisted after Super Tuesday (March 3) that it was a two-man race between him and Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders now acknowledge, belatedly, that Biden is the Democrats’ 2020 presidential nominee.

The Democratic primary results might also mean that Biden is the prohibitive favorite to win the White House. Consider:

First, Biden is not Hillary. He does appreciably better with working class whites, white ethnics, and black male voters than Hillary. These are voters whom Hillary under-performed with against Trump as compared to past Democratic presidential nominees.

Biden’s relative success with these voters spells real trouble for Donald Trump, especially in Michigan and Pennsylvania, which he barely won in 2016.

Biden doesn’t have to win a majority of the white working class or white ethnics. Instead, he simply has to do better with these voters than Hillary and keep Trump’s margins down.

Biden, likewise, doesn’t necessarily have to win a greater share of the black vote.

Instead, he simply has to get more black Democrats to the polls versus staying home from indifference or apathy. All indications are that, for Biden, this will be a mission easily accomplished.

Second, Democratic voters are seriously motivated to vote against Trump, whom they despise. In the March 3 Virginia Primary, for instance, a record 1.3 million voters cast ballots, and voter turnout was up by 69 percent over 2016, reports the Washington Post.

In the nine Super Tuesday states, the Post notes, voter turnout grew by an average of 33 percent, according to Edison Media Research.

These are astounding numbers; and they spell real political trouble for the President, who again, won a very narrow, fluke victory in 2016.

Trump won in part because some Democratic voters were indifferent to Hillary and thus didn’t bother to vote. In 2020, with Biden as their nominee, it appears that these formerly indifferent Democratic voters intend to turn out and make their voices heard.

Third, although Biden is in no way a “moderate” or centrist Democrat, he nonetheless is being portrayed that way because of the contrast between him and self-avowed “democratic socialist” Bernie Sanders, and this helps Biden politically.

Most voters are not liberals, leftists or socialists; and centrist or independent voters are the ones up for grabs, politically.

Indeed, these are the voters Biden needs to win to unseat Trump; and, by being described incessantly in the media as a “moderate” or centrist, Biden already has a built-in advantage with these voters.

Trump will try to disabuse moderate or centrist voters of this misperception by pointing to Biden’s long and very liberal record as a senator, and his current left-wing views as a 2020 presidential candidate; but after months of conditioning by the media, that may prove to be a long, uphill slog. 

Fourth, Biden’s age is a real and worrisome problem for the Democrats. This is obvious to anyone with eyes to see, and to any honest political observer. Biden often misspeaks, flubs his words, and rambles incoherently in ways that suggest senility or dementia.

Biden also is prone to sudden bouts of intense energy and apparent anger followed by rambling incoherence.

This is not surprising given his advanced age. Should he win the election, after all, Biden would be 78 years old on inauguration day. He would be the oldest person ever elected president and the oldest serving president in our nation’s history.

The question is whether Biden can hold it together and avoid a major faux pas between now and Nov. 3, 2020, without giving voters real reason to think that he simply isn’t up to the job.

At the very least, there will be much greater weight and scrutiny given to Biden’s vice presidential pick, since may voters will correctly perceive that there is a strong likelihood that person will become president within the next four years.

Fifth, Trump needs a second-term agenda, especially if the economy slows or goes into a recession because of the twin shocks of the coronavirus and Saudi-Russian oil war.

Trump has had many praiseworthy achievements as president: corporate tax reform, record low unemployment, a strong and robust economy, two superb Supreme Court appointments, a phase one trade deal with China, and a concerted effort, against incredible partisan odds, to enforce the rule of law at the nation’s southern border.

Elections, though, are about the future, and voters will want to know what Trump plans to do in a second term. Unfortunately, Trump has said little about this and has offered up no new agenda. That will have to change if he intends to serve four more years.

The bottom line: Biden looks very strong coming out of this primary contest and has some real political advantages over Trump. His age and political record, though, are real liabilities; and Trump and the Republicans have yet to really go after him.

Moreover, a lot certainly can and will happen, politically, between now and election day. Who, after all, would have predicted the coronavirus? And these future happenings and events will affect the trajectory of the race and whom the nation chooses as its next president. Stay tuned.

Feature photo credit: The New Yorker.

What Will Trump Do In Afghanistan?

Only 11 days have passed since the United States signed a so-called peace deal with the Taliban that laid out a 14-month timetable for the withdrawal of all U.S. troops from Afghanistan; but already we know how events there will unfold and what the crucial decision points will be in the months ahead.

We know this because we’ve been in Afghanistan for nearly 19 years and we know the Taliban. We know that they remain committed to overthrowing the legitimately elected government of Afghanistan, conquering the country, and establishing a so-called Islamic Emirate.

What we don’t know for sure is how President Trump will respond when the Taliban renege on the deal, or exploit the deal’s many ambiguities, to realize their longstanding political objective. The early signs, unfortunately, are worrisome.

Last Friday (Mar. 6), for instance, Trump seemed nonplussed when asked whether he is worried that the Taliban might overrun the country after the U.S. leaves. “Well, you know, eventually, countries have to take care of themselves,” he said.

We can’t be there for… another 20 years. We’ve been there for 20 years and we’ve been protecting the country [Afghanistan]. But eventually, they’re going to have to protect themselves…

You can only hold somebody’s hand for so long. We have to get back to running our country, too.

History Lesson. Sigh. Of course, the United States has troops in Afghanistan not to protect Afghanistan, but to protect the United States. The Taliban gave sanctuary to the terrorists who used Afghanistan to plan and execute the bombing of the Pentagon and World Trade Center towers.

As a result, the United States invaded Afghanistan and deposed the Taliban. And we have been working with the legitimately elected government of Afghanistan ever since to ensure that a 9/11 bombing or similar terrorist attack never happens again. This is not charity; it is national security. 

It’s frightening and sadly disconcerting that Trump seems not to understand this despite having been president for the past three-plus years.

On the other hand, as we’ve noted here at ResCon1, there are times where Trump does seem to recognize the strategic importance of Afghanistan and the history there. So maybe he’s not as stupid and clueless as he often sounds.

In any case, the top U.S. commander in the Middle East, Marine Gen. Frank McKenzie, told the House Armed Services Committee yesterday that the Taliban are continuing to carry out military attacks in violation of its agreement with the United States.

McKenzie, reports the Associated Press, told the committee

he has no confidence that the [Taliban] will honor its commitments, but said his optimism or pessimism about the future doesn’t matter because any decision will be based on facts and what happens on the ground.

Decision Point. In other words, in the coming months, and especially next fall, Gen. McKenzie will tell Trump that the Taliban are not negotiating in good faith and have stepped up their attacks on the Afghan government in violation of the agreement.

Gen. McKenzie will tell Trump that the Afghan government needs U.S. support or it will will be overrun by the Taliban. What will Trump do?

Right now, it clearly sounds as if Trump will say: “I understand General, but we’ve been there too long. We must get out regardless [of the consequences].”

That’s obviously what Trump wants to do. But would he really risk allowing Afghanistan to become another terrorist training camp and base of operations? Would he really risk another 9/11-style terrorist attack?

We’ll soon find out.

Feature photo credit: Google Maps.