Posts tagged as “2020 Presidential Election”

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.

We’ve noted here at ResCon1 that President Trump’s failure to act early and decisively on the coronavirus has endangered American lives and forced the United States to take even more draconian measures than otherwise would have been necessary. 

Trump’s apologists, however, are pushing back and telling us that we shouldn’t “politicize” this crisis.

Instead, they assert, implicitly (and sometimes explicitly), that we should rally around the president, who presumably is now taking the requisite bold and resolute actions necessary to combat the coronavirus. 

As Washington Post columnist Marc Thiessen put it on Fox News Special Report Monday night, March 16, 2020:

Well, it [politics] shouldn’t creep in. I mean, this is a time when we should come together as a nation [and] put aside partisanship, put aside the backbiting.

Look, after this is all over, I’m sure we’re gonna have a 9/11 commission-style investigation that’s gonna look through [all of this]—not to lay blame, but to figure out, just as we did after 9/11: where were the gaps; what didn’t work; what failed; what succeeded?

So [that] when the next pandemic comes around, we can fix it. But this is not the time for laying blame.

Nice try, but Thiessen has it exactly wrong and backward. In a representative democracy such as ours, and with a presidential election fast approaching now is exactly the time for “laying blame”—or, to be more precise:

Now is exactly the time to hold our elected leaders—especially the top political leader with the most responsibility and authority for protecting and safeguarding the American people—accountable for their what they did and did not do as the gathering storm approached.

Thiessen’s plea to “put aside the backbiting” echoes Trump’s own call to “end the finger-pointing.” But as David Frum points out in The Atlantic:

It’s a strange thing for this president of all presidents to say. No American president, and precious few American politicians, have ever pointed so many fingers or hurled so much abuse as Donald Trump.

What he means, of course, is: Don’t hold me to account for the things I did—[and did not do, but should have done].

But he did do them, and he owns responsibility for those things. He cannot escape it, and he will not escape it.

In short, bemoaning the “politicization” of this crisis is a transparent attempt to try and evade or avert responsibility and accountability for a leader’s actions and failings.

Accountability is important because, as I observed last week when calling on the Senate to censure Minority Leader Chuck Schumer:

The failure and unwillingness of institutions—churches, schools, corporations, professional societies, et al.—to maintain standards of professional conduct, and to police and disciplined their own, is a big reason institutions increasingly have lost the public’s trust and confidence, and, with that, their ability to mold the American character and shape the nation’s destiny.

This is not an insight unique to me, or even one that I can claim credit for.

Instead, as I’ve reported here at ResCon1, Yuval Levin makes this point brilliantly in a new and important book: A Time to Build: From Family and Community to Congress and the Campus, How Recommitting to Our Institutions Can Revive the American Dream.

Our political institutions, including the Congress and the Presidency, are like any other institution, but arguably more important than other institutions because of the scope and magnitude of their responsibility.

Thus if we wish to maintain public trust and confidence in our political leaders and institutions, then we must hold these leaders and institutions accountable for their actions—and for when they fail to act.

This is not  a partisan point for me. That’s why I called on the Senate to censure Democratic Senator Chuck Schumer; and it is why I insist that we hold Republican President Donald Trump to account as well

If Senator Schumer had acknowledged wronging and offered a sincere, good-faith apology after threatening two Supreme Court justices, then his censure might not be necessary.

If, likewise, President Trump had acknowledged that he wrongly minimized the coronavirus and mishandled the problem, then perhaps we could  simply “move on.” But he didn’t and we can’t.

And we shouldn’t. Our political leaders need to know that their misdeeds and failings will not be ignored and whitewashed for reasons of political expediency.

Instead, they will be held to account by we the American people, and by the institutions of American democracy: because here the people rule, and we expect and demand no less.

For this reason, President Trump should be forced to explain why he didn’t push for early and rapid testing of the coronavirus on a mass scale, and why he continually minimized the problem and suggested that it would disappear.

And the American people should consider Trump’s response—or non-response—when, this fall, they decide who will serve as president for the next four years.

Feature photo credit: Red Blue Divide.