Press "Enter" to skip to content

Posts tagged as “Donald Trump”

Only the Private Sector Can Deliver the Ventilators NY Gov. Cuomo Says He Needs to Combat the Coronavirus

The severe shortage of ventilators in the United States to cope with the anticipated wave of coronavirus patients who will require them illustrates what government can and cannot do—or at least should and should not do.

The government should plan and prepare for likely or predicted pandemics and other potential mass-scale medical emergencies by ensuring that hospitals and healthcare providers have the necessary supplies and equipment that they need to treat and care for patients.

I say likely or predicted pandemics because we obviously cannot anticipate every possible medical emergency. And it is not practical, feasible, or economical to prepare for everything that might happen, no matter how unlikely or remote.

But the truth is: the coronavirus is a pandemic that we were warned was coming, and which our elected representatives should have anticipated and prepared to combat. As NBC News’ Ken Dilanian reports:

For years, American intelligence agencies have been warning about the increasing risks of a global pandemic that could strain resources and damage the global economy, while observing that the frequency and diversity of global disease outbreaks has been rising.

In a worldwide threats assessment in 2018 and 2017, intelligence analysts even mentioned a close cousin of the current COVID-19 strain of coronavirus by name, saying it had “pandemic potential” if it were “to acquire efficient human-to-human transmissibility.”

For this reason, writes Betsy McCaughey in the New York Post, a New York State task force found, in 2015, that the state had “16,000 fewer ventilators than the 18,000 New Yorkers would need in a severe pandemic.”

Yet, state officials decided not to buy these 16,000 ventilators. The governor of New York at the time: Democrat Andrew Cuomo.

Ventilators. This is the same Andrew Cuomo who has been eloquent about his state’s need for 30,000 ventilators. Otherwise, he warns, hospitals in New York risk being overwhelmed with coronavirus patients.

And, if that happens (as it already has happened in Italy), hospitals and physicians will be forced to make heart-wrenching decisions about who gets a ventilator and who does not—meaning who gets to live and who does not.

Of course, it never should have come to this. State officials like Cuomo should have heeded the warnings of public health experts years ago and prepared for this foreseeable and predicted pandemic.

But we are where we are. What, then, is to be done?

Unfortunately, there are no quick and simple solutions. It takes time and money to manufacture ventilators, and, as Cuomo himself admits:

You can’t find available ventilators no matter how much you’re willing to pay right now, because there is literally a global run on ventilators.

For this reason, Cuomo and his left-wing allies in the media and in Congress want the federal government to provide the ventilators; and they fault Trump for allegedly not using the full powers of the presidency to make it happen.

They specifically fault Trump for supposedly failing to invoke the Defense Production Act to manufacture ventilators.

“I do not understand the reluctance to use the federal Defense Production Act to manufacture ventilators,” Cuomo tweeted. “If not now, when?”

But as the Wall Street Journal points out, Trump already has invoked the 1950 Defense Production Act

that lets a President, during a national emergency, order business to manufacture products for national defense, set wage and price controls, and allocate materials.

On Tuesday the Federal Emergency Management Agency used the Korean War-era law for the first time in this crisis to procure and distribute testing kits and face masks…

[But] businesses know their workforce capacities and supply chains better than the government—and how to retool them to maximize efficiency…

Ford said on Tuesday that it would start assembling plastic face shields and work with 3M and GE to make respirators and ventilators.

General Motors is also exploring how to use its global automotive supply chain to make ventilators.

Ford’s CEO said its ventilators could be available by June, and it isn’t obvious that a government takeover of manufacturing would speed this up,

In short, having the government order or mandate something doesn’t magically make it happen. If that were the case, the Soviet Union would have won the Cold War and we’d all be speaking Russian.

Private-sector companies and manufacturers, moreover, already are stepping up in a big way to provide ventilators, masks, gowns, nose swabs, and other critical health gear and equipment needed to combat the coronavirus. And the Trump administration is watching and prodding them as best it can.

Private Sector. Cuomo says that “only the federal government has the power to deliver” the ventilators. But this is nonsense and shows how little Cuomo knows. In truth, only the private sector has the power to deliver—and it will if the government lets it.

Indeed, contra Cuomo, what is needed is not nationalization of the medical supply chain, but rather deregulation of the medical supply chain. This so that private sector companies are free to innovate and rapidly produce the supplies and equipment that our healthcare professionals need.

And, on that score, there is some good news. Reason magazine’s Scott Shackford reports 

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is easing up on some regulations so that ventilators can be manufactured and implemented more quickly to respond to the spread of COVID-19.

In new guidance issued on Monday, the FDA said that it will practice “enforcement discretion” by allowing manufacturers of ventilators to allow for some modifications of hardware, software, and materials.

This allows manufacturers more flexibility in response to supply shortages that could keep them from ramping up production.

The new guidance will also allow for the quicker addition of new production lines and alternative production locations.

[In other words], if other companies that have space to install production lines of their own (GM, for example, has offered unused space in its shuttered plants) those companies are free to do so. 

In short, Cuomo has identified a real problem that he had it in his power to address years ago. However, he lacked the foresight and wisdom to do so. Thus he now urges the federal government to act. But he misdiagnoses the problem, and his recommend cure is no cure at all.

The best thing the government can do is to identify early on big issues and problems that need to be addressed, and then leave the private sector free to experiment and innovate its way toward a solution.

They know, far more than the state bureaucracy, what must be done to get us out of our logjam.

In the meantime, let us hope and pray that the entrepreneurs and the captains of industry can act quickly enough to ensure that, in the weeks and months to come, no American who needs a ventilator is denied a ventilator.

Feature photo credit: Associated Press via Salon.

Hugh Hewitt: the Pundit as Political Teammate and How This Distorts the News

“I believe, by the way, Donald Trump has become the president we need at exactly the moment that his skill set is most called for.”

—Hugh Hewitt, conservative radio host and highly sophisticated Trump apologist, Mar. 19, 2020

No, this is not a parody, and Hewitt wasn’t being sarcastic or snarky. He said this in all seriousness. The question is: why? Hewitt, after all, is not a stupid man. To the contrary: he’s very bright—and he may be the best talk radio host in America.

A Harvard grad, Hewitt is an attorney and a fairly prolific author. He surely understands that Trump is the most incapable and unfit president in all of American history.

In fact, during the 2016 Republican primary race, Hewitt exposed Trump’s utter ignorance with some very basic foreign policy questions that Trump simply could not answer.

Why, then, does Hewitt insist on being such a dishonest shill and apologist for Trump?

Conservative Policy Achievements. No doubt because, like me—and like many conservatives—he is grateful for much of what the Trump administration (as opposed to Trump himself) has done.

There are, after all, Trump’s two supreme court justices, the 44 Circuit Court judges, and 112 District Court judges—almost all of whom are solid, well-credentialed originalists vetted and approved by the Federalist Society. 

Given the outsized role that the courts and the judiciary regrettably now play in American life, this is a critical achievement, which will far outlive Trump and his administration. And it is something all conservatives deeply appreciate.

Then, too, there is corporate tax and regulatory reform, which, at least before the coronavirus, made American businesses far more competitive internationally, while fueling sustained economic growth and record-low unemployment.

Trump also ended sequestration, which had been devastating to U.S. military readiness. And he wisely withdrew from the Iranian nuclear deal, because it would have enabled Iran to become a nuclear-armed power. 

Of course, there are many things that Trump has done which, as a conservative, I do not like. His Syrian withdrawal and abandonment of the Kurds, for instance, was strategically unwise and morally reprehensible

His inability to build international alliances, likewise, has seriously handicapped our nation’s ability to shape the world order in ways that truly put America, and American interests, first

And Trump’s heavy-handed, bull-in-a-china-shop approach to trade and tariffs has been a self-inflicted wound that has weakened economic growth at home, while being mostly ineffective at bringing the Chinese to heel.

Still, I will acknowledge that Trump has done enough, arguably, to warrant conservative support. So I don’t begrudge or criticize Hewitt for supporting the president.

Instead, what I find quite objectionable is Hewitt’s dishonesty in supporting Trump.

Dishonesty. It is one thing, after all, to support Trump administration policies (as I largely do, albeit with some significant exceptions), while forthrightly and honestly acknowledging Trump’s myriad character flaws and objectionable behavior (as I also do).

It is another thing altogether, though, to support Trump administration policies while denying Trump’s obvious flaws and objectionable behavior, which is what Hewitt does.

And in fact, Hewitt does much worse than that. Not only does he refuse to acknowledge Trump’s all-too-egregious missteps and misdeeds; he also actually insists (as the aforementioned quote at the top of this posts indicates) that Trump is doing a great job!

This is simply dishonest, as Hewitt surely knows.

But Hewitt, like many pundits and commentators today, left and right, rationalizes his dishonesty because he views himself as a member of a team.

Political Teams. Hewitt sees himself as  a member of the center-right, GOP team. Therefore, in his mind, he must behave like a good trial attorney and mount a vigorous and unyielding defense of his “client”—Trump specifically and the GOP more generally.

Thus Hewitt doesn’t see himself as being dishonest. Instead, he sees himself as a good and loyal teammate putting forth the best defense that he possibly can for his client.

Unfortunately Hewitt is not alone.The way he sees himself is how a great many pundits and commentators today, left and right, see themselves: as coaches and teammates for whom team loyalty is the highest virtue.

That’s not how I see myself. And it is not the guiding inspiration behind this website, ResCon1. Although I am proudly and unabashedly conservative, I am not a member of any team.

Instead, I am an army of one. Thus I call it like it I see it, regardless of the political consequences, and let the chips fall where they may. 

I think the quality of our political commentary would improve immeasurably if that is how most pundits and commentators approached their work. At the very least, it would mean more honest and truthful political commentary.

But alas, we live in highly polarized times in which everyone feels a need to pick a side and fiercely defend their side—no matter what: because the other side is too dangerous to trust with the reins of political power.

Truth. I get it, but that still doesn’t make it right—or wise. “And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free (John 8:32).” Good advice then; good advice today—for both readers and pundits.

In the meantime, consider the source, as they say. Consider the source of your news. Understand the biases and prejudices of reporters and pundits, and what motivates them.

Are they committed to the truth, to an ideological agenda, or to a political team? Are they politically and philosophically aware and informed? Or are they, instead, the product of a cloistered educational system that has shielded them from important schools of thought?

Because all of this matters, and in ways you might not fully realize. Just ask—or listen to—Hugh Hewitt.

Feature photo credit: NBC News via the Philadelphia Inquirer.

Trump’s Affinity for China’s Dictator, Xi Jinping, Made Him Blind to the Coronavirus

Much has been made of Trump’s affinity for foreign dictators and strong men—how Trump seems to like them personally and to view them as friends and kindred spirits with whom he has “a great relationship.”

We’ll leave it to the shrinks and psychiatrists to figure that one out. But whatever the motivation, Trump’s affinity for foreign dictators and strong men is a real problem: It perverts the policy-making process and makes him blind to real and pressing problems and gathering threats.

Unfortunately, the coronavirus is a case in point. The Washington Post reports that, in early January, U.S. intelligence agencies began warning Trump of the danger poised by the outbreak of the coronavirus in Wuhan, China.

Trump, though, didn’t want to hear it and dismissed the threat as exaggerated and misplaced.

The reason: his “friend,” Chinese dictator Xi Jinping, was telling him not to worry. And Trump seems to have placed greater stock in what Xi was telling him than in what he was hearing from U.S. intelligence agencies.

The Post’s Shane Harris, Greg Miller, Josh Dawsey, and Ellen Nakashima report:

[In early February], Robert Kadlec, the assistant secretary for preparedness and response—who was joined by intelligence officials, including from the CIA—told [Senate Intelligence] committee members that the virus posed a “serious” threat, one of those officials said.

Kadlec didn’t provide specific recommendations, but he said that to get ahead of the virus and blunt its effects, Americans would need to take actions that could disrupt their daily lives, the official said. “It was very alarming.”

Trump’s insistence on the contrary seemed to rest in his relationship with China’s President Xi Jinping, whom Trump believed was providing him with reliable information about how the virus was spreading in China—despite reports from intelligence agencies that Chinese officials were not being candid about the true scale of the crisis.

Some of Trump’s advisers told him that Beijing was not providing accurate numbers of people who were infected or who had died, according to administration officials. Rather than press China to be more forthcoming, Trump publicly praised its response.

“China has been working very hard to contain the Coronavirus,” Trump tweeted Jan. 24. “The United States greatly appreciates their efforts and transparency. It will all work out well. In particular, on behalf of the American People, I want to thank President Xi!”

Unfortunately, this was not the only instance of Trump broadcasting his cluelessness and gullibility for all the world to see. Here are some other gems:

Half Measures. Trump and his apologists make much of the fact that, on Jan. 31, he banned most foreigners who had recently visited China from entering the United States.

But in truth, this was a modest, half measure that did little to arrest the virus’ spread because of the lack of rapid and comprehensive testing to identify, isolate and contain the virus in the United States.

Why didn’t Trump push for rapid and comprehensive testing? The public record and reputable newspaper reporting all point to one reason: because Trump believed his “friend,” Xi: that it will all work out well.

And besides: Trump worried that focusing too much on the coronavirus would spook traders and cause a downturn in the stock market.

Yet, as recently as yesterday, during a press conference, Trump professed ignorance about what was happening inside of China— even though his own intelligence advisers had been telling him for weeks what was happening there.

Trump, moreover, was still sucking up to his “friend,” Xi:

I have great respect for China. I like China. I think the people of China are incredible. I have a tremendous relationship with Xi. I wish they could have told us earlier about what was happening inside. We didn’t know about it until it started coming out publicly.

Balderdash! Trump obviously knew about the coronavirus and its rapid spread in Wuhan, China . And if he didn’t know, it was only because he chose to ignore his own intelligence advisers and to remain willfully ignorant.

Either way, Trump has been derelict in his duty and is unfit to lead. If he were a better man, he long ago would have resigned in disgrace. The problem is that Trump knows no embarrassment and no shame.

Feature photo credit: Thomas Peter/Getty Images in Politico.

Hold Trump Accountable for the Crisis Surrounding the Coronavirus

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.

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.