How Does One Rate a Perfect "10" "Wartime President"? Churchill Would Know.

The President famously rated his performance handling the COVID19 pandemic a "10".  But as the number of cases in the U.S. rises to 311,63 and the death toll  reaches 8,454 as of 1 A.M. Central time on April 5, 2020 with much, much worse to come, what kind of a job has President Trump really done in protecting the American people?  The most recent ABC News/Ipsos national poll show the president's approval rating dropping from 55% on March 18 to 47% on April 1-2.  Could it be that as the public pays more attention and educates itself with sources other than the president, the true magnitude of the crisis is starting to hit home?  Might it have something to do with the "wartime president's" leadership "style", what can accurately be described as used car salesman puffery combined with inconsistent and misleading messaging punctuated by abusive tirades directed toward journalists merely doing their jobs?

Due to the hyper partisan times we live in, I think it is helpful to see what people outside the United States  are saying about the job our self-proclaimed "wartime president'" is doing responding to the pandemic .  To the neutral observer, our government's response to the pandemic is not exactly garnering the rave reviews our president gives himself.  For example, here's the title of one of the latest articles from the Guardian newspaper in the UK:  "The Missing Six Weeks:  How Trump failed the Biggest Test of his Life".  The article compares the response taken by the government of South Korea to that of the United States since January 20, 2020, the day both countries had their first confirmed case of the corona virus and the differences could not be more stark.  Here's how the Guardian article described the contrast:  

"One country acted swiftly and aggressively to detect and isolate the virus, and by doing so has largely contained the crisis. The other country dithered and procrastinated, became mired in chaos and confusion, was distracted by the individual whims of its leader, and is now confronted by a health emergency of daunting proportions.

Within a week of its first confirmed case, South Korea’s disease control agency had summoned 20 private companies to the medical equivalent of a war-planning summit and told them to develop a test for the virus at lightning speed. A week after that, the first diagnostic test was approved and went into battle, identifying infected individuals who could then be quarantined to halt the advance of the disease."

Anticipating President Trump and his followers penchant for "alternative facts", intellectual dishonesty and general delusional state of denial, the thoughtful journalists at the Guardian even included a compilation video (watch above) showing a timeline of the president's falses, misleading, inconsistent and contradictory statements.  It will be impossible for Trump to rewrite history after the damning case his own words make for him and his legacy for posterity.

As we enter the coming dark days of this pandemic I remind my fellow citizens that the worst outcomes, outcomes which were known and could have been greatly mitigated, are looking more and more  inevitable.  The lack  of an early and aggressive response by our federal government to mobilize and coordinate with the private sector in developing a reliable test, conducting a widespread testing regime, building out our supply of ventilators and personal protective equipment or PPE and working with state governors to reach a consensus early on in the crisis on uniform social distancing and stay at home orders, has sealed this country's fate.

The Guardian article goes on to quote experts such as Jeremy Konyndyk, former USAid official in charge of the US government’s response to international disasters, on how the |Trump Administration has handled those critical first six weeks in responding to the pandemic.  Konyndyk told the Guardian: “We are witnessing in the United States one of the greatest failures of basic governance and basic leadership in modern times.”

 The Guardian article went on to describe the basis for Konyndyk harsh analysis, "...the White House had all the information it needed by the end of January to act decisively. Instead, Trump repeatedly played down the severity of the threat, blaming China for what he called the 'Chinese virus' and insisting falsely that his partial travel bans on China and Europe were all it would take to contain the crisis".

The following two graph's from the statistics pros at Our World Data illustrate the possible relationship (notice I don't say causal effect, I leave that up to the statisticians) between conducting early and aggressive testing, combined with isolating and practicing social distancing and success at flattening the curve.

I don't think Churchill would be kind in his critique of our self-described "Wartime President".  If he were alive today, not only would Churchill be sounding the alarm, comparing Trump's naivete vis a vis Putin's Russia to that of Chamberlin's naivete vis a vis Hitler's Germany, but he would also be aghast over Trump not knowing the first thing about effective leadership in times of crisis.  Churchill understood that with good leadership you can overcome great adversity. 

Good leaders quell fear and motivate with  credibility and facts not puffery and deceptive salesmanship.  Besides Churchill clearly knew the difference between the "beginning of the end" (as Trump declared from the very onset of the crisis and up until very recently) and the "end of the beginning". 

A Question to Ask the President at Next COVID19 Press Conference

I have been watching the President's daily COVID19 press conferences since they began.  At almost every press conference a white house correspondent will get up the courage to ask the President a variant of the same question.  The question will repeat a concern or criticism of the way the administration, more specifically, the President, is handling some aspect of the response to the pandemic.  The question usually seeks an answer that calls for some candid, self-reflection on behalf of the President but more importantly gives the President a platform for reassuring an understandably frightened public.

Invariably our narcissistic and insecure President misperceives the highly predictable and legitimate question as abject criticism of him and launches into a disrespectful and abusive tirade on the reporter and/or their news agency.  While such behavior may make for high Neilson ratings (something the President is so preoccupied with he actually bragged about the ratings during a COVID19 press conference) much like the effect of Judge Judy's non-judicial demeanor or car crashes during Nascar races, the office of the Presidency and the seriousness of the subject deserve better.

A more competent and less insecure President, using a little humility and respect, would take what in reality was a softball question and knock it out of the park. Unfortunately, like in all previous attempts, the reporters questions have fallen just short.  This allowed  the President to go into his rote defense we all have heard countless times.

Yes Mr . President, you did take early action in stopping travel from China in late January and a little later from Europe and for that I do give you credit.  But that was about the only early action you did take during the critical first several weeks after being briefed by the intelligence agencies of the severity of the danger posed by the COVID-19 virus late last year.  Instead of implementing the government’s guidelines for communication, you made statements during your press conferencces that were incorrect,  misleading and often contradictory.  This lack of coherent and consistent messaging when mixed with early indecision on ventilators and the need for shut downs and social distancing, and most importantly the failure to lead an early, coordinated, crash program bringing the vast resources of the federal government to bear on developing  a reliable and efficient antibody test so that we can conduct widespread surveillance testing of the population have put the country in its present precarious position  But it didn’t have to turn out this way.  Instead you squandered precious time with misplaced priorities (e.g. your re-election and the economy) which, God forbid, may cost tens of thousands of United States citizens their lives.

So the question I would have asked the President if I were a White House reporter is:

“Mr. President, the federal government guidelines for how the government should communicate with the public during a national health crisis consists of the following core principles:  “Be first”, “be right”, “be credible“, “show respect” and “promote action”.   Do you think that it is important to follow your governments own guidelines?  If not why?

In follow-up Mr. President, while I appreciate the fact you have, in your words, tried to be “optimistic” and not just come out here day after day with messages of doom and gloom, but with all due respect sir, that approach flies in the face of the expert guidance for handling a public health crisis.  Do you think that approaching this national health crisis in the same manner you would a large business transaction using the same skill sets  have served the country well?”

The fact is the President has been violating nearly every one of the core principles for dealing with a public health crisis.  President Trump is who he is, a business promoter.  He approaches every situation like he is selling a deal.  He calls it being optimistic.  Up until recently it has served him well.  However times of national crises require a very different skill set. Problems of this magnitude require a governmental response.  If your whole political career is based upon the belief that government is the enemy and we should dismantle it, of course your leadership will be ineffective.  We are a government of the people.  The government is us.  During times of national crisis we do not need a one trick pony, a business huckster.  During less serious times a Donald Trump might get away with playing President and amuse the antigovernment contrarians with his “breath of fresh air” approach (putting it politely) but in times of crisis it comes off for what it is, just idiot wind.