Democrats and the left-oriented media have their story: Trump should have done more and done it earlier.
Hindsight is 2020
Today, a Guest Post by a college classmate who says he is not aligned with either political party. He lives near bright blue Boston, Massachusetts, but says he considers himself a moderate, with good friends who hold a variety of views. It makes him alert to hypocrisy from both left and right.
 |
| Silent on the virus |
Democrats say Trump was asleep at the switch. So were Democrats, observes this Guest Post author. And in their negotiations with the Republican Senate they are using the excuse of the virus to try to repair their own failures to observe and manage problems that were all too predictable.
Guest Post: "The 2020 Election."
By "A guy who really hates hypocrisy."
"It has been accepted by many that --- from the beginning --- President Trump is given to exaggeration and an inability to incorporate evident facts into some decisions.
--- No, his inauguration did not have more attendees than any prior inauguration.
--- No, his experience on television does not translate to useful behavior in saying “You’re fired” to his presidential appointees.
--- No, one should not drink bleach cocktails.
Yet, the final election will be a choice between two candidates, who will represent the political philosophies of two different parties. The president’s personality and predilection toward iconoclasm have not changed and have certainly become extremely wearing.
At the same time, the Democratic opposition toward him is equally predictable, rigid, and tiresome.
 |
| MSNBC describes NYTimes: He should have done more |
--- As the Democrats raise issues on a perceived slow response to the coronavirus by the administration, how will they respond to the fact that in the five Democratic debates since January 2020, issues were not raised by any of the presidential candidates about the coronavirus and the potential effects in this country?
--- Were the Democratic candidates (senators, a former vice president and former mayors) as unaware or unconcerned as they now claim the president was? In every crisis that has probably EVER occurred in history, had action been taken sooner on information that becomes available retrospectively, would the effect of the event not have been diminished?
--- Did administration actions actually achieve the initial goal of “flattening the curve” so that hospital capacity could meet potential need? If so, when did the goal change to have a national test or a vaccine developed and produced against a novel virus?
--- As the voices are raised on how more funds are needed for workers, what is the response to the articles about workers who do not want to restart their jobs, as the unemployment payments (together with a $600 weekly bonus adjustment) are more than they received before? Would they spend their own money this way?
*****
Hypocrisy reigns. As Warren Buffett has said that 'Only when the tide goes out will you discover who has been swimming naked.'''
--- Did administration actions actually achieve the initial goal of “flattening the curve” so that hospital capacity could meet potential need? If so, when did the goal change to have a national test or a vaccine developed and produced against a novel virus?
--- As the voices are raised on how more funds are needed for workers, what is the response to the articles about workers who do not want to restart their jobs, as the unemployment payments (together with a $600 weekly bonus adjustment) are more than they received before? Would they spend their own money this way?
 |
| Wharton: We have seen this coming |
--- As local governments are concerned about their finances and seek federal aid (perhaps $1 trillion), how much is due to increased coronavirus expenses and how much involves a bailout of past mistakes? According to a report, the Illinois pension system has $469 billion in unfunded pension liabilities, yet from 2001 to 2019 that state made only 80% of the actuarially determined contributions, while both assuming an investment return (8%) far higher than that actually received (5.2%) and promising pensioners annual adjustments above the cost of living. Should the misfortune of a disease become the opportunity to adjust two decades of government mismanagement?
--- As the executive branch of the federal government (and that of some states) address the crisis, how effectively have the members of the legislative branches been in assembling and functioning? Is this a time for more than speeches? Is this really the time for another congressional investigation?
--- As the executive branch of the federal government (and that of some states) address the crisis, how effectively have the members of the legislative branches been in assembling and functioning? Is this a time for more than speeches? Is this really the time for another congressional investigation?
*****
Hypocrisy reigns. As Warren Buffett has said that 'Only when the tide goes out will you discover who has been swimming naked.'''
5 comments:
The corporate media set the frame for Democratic candidate debates. They barely even asked about clmate change. They never asked about raising the minimum wage to a living wage. And the asked, over and over, about taking away the private health insurance that we Americans supposedly love so much! (Now millions have lost it, in contrast to all the other advanced countries with their single payer systems.) So blame the Democratic leaders for anything you want! But NOT for the inane, corporate-controlled questions posed in candidate debates.
Voters Want to Hear the Sky is NOT falling
There is no data suggesting that presidents are punished or rewarded by voters for weather, earthquake or pestilence, terrorism or how they respond. Why no such data? Because every presidential administration in history, including Trump, reacted reasonably well when facing horror or calamity. So long as the incumbent seeking reelection followed an eight year term of his predecessor, he gets reelected irrespective of the calamities and usually with low approval ratings yet big bold positive messaging promising an even better second four years-- which they almost never can deliver.
Bush's stellar spike in public approval after 9-11 vanished in a rapid downward slide with sustained Democratic and media attacks for incompetence and warmongering, yet he won reelection with less than a 50% approval rating 2004. Truman was reelected in 1948 following massive post-war political turmoil, industrial and rail strikes, and a collapsing economy despite abysmal approval ratings and the infamous "Dewey Defeats Truman" headline following predictions of his "inevitable" loss. Truman wasn't viewed as the cause of post-war pandemonium, nor Bush of 9-11, nor Trump of Covid-19, yet all three were skewered by the press and opposition party for their "handling" of these disasters. History teaches that voters look to messaging during the hardships and prefer leaders who project "we will win" if we don't succumb to "fear itself", that we will "overcome and persevere" and come out "stronger than before". "Make America Great Again", "Mission Accomplished" and "Forward" are messages that historically defeat naysayers from the opposite party at reelection time.
Democratic leaders have not gotten and will almost certainly not get sufficient traction from negative messaging about Trump's corrective actions against Covid-19. He is overwhelmingly now seen as the champion of "reopening America" against the negative tide of blue state governors being dragged along that path despite the Democratic party's mantra of "keep it shutdown" until there is a box of instant virus test kits in every medicine cabinet That negative messaging historically loses, and words of "caution" historically lose to words of "victory".
The arm chair quarterbacking of the sky is falling means nothing in sports or politics. Voters stick with teams in whom they put their hopes of victory regardless of the stats.
The two sides of our polarization see everything through different lenses, including the past.
I remember talking to a liberal friend of mine about the financial crisis of 2008. It seemed completely clear to me that the root cause of the crisis was the Clinton administration's insistence on forcing banks to make mortgage loans to "more' minorities. This required loosening the qualification standards for those loans. That's what "subprime mortgages" were. This is all described in Reckless Endangerment by Gretchen Morgenson, a New York Times reporter.
The banks, forced by the federal government to make these loans, figured out a way to "spread the risk" by combining mortgages of different quality into bonds, hoping that the strong mortgages would be enough to cushion defaults from the subprime mortgages.
We all know how that worked out.
A liberal friend of mine was outraged that I had, in his words, "Even figured out a way to blame the mortgage crisis on liberals," something that was obviously wrong to him. He blamed it all on "the banks."
My view was that the rules were what had kept the banks and check, and it was the Democrats who had loosened the rules and allowed the crisis to happen. The rules were loosened, and (of course) unscrupulous people took advantage of those loopholes. Were the Democrats thinking they weren't people like this? Did they want to help minorities so much that they purposely blinded themselves to the abuses that in my view were inevitable? If road to hell is often paved with good intentions.
Of course, there are elements of truth on both sides of this dispute between me and my friend. He and I are actually pretty good at eventually seeing each other's point of view. The country needs more of this, in my opinion. Not that I have the first idea how to get the whole country there…
Thad, Herbert Hoover served only one term as President and is roundly and justly criticized for leading the nation at a time of national economic disaster. Trump is definitely headed in Hoover’s direction.
Peter your comment link is not working at least for me. Please post the following for me.
Unknown posted today that "Trump is definitely headed in Hoover’s direction." That actually is not possible because the historical metric model is that in the last 100 years every president has been reelected if he followed a two term president of the opposite party. Hoover followed Calvin Coolige who only served 5 and a half years in office. The pendulum model governing Trump is the 8 year/8 year cycle. No president in Trump's cycle was not reelected in the past 100 years. If he is defeated it will be a historical anomaly but it won't have anything to do with his handling of Covid-19.
Post a Comment