“It Is What It Is”

Reactionary defenders of Trump’s response to the virus make the following arguments in his favor:

  1. The virus is an act of God. No one can really do anything about it; and
  2. Trump was acting as a principled federalist by acknowledging that the primary responsibility for dealing with public health issues belongs to the states, not him. He cannot be blamed for the failures of others.

This fatalistic approach (“It is what it is”) is, of course, a load of crap. The European countries and Canada (with comparable political and socio-economic systems) have done a vastly better job of keeping the virus under control, let alone China, Japan, New Zealand, and Australia. And Trump’s idea of federalism, as I’ve noted many times before, is to take credit for successes and allocate blame to everyone else. At times, he has argued that he has complete control over public health issues as a “wartime president;” at others, he is just a poor, helpless giant whose only role in the process is to point fingers at Democrats and experts who are ultimately accountable to him.

That said, it is true that a variety of actors were responsible for our collective response to the virus, and not all of them covered themselves with glory. How much blame does Trump really deserve? A lot, as follows:

  1. He did nothing to guarantee that the necessary resources were stockpiled and distributed to deal with the virus during the period of six weeks or so after the Chinese travel ban was put in place;
  2. He is probably personally responsible for tens of thousands of deaths by making mask wearing a culture war issue, repeatedly minimizing the seriousness of the problem, and openly supporting the opponents of lockdowns. Does anyone seriously contend that his statements on these subjects do not influence his base?; and
  3. Similarly, his repeated insistence that states open up as quickly as possible undoubtedly has contributed to what I would call Wave 1.5.

It isn’t just his ridiculous, but ultimately meaningless, statements about science (e.g., go eat some bleach!) that condemn him. It is the practical, fully intended consequences of the statements described above that will stand as his legacy on the subject. He will be judged by them in November.