US President Donald Trump is facing a difficult challenge that encompasses a fundamental contradiction. The challenge is based on the question: how to resuscitate the economy and bring it back to renewed growth that will erase the damages of the coronavirus pandemic, while at the same time stop the spike of infections and deaths that are an alleged derivative of the return to full market activity?
Today, three and a half months before the election, the White House has yet to identify the winning formula that will create the optimal balance between these two goals, and release the president from the painful hold of this dilemma, which has trapped him.
Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook and Twitter
Against this backdrop, one must ask how previous presidents over the past century have dealt with critical financial, diplomatic, and strategic crises which may have differed in their severity, but forced the occupants of the White House to demonstrate leadership qualities befitting of the times. In this respect, one can discern between two patterns of presidential response to crises that occurred during their tenure. The first pattern is exemplified by President Franklin Delano Roosevelt and his approach during two mega-crises.
The first, the Great Depression, which began to darken the American skies in October 1929 - three years before Roosevelt was first elected president, and the second - the growing threat of Nazi hegemony in Europe. Against both these challenges, Roosevelt adopted a similar strategy, by making every effort to form a broad coalition at home that would be based on support from at least part of the traditional Republican side (except for the isolationist wing) and thus create broad margins of public support for the tremendous challenges ahead.
The second pattern of presidential response to watershed crises is seen in two Democratic presidents, Harry Truman in 1952 and Lyndon Johnson in 1968. They both decided not to exercise their right to run and possibly extend their stay in the White House for another four years by dropping out of the race to the Oval Office in the March of election year, the reason being the extended wars that became unpopular amongst large swaths of the US public: The Korean war during the Truman era, and the Vietnam war during Johnson's. This pattern showed the fatigue, frustration, and acknowledgment that there were no good options during the campaigns and their growing human, financial and social tolls.
In his response to the pandemic, President Trump is showing the third approach, very different from the two mentioned above. This pattern directly derives from him initially claiming to be the leader of a protest movement and not of an institutionalized party like all other parties. Since the president has positioned himself from the start as an uncompromising warrior against the elites and any other group that, in his eyes, presents an obstacle to achieving the desired goal of making America great again, and since that platform paved the way to his victory in 2016 – he finds himself trapped by this belief, which minimizes and sets limits on his ability to maneuver.
As opposed to the pragmatic and practical Roosevelt, it's difficult – maybe even impossible – for this president to cross the lines and form a consensual bipartisan "war cabinet" to handle the pandemic since that would pull the rug from under the very basis of his ideological existence as a convention-breaking leader who fights his political rivals with all his might, and who are defined by him not only as rivals but mainly as threats to the foundations of the American experience (it goes without saying that the second option of dropping out stands in stark contrast to the essence of Trump's belligerent "operative code").
Therefore, the White House finds itself fighting the pandemic with its hands tied and, given its basic worldview, prevented from cooperating with its Democratic rivals, especially in Congress, which would allow it to expand the political and social base for its policy to obtain further resources to fight this hidden enemy.
The accelerated opening of business to full activity damaged his support amongst older populations (the more vulnerable to the virus), and the legitimacy and encouragement he gave to the aggressive dispersion of the protests that spread from Minneapolis to the rest of the country somewhat diminished his support even among parts of his most loyal supporters (including the large evangelist community).
However, despite the fact that things don't look good for Trump these days, and his rival Joe Biden (who continues to hide in his basement without saying much) has extended his lead in the national polls to double digits (one of them reaching 15% this week), enjoying an advantage also in large key states – it's still too early to say it's over for Trump.
Even if he can't adopt the cooperative approach of Roosevelt, the president has the ability to make significant adaptations to parts of his fundamental approach. For example, Trump can replace Vice President Mike Pence with a more attractive candidate, who could bring new voters to his camp.
Former US Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley could be a successful alternative to the dull Pence. Also, the possibility that the American economy shows signs of resurgence ahead of the elections due to massive funneling of funds from the government and Federal Reserve could improve his standings. One must remember that despite Trump lagging behind in the polls, Biden is considered a dull candidate who for many is seen as nothing more than a default option.
And if the public spotlight focuses on him and his personality (which could come about dramatically in televised debates) the picture could change quickly. This is a 77-year-old candidate who, at least at the beginning of the primaries, has shown fatigue, disconnect and a lack of clarity and quick thinking. He is also dogged by a long list of questions that have yet to be fully investigated, including the business activities of his son Hunter during his time as Barack Obama's Vice President. Furthermore, one must remember that Trump's clear advantage in the social media arena has yet to be seen in full, and in the future, it could define and direct the discourse the closer we get to the vote.
At the end of the day, even though some key groups who gave him the victory in 2016 are hinting at their intent to abandon the president this time - the fight for the most desired job in the world is far from over. After all, three and a half months before the vote in 1988, the Democratic candidate Michael Dukakis led his Republican rival George Walker Bush by 17 points. And despite that, Dukakis was beaten by eight percent on election day. So, even the electoral history of the US shows that this is a completely open and fickle game.
Subscribe to Israel Hayom's daily newsletter and never miss our top stories!
