Completely unexpectedly, the outbreak of the coronavirus pandemic has become the main story of Donald Trump's presidency, threatening to overshadow his successes and failures both domestically and on the global stage, while possibly sealing his political fate ahead of Election Day, November 3, 2020. No less paradoxically, while the financial system and stock markets are reacting frenetically, the US president has also seen dramatic ups and downs in terms of his conduct and the nature of his responses to the blow, which like a bolt of lightning struck at the foundations of American society and economy.
While the apocalyptic significance of the crisis still wasn't fully appreciated in the first phase of the pandemic, during which the White House leaned toward downplaying the spread of the virus as a passing episode, the president quickly realized the severity of the situation and made an abrupt U-turn. Not only did he adopt a stately approach and endeavor to keep his democratic rivals in the loop, he also completely abandoned classical Republican ideology predicated on minimal government intervention in the economy and, to a large extent, followed in the footsteps of former Democratic President Franklin Delano Roosevelt.
Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook and Twitter
Indeed, in polar contrast to the disaster strategy of "sit and do nothing" from the playbook of former Republican President Herbert Hoover, who for three unbearable years stood idly by as the Great Depression ravaged his country both socially and economically, Trump adopted the Rooseveltian legacy to implement far-reaching government initiatives that up until a month ago were perceived as light years away from his basic worldview.
Declaring a state of national emergency allowed the White House to inject massive funds into the economy and enlist resources even before Congress approved the gigantic bailout package he spearheaded; expand healthcare coverage for the weaker layers of society; tighten oversight of the nursing system, particularly in retirement homes; secure the funds to allow uninsured Americans to get tested for the virus free of charge, and order General Motors to immediately start manufacturing ventilators at an increased pace of 10,000 units per month.
All these are just some of the steps the president has vigorously spearheaded over the past two weeks, which have connected him historically to the era of social and financial revolution forged by Roosevelt during the Great Depression. What's more, in recent weeks the White House has also done away with political polemics, allowed maximum access to the public and media, and mainly projected sure-footed, determined, clear-minded and practical leadership (while stressing the severity of the crisis) in coping with this unexpected challenge.
Indeed, the public reaction to this display of powerful presidential leadership was instant, despite the price US citizens had to pay in terms of the harsh restrictions imposed by the president on their freedom of movement. To be sure, the level of support for the president soared to 48% this week -- a more than two-year high.
On the other side of the political divide, despite the atmosphere of national unity and social solidarity in the face of this invisible enemy, Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders continues to hunker down and refuse to acknowledge the inevitable. Although his chances of winning the Democratic nomination have long since evaporated, he continues -- in his typical dogmatic and extreme fashion -- to create background noise about his intention to stay in the race and add Wisconsin, which will vote next Tuesday, to his list of primary failures.
What's worse, not only are his social and economic doctrines -- based on funneling massive federal funds into the economy -- taken from the theater of the absurd, if even a small percentage of people go out and vote it could prove hazardous and trigger another wave of infections. None of this apparently matters to the senator from Vermont, whose grand sensitivities are reserved for lofty principles such as distributive justice but not necessarily to the flesh and bone members of his party, who could soon risk their lives on behalf of a lost campaign.
