With the coronavirus crisis hitting hard in the US, all political issues are being pushed aside. The coronavirus, with all its implications, is in the spotlight, but politics is not completely off the stage for many, including the personalities who will be running for election and voters in the second half of this year.
Estimates suggest that the crisis could lessen and soften or even start to reverse its disastrous effects on economies and populations. In the US, for example, presidential elections are scheduled for this November.
Although it is still not easy to predict that these elections will be held on schedule (given the current situation and the postponement of the Democratic primary elections to select the candidate for the election against GOP President Donald Trump), in any case, it is fair to say that the crisis has knocked down the very positive performance indicators of the US economy, one of President Trump’s bets to win a second presidential term.
The crisis has caused enormous economic damage. The post-crisis unemployment rate can reach record levels of up to 13%, according to several US institutions. Still, it seems to me that the American electoral scene, regardless of whether elections are held on time or postponed, has not changed much.
We’re looking at two scenarios.
In the first, the American voter would tend to punish President Trump for his lukewarmness, or even his poor performance at the beginning of the COVID-19 crisis, by choosing the Democratic candidate as his replacement.
In the second case, the crisis would provoke a general state of anxiety, uncertainty and confusion among the American public, making it difficult to think about replacing President Trump in order to maintain the national momentum in the face of the crisis.
Although the second scenario is more likely, in my opinion, the chances of its realization depend to a large extent on the paths and consequences of the crisis in the coming months, the economic losses that will result, the level of satisfaction of American voters with President Trump’s performance during the rest of the crisis and his ability to lead the nation under these conditions, reduce losses, formulate plans, and design effective remedial policies that ensure the rapid control of their economic and social impacts.
On the face of it, President Trump made serious mistakes in the early days of the crisis. He caused the US to lose two more months compared to countries such as South Korea and Germany in their response to the epidemic. US Authorities had waited until mid-March to take the first national measures to combat the virus outbreak. South Korea, for its part, launched its health and research prevention plans on January 20.
In other words, for the US, the ship has already sailed. So the delay disrupted capacity and increased the number of infected and dead people, propelling the US to the top of the world’s list for this epidemic.
This had not only human and economic repercussions, but also strategic ones, given the position of the US as a global pole unchallenged by other forces of influence, power, and scientific and technological progress.
The US’ slowness in responding to the threat is far from being an institutional flop. Rather, it is due to President Trump’s own views. He may have relied, at the beginning of the crisis, on mistaken personal estimates.
He trusted his close associates, ignored the reports of the American intelligence community and sidelined all the mechanisms of institutional work in the management of global crises.
He formed a false perception based on downplaying the scale of the crisis, which he saw as a “hoax” on the part of his Democratic rivals. “It’s actually good for America,” he commented on the potential losses that the virus could cause in China.
Before that, in late February, he had underestimated the risk of the virus spreading to the US. He called it “very low.” “When it gets a little warmer, [it] miraculously goes away”, he hoped, in addition to other disastrous statements that he now wants to see disappear from social networks and history altogether.
All his mistakes will not go unnoticed. They will be weaponized by his democratic challenger in the upcoming presidential election campaigns.
Not to jump into conclusions about President Trump’s chances in the forthcoming elections and how serious the crisis could impinge on them, I can say that the issue is not absent from President Trump’s own priorities.
Trump underestimated the risk of the virus for two months in order to keep the US economy afloat. He is now under fire. Some press reports are accusing him of using the global crisis to benefit his business allies who are rooting for him in the upcoming elections.
He is said to have invited representatives of these companies to meetings and praised their national role in addressing the crisis by producing or donating medical equipment to meet America’s most urgent needs. According to the Guardian, the daily White House coronavirus response update unit has become notorious for praising Trump’s leadership.
Other reports indicate that state governors are complaining about a lack of artificial respirators, face masks and many basic medical supplies, in violation of the content of the White House’s media rhetoric.
In other words, the issue goes beyond White House policies and is not forgotten at this delicate moment. There is no doubt that, in the end, President Trump’s chances of winning the November elections are still significant, despite all the mistakes that have been made in tackling the coronavirus crisis and exposing the US to the world in a way that is not commensurate with its capacities and resources.
This will depend on specific factors, including the end-of-crisis scenario, the effectiveness of the Trump campaign team’s political and media marketing, the effectiveness of the Democrats’ use of his mistakes, and their ability to persuade voters of their rhetoric. Most importantly, it is who will choose the Democratic Party to compete with a president who will still has good chances of winning a second presidential term.
