Dr. David Macpherson: Who will govern better during the next national crisis?

Over my lifetime, I’ve thought about the people I want around during an existential crisis — a world war, pandemic or whatever other disaster we might imagine. I can’t predict the nature of the crisis, but I can think of family, friends, colleagues and others who I imagine will perform well when called to help or lead during emergency circumstances. These are people who are calm under stress and who I anticipate will think clearly during the emergency and pose a way forward.

Most of our nation’s presidents have encountered a crisis of some sort or another during their administrations. I doubt many anticipated the events that were forced on them. George W. Bush was in office when the Twin Towers in New York City fell. Barack Obama faced a financial meltdown that nearly destroyed our banking and investment system. There are many more examples throughout our nation’s history. Our presidents have been tested often, and often they have passed the test.

Donald Trump faced a global pandemic and now seeks reelection after governing during a crisis. Unlike most incumbents running for reelection, Trump’s candidacy can be judged from a longer perspective — four years in the past, longer than for all prior incumbents (other than Grover Cleveland). It seems fair to examine his performance during the pandemic as one factor to assess whether he should receive our vote.

Trump’s crisis performance was poor. During the early days, when little was known about the virus’ transmissibility, the president advised: “It’s going to disappear. One day, it’s like a miracle, it will disappear.” No serious public health expert advised him as such. He wanted to calm the fear, a laudable idea, but his statement had no basis in fact and, when it was known that thousands of U.S. citizens were dying each day, proving him completely wrong, the nation lost trust in government.

Admittedly the world didn’t understand the nature of the virus — its transmissibility and lethality — at the time. I too stored my recently purchased groceries in my garage for 24 hours thinking somehow that made my family safer. But as the data emerged, the president didn’t listen to the true experts but instead relied on his own, somewhat bizarre, theories.

This is a pattern for the former president, the belief that he is an expert on everything. He listens, it seems, only to himself, and when his advisors propose ideas or facts that conflict with his views, he often fires them. And when bizarre theories are posed by others (pets eaten by immigrants), he is quick to promote these ridiculous assertions.

He proposed using UV light or chemicals to disinfect those with covid, along with use of hydroxychloroquine, a drug unproven at the time and later disproven as effective by several studies. Ingesting disinfectants and using UV light had not been proposed by scientists. After these remarks, many poison centers reported calls from those considering using a disinfectant like bleach or Lysol. How many ingested these products is unknown, but certainly some did and were harmed based on the former president’s statements. He later said these statements were made sarcastically. But why would a leader choose to use sarcasm during a national news broadcast about an existential threat?

While the former president should be and has been credited for helping to push covid vaccine development, his delayed and lukewarm endorsement of the vaccine cost lives and turned public health and personal decisions toward partisan considerations. Registered Republicans were less likely to receive vaccination, and less likely to wear masks leading to higher disease transmission. As a result, they died more often. One published analysis showed that Republicans were 43% more likely to die compared to Democrats after the vaccine became available.

Another report found that 40% of U.S. covid-19 deaths could have been avoided if the U.S. handled the crisis like other wealthy western nations. Many more people would be alive today had we had a thoughtful president capable of crisis leadership.

To be fair, we don’t know how Kamala Harris will react to a national existential crisis. We can guess she might do better than the former president because she seems able to listen. One key competency of crisis leadership is listening to true experts while at the same time making quick decisions, often in the absence of data. While one can’t know until she’s tested, she has demonstrated that she’s not one to leap to support bizarre theories. She’s able to properly dismiss nonsense.

We are left with choosing either a candidate proven to do poorly in times of crisis and a candidate who is untested. Our nation likely will face a new crisis in the next four years. The nature and timing of the event is not predictable. What is predictable is that Trump at the helm at that time does not bode well for our nation. Our chances are surely better with Harris.

Dr. David Macpherson is a retired physician living in Upper Burrell.