thebulwark--2020-04-28--Where’s the Blame for the CDC?

Where’s the Blame for the CDC?

President Trump stood in the Rose Garden yesterday promising that the states would soon be in a position to deliver fast and reliable coronavirus testing to the masses .
The question is why—months after the first case of COVID-19 was diagnosed on American shores , and more than a month after Trump stood in the same place making similar promises—don ’ t we have fast , reliable , widespread testing already ?
While the president has earned plenty of blame for his mismanagement of the COVID-19 crisis , spare some for the director of the Centers for Disease Control and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ infectious-disease specialist appointed by Trump in 2018 , Redfield had one immediate priority once the CDC went into action to fight the spread of the coronavirus : Develop a valid test and deploy it quickly .
On that count , the CDC utterly failed when it mattered the most .
As the crisis unfolded in January and February , the CDC insisted on producing its own test , spurning a proven German-produced one in pursuit of its own .
Top doctors declared that any lags were in the name of “ quality control @ @ @ @ @ @ @ United States in testing .
Despite actions in late February to finally allow private U.S. labs to start producing tests , the government never made up the gap .
Much of the crisis that followed was related to that initial problem : The scarcity of tests during the critical early weeks resulted in enormous uncertainty and contributed to the unchecked spread of infections .
Tests are still so hard to come by that last week , Yumi Hogan , the first lady of Maryland , was credited with securing 500,000 tests from her @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the weekend , unnamed White House officials , no doubt worried about how President Trump ’ s mismanagement might cripple him in the November election , started floating rumors that Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar might be on the chopping block .
We ’ ll return to him in a moment .
But first , let ’ s look at Dr. Redfield ’ s record .
When comparing the testing outcomes between various countries , a clear pattern emerges .
Countries such as Germany , South Korea , and Singapore that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tests performed far better than countries that pursued a top-down , centralized approach , as the United States and Britain did .
The World Health Organization relied on German R & D to make and distribute millions of diagnostic tests to poor countries .
The question is , why didn ’ t the United States do the same ?
How is it that the WHO , an organization the United States provides $ 400 million a year ( more than any other country ) , was able to send good tests to 60 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ widespread testing regime for its citizens ?
The CDC has been reluctant to say what went wrong other than that the testing flaws resulted from “ a design and/or manufacturing issue or possible contamination.
” This answer is garbled and evasive .
How did so many other countries figure it out and America didn ’ t ?
A passage in a Washington Post story documenting the breakdown was especially revealing : The success the CDC had fighting other diseases—Ebola , Zika , H1N1— “ fostered an institutional arrogance , a sense that even @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there was no pressing need to involve private labs , academic institutions , hospitals and global health organizations also capable of developing tests.
” Similarly , the New York Times reported that “ the CDC gave little thought to adopting the test being used by the WHO .
The CDC ’ s test was working in its own lab—still processing samples from states—which gave agency officials confidence .
Dr. Anne Schuchat , the agency ’ s principal deputy director , would later say that the CDC did not think ‘ we needed somebody @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there is surely blame to go around at the CDC , the failures could have been mitigated with better leadership at the top .
But even while in the throes of an epic disaster of bureaucracy , Dr. Redfield acted like everything was fine .
After a tour of the CDC ’ s facility in Atlanta with President Trump on March 7 , Redfield said “ we found that , in some of the states , [ the initial CDC test ] didn ’ t work .
We figured out why .
I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
I consider that doing quality control.
” Dr. Redfield didn ’ t get off so easy when he was grilled on March 12 by House Oversight member Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz , who asked him several times who was responsible for making sure Americans could get tested .
“ Who is that person ?
Is it you ?
” she said .
“ I ’ m asking for a name.
” Dr. Redfield repeatedly dodged before pathetically motioning to another witness , Dr. Anthony Fauci , to respond .
“ The system @ @ @ @ @ @ @ need right now , ” Fauci said .
“ That is a failing .
It is a failing , let ’ s admit it .
.
.
.
The idea of anybody getting it easily , the way people in other countries are doing it , we ’ re not set up for that .
Do I think we should be ?
Yes .
But we ’ re not.
” Further compounding the problems : The CDC ’ s leadership naïvely believed that—even aside from the matter of the test ’ s flaws—the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shipping , and processing the millions of tests and results needed to track the virus .
In hindsight , the severe restrictions the CDC placed on who could receive the tests amounted to a shambolic way of rationing the tests—much as the CDC ’ s early warnings that members of the general public did not need to cover their faces were not based on science about the spread of infections but were rather an effort to preserve the supply of medical masks for healthcare workers .
But given the terrible mistakes the CDC @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that President Trump would so openly embrace its director—especially when Vice President Mike Pence has had to use his position on the White House Coronavirus Task Force to directly engage private labs to pick up the slack from the CDC .
For a while , it seemed like Dr. Redfield was able to keep his profile relatively low , but he has since emerged as what Politico recently called a “ MAGA whisperer ” who uses his faith to connect with conservative-leaning talk radio listeners .
In classic Trumpian fashion , however , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he warned the Washington Post about a possible “ second wave ” of coronavirus this fall that could be compounded by the flu .
President Trump claimed Dr. Redfield was “ misquoted , ” but Redfield confirmed that he was not ( although he believed the headline of the story was “ inappropriate ” ) .
Unfortunately for Azar , the knives have been out for him for a long time .
Hostilities between Azar and the White House Domestic Policy Council are not a secret .
At all .
And unnamed Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the fall on testing have been pushing the idea since early April .
Sadly , Azar lost his father on April 6 .
While he was away , the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Administrator Seema Verma , who is reportedly under consideration to replace him and considered one of his internal adversaries , seized the chance to make a showy , public announcement about coronavirus funding .
The leaks against Azar have grown even more pointed and personal in recent days .
Last Wednesday , a Wall Street Journal article quoted several @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mismanagement .
The same day , a Reuters article accused Azar of hiring a “ Labradoodle breeder ” to handle the pandemic for him .
In reality , the official , Brian Harrison , is a longtime Washington hand brought on as Azar ’ s deputy chief of staff in 2018 and then promoted to be chief of staff in 2019 .
The Reuters story said that , when “ reached by phone , Harrison declined to answer Reuters ’ questions.
” How could that be ?
It turns out that Harrison was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had just been readmitted to the hospital .
( I , for one , will not fault him for refusing reporter questions while coping with an infant hospitalization in the middle of COVID .
God help those who do . )
The drama roils on .
After several outlets reported on Saturday evening that White House officials were preparing a plan to oust Azar , Trump tweeted support for the official on Sunday .
“ Reports that HHS Secretary @ AlexAzar is going to be ‘ fired ’ by me are Fake News @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The Lamestream Media knows this , but they are desperate to create the perception of chaos & havoc in the minds of the public .
They never even called to ask .
Alex is doing an excellent job !
” Azar put out his own tweet bashing the “ # FakeNews ” and the president again defended Azar in his Rose Garden remarks on Monday .
As if palace intrigue were the thing that really matters here .
A document released Monday describing the Trump administration ’ s latest plans to make tests @ @ @ @ @ @ @ should only be counted on as the “ supplier of last resort.
” Don ’ t we already know it .

President Trump stood in the Rose Garden yesterday promising that the states would soon be in a position to deliver fast and reliable coronavirus testing to the masses. The question is why—months after the first case of COVID-19 was diagnosed on American shores, and more than a month after Trump stood in the same place making similar promises—don’t we have fast, reliable, widespread testing already?
While the president has earned plenty of blame for his mismanagement of the COVID-19 crisis, spare some for the director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Dr. Robert Redfield. An infectious-disease specialist appointed by Trump in 2018, Redfield had one immediate priority once the CDC went into action to fight the spread of the coronavirus: Develop a valid test and deploy it quickly. On that count, the CDC utterly failed when it mattered the most.
As the crisis unfolded in January and February, the CDC insisted on producing its own test, spurning a proven German-produced one in pursuit of its own. Top doctors declared that any lags were in the name of “quality control,” while other countries outpaced the United States in testing. Despite actions in late February to finally allow private U.S. labs to start producing tests, the government never made up the gap. Much of the crisis that followed was related to that initial problem: The scarcity of tests during the critical early weeks resulted in enormous uncertainty and contributed to the unchecked spread of infections. Tests are still so hard to come by that last week, Yumi Hogan, the first lady of Maryland, was credited with securing 500,000 tests from her home country of South Korea.
Over the weekend, unnamed White House officials, no doubt worried about how President Trump’s mismanagement might cripple him in the November election, started floating rumors that Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar might be on the chopping block. We’ll return to him in a moment. But first, let’s look at Dr. Redfield’s record.
Podcast · August 15 2023 A.B. Stoddard: All the Ex-President’s Conspirators Donald Trump has been a low-rent mobster for his entire career, and now he’s getting…
When comparing the testing outcomes between various countries, a clear pattern emerges. Countries such as Germany, South Korea, and Singapore that deputized private labs to develop and deploy tests performed far better than countries that pursued a top-down, centralized approach, as the United States and Britain did. The World Health Organization relied on German R&D to make and distribute millions of diagnostic tests to poor countries. The question is, why didn’t the United States do the same? How is it that the WHO, an organization the United States provides $400 million a year (more than any other country), was able to send good tests to 60 countries before the United States established a widespread testing regime for its citizens?
The CDC has been reluctant to say what went wrong other than that the testing flaws resulted from “a design and/or manufacturing issue or possible contamination.” This answer is garbled and evasive. How did so many other countries figure it out and America didn’t?
A passage in a Washington Post story documenting the breakdown was especially revealing: The success the CDC had fighting other diseases—Ebola, Zika, H1N1—“fostered an institutional arrogance, a sense that even in the face of a potential crisis there was no pressing need to involve private labs, academic institutions, hospitals and global health organizations also capable of developing tests.” Similarly, the New York Times reported that “the CDC gave little thought to adopting the test being used by the WHO. The CDC’s test was working in its own lab—still processing samples from states—which gave agency officials confidence. Dr. Anne Schuchat, the agency’s principal deputy director, would later say that the CDC did not think ‘we needed somebody else’s test.’”
While there is surely blame to go around at the CDC, the failures could have been mitigated with better leadership at the top. But even while in the throes of an epic disaster of bureaucracy, Dr. Redfield acted like everything was fine. After a tour of the CDC’s facility in Atlanta with President Trump on March 7, Redfield said “we found that, in some of the states, [the initial CDC test] didn’t work. We figured out why. I don’t consider that a fault. I consider that doing quality control.”
Dr. Redfield didn’t get off so easy when he was grilled on March 12 by House Oversight member Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, who asked him several times who was responsible for making sure Americans could get tested. “Who is that person? Is it you?” she said. “I’m asking for a name.” Dr. Redfield repeatedly dodged before pathetically motioning to another witness, Dr. Anthony Fauci, to respond. “The system is not really geared to what we need right now,” Fauci said. “That is a failing. It is a failing, let’s admit it. . . . The idea of anybody getting it easily, the way people in other countries are doing it, we’re not set up for that. Do I think we should be? Yes. But we’re not.”
Further compounding the problems: The CDC’s leadership naïvely believed that—even aside from the matter of the test’s flaws—the agency would be capable of manufacturing, shipping, and processing the millions of tests and results needed to track the virus. In hindsight, the severe restrictions the CDC placed on who could receive the tests amounted to a shambolic way of rationing the tests—much as the CDC’s early warnings that members of the general public did not need to cover their faces were not based on science about the spread of infections but were rather an effort to preserve the supply of medical masks for healthcare workers.
But given the terrible mistakes the CDC made with testing, it seems odd that President Trump would so openly embrace its director—especially when Vice President Mike Pence has had to use his position on the White House Coronavirus Task Force to directly engage private labs to pick up the slack from the CDC.
For a while, it seemed like Dr. Redfield was able to keep his profile relatively low, but he has since emerged as what Politico recently called a “MAGA whisperer” who uses his faith to connect with conservative-leaning talk radio listeners. In classic Trumpian fashion, however, he got caught sideways last week when he warned the Washington Post about a possible “second wave” of coronavirus this fall that could be compounded by the flu. President Trump claimed Dr. Redfield was “misquoted,” but Redfield confirmed that he was not (although he believed the headline of the story was “inappropriate”).
Unfortunately for Azar, the knives have been out for him for a long time. Hostilities between Azar and the White House Domestic Policy Council are not a secret. At all. And unnamed Trump administration officials who think Azar should take the fall on testing have been pushing the idea since early April. Sadly, Azar lost his father on April 6. While he was away, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Administrator Seema Verma, who is reportedly under consideration to replace him and considered one of his internal adversaries, seized the chance to make a showy, public announcement about coronavirus funding.
The leaks against Azar have grown even more pointed and personal in recent days. Last Wednesday, a Wall Street Journal article quoted several unnamed officials blaming Azar for misjudgments and mismanagement. The same day, a Reuters article accused Azar of hiring a “Labradoodle breeder” to handle the pandemic for him. In reality, the official, Brian Harrison, is a longtime Washington hand brought on as Azar’s deputy chief of staff in 2018 and then promoted to be chief of staff in 2019. The Reuters story said that, when “reached by phone, Harrison declined to answer Reuters’ questions.” How could that be? It turns out that Harrison was attending to his newborn baby, who had just been readmitted to the hospital. (I, for one, will not fault him for refusing reporter questions while coping with an infant hospitalization in the middle of COVID. God help those who do.)
The drama roils on. After several outlets reported on Saturday evening that White House officials were preparing a plan to oust Azar, Trump tweeted support for the official on Sunday. “Reports that HHS Secretary @AlexAzar is going to be ‘fired’ by me are Fake News,” the president said. “The Lamestream Media knows this, but they are desperate to create the perception of chaos & havoc in the minds of the public. They never even called to ask. Alex is doing an excellent job!” Azar put out his own tweet bashing the “#FakeNews” and the president again defended Azar in his Rose Garden remarks on Monday.
As if palace intrigue were the thing that really matters here. A document released Monday describing the Trump administration’s latest plans to make tests widely available said that the federal government should only be counted on as the “supplier of last resort.” Don’t we already know it.


thebulwark--2020-04-28--What Biden Has To Say

What Biden Has To Say

I have no idea if Tara Reade ’ s allegations against Joe Biden are true .
And , like Cathy Young , I think there are reasons to be skeptical .
( You can read her deep dive into the facts here . )
But the story obviously is not going away and Joe Biden is going to have to address it directly .
.
.
and soon .
We also need to have a conversation about double standards and hypocrisy .
As usual , there is a lot of bad faith at work here .
The Bernie Bros seem @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Biden and resurrect Bernie ’ s moribund campaign .
Some on the right , who have shrugged off Trump ’ s serial groping and pay-offs to porn stars , pretend to be indignant about Biden ’ s “ creepiness.
” But there is a legitimate and urgent question here .
Do we still believe all women ?
Or are we starting to realize how dangerous that slogan can be to the rights of the accused ?
Does the presumption of innocence only extend to guys we like ?
Should we set a different @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
Because , make no mistake about it , the anger on the right is every bit as much about Kavanaugh as it is about what Biden may or may not have done to Reade .
And those critics have a point .
Over the last few years , we ’ ve seen how many conservatives have been willing to abandon long-held standards and norms when they proved to be politically inconvenient .
But that should not blind the left and the media to their own propensity for double standards and moral shape-shifting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ behavior which was a felony for conservatives was treated as a misdemeanor for liberals .
Think about the 1990s and the shifting standard on sexual harassment , from Clarence Thomas to Bill Clinton .
This double standard has fed the contagion of whataboutism that hangs over our entire political culture .
Donald Trump would likely not have survived the Access Hollywood tape if Bill Clinton had not survived his many allegations of sexual misconduct .
Conservatives may have been less likely to rally to their guy if they had not watched Democrats change @ @ @ @ @ @ @ when it came to Clinton .
These things create their own cycles .
So the issue right now is not just whether Biden committed the act , it is whether the story will be treated in a remotely consistent way .
Will the allegations against Biden be accorded the same level of scrutiny as the allegations against Brett Kavanaugh ?
So far .
.
.
not even close .
The editors at National Review call the coverage of Reade ’ s allegations “ a national disgrace ” : We do not know whether @ @ @ @ @ @ @ against Joe Biden are true or false .
That is a question of evidence and of inquiry that might be answered as time rolls on .
We do know , by contrast , that the double standard that has been exhibited by Biden ’ s campaign and by the political press in tandem is a national disgrace .
Both culturally and legally , due process must be habitually applied to nobody or to everyone .
If , upon the most frivolous and protean of pretexts , it is routinely accorded to one faction @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is effectively lost .
That is the key point here : Biden deserves the presumption of innocence , but so does everyone , even conservatives you may not like .
But what should we make of the charges themselves , especially now that we have that Larry King tape , and some corroboration from a neighbor ?
The invaluable Cathy Young has written a remarkably balanced piece comparing the credibility of the charges against Kavanaugh and Biden : “ A Tale of Two Scandals.
” In both cases , she writes , there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ charges .
But , she concedes , they “ may , disturbingly , be true—but also leave so much room for doubt that any fair and reasonable fact-finder would have to find in favor of the accused not only under the stringent ‘ beyond a reasonable doubt ’ standard , but under the very accuser-friendly ‘ preponderance of the evidence ’ standard ( which means that it ’ s at least slightly more likely than not that the accused committed the offense ) .
Perhaps one lesson to learn here is that accusations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ handle fairly.
” However , there is no question that most of the media treated the accusations very differently .
Biden was properly accorded the presumption of innocence .
Kavanaugh , not so much .
What ’ s more , in 2018 , a number of mainstream pundits noted th e hypocrisy of Kavanaugh taking umbrage at broad inquiries into his personal life despite the fact that in 1998 , as part of Kenneth Starr ’ s prosecutorial team , he advocated extremely intrusive questioning of Bill Clinton about his sexual activities with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of hypocrisy in Biden ’ s apparent “ Believe women .
.
.
except for my accuser ” position has received little attention outside the conservative press .
The best-case scenario is that we will come out of this scandal with a new respect for the presumption of innocence and a new understanding that taking accusations seriously does not require automatically “ believing ” anyone , as opposed to examining the evidence and weighing the facts .
Unfortunately , a far more likely scenario is that we will continue to muddle down the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can ( and should ) read her whole piece here .

I have no idea if Tara Reade’s allegations against Joe Biden are true. And, like Cathy Young, I think there are reasons to be skeptical. (You can read her deep dive into the facts here.)
But the story obviously is not going away and Joe Biden is going to have to address it directly . . . and soon.
We also need to have a conversation about double standards and hypocrisy.
As usual, there is a lot of bad faith at work here. The Bernie Bros seem anxious to use the allegations to derail Biden and resurrect Bernie’s moribund campaign. Some on the right, who have shrugged off Trump’s serial groping and pay-offs to porn stars, pretend to be indignant about Biden’s “creepiness.”
But there is a legitimate and urgent question here. Do we still believe all women? Or are we starting to realize how dangerous that slogan can be to the rights of the accused?
Does the presumption of innocence only extend to guys we like? Should we set a different standard for Biden than for Brett Kavanaugh? Because, make no mistake about it, the anger on the right is every bit as much about Kavanaugh as it is about what Biden may or may not have done to Reade.
And those critics have a point.
Over the last few years, we’ve seen how many conservatives have been willing to abandon long-held standards and norms when they proved to be politically inconvenient. But that should not blind the left and the media to their own propensity for double standards and moral shape-shifting.
For years, conservatives noticed that behavior which was a felony for conservatives was treated as a misdemeanor for liberals. Think about the 1990s and the shifting standard on sexual harassment, from Clarence Thomas to Bill Clinton.
This double standard has fed the contagion of whataboutism that hangs over our entire political culture. Donald Trump would likely not have survived the Access Hollywood tape if Bill Clinton had not survived his many allegations of sexual misconduct. Conservatives may have been less likely to rally to their guy if they had not watched Democrats change the level of tolerance for sexual harassment when it came to Clinton. These things create their own cycles.
So the issue right now is not just whether Biden committed the act, it is whether the story will be treated in a remotely consistent way. Will the allegations against Biden be accorded the same level of scrutiny as the allegations against Brett Kavanaugh? So far . . . not even close.
The editors at National Review call the coverage of Reade’s allegations “a national disgrace”:
We do not know whether the accusations that Tara Reade has leveled against Joe Biden are true or false. That is a question of evidence and of inquiry that might be answered as time rolls on. We do know, by contrast, that the double standard that has been exhibited by Biden’s campaign and by the political press in tandem is a national disgrace. Both culturally and legally, due process must be habitually applied to nobody or to everyone. If, upon the most frivolous and protean of pretexts, it is routinely accorded to one faction while being denied to another, it is effectively lost.
That is the key point here: Biden deserves the presumption of innocence, but so does everyone, even conservatives you may not like.
Podcast · August 15 2023 A.B. Stoddard: All the Ex-President’s Conspirators Donald Trump has been a low-rent mobster for his entire career, and now he’s getting…
But what should we make of the charges themselves, especially now that we have that Larry King tape, and some corroboration from a neighbor?
The invaluable Cathy Young has written a remarkably balanced piece comparing the credibility of the charges against Kavanaugh and Biden: “A Tale of Two Scandals.” In both cases, she writes, there are problems with the credibility of the charges. But, she concedes, they “may, disturbingly, be true—but also leave so much room for doubt that any fair and reasonable fact-finder would have to find in favor of the accused not only under the stringent ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ standard, but under the very accuser-friendly ‘preponderance of the evidence’ standard (which means that it’s at least slightly more likely than not that the accused committed the offense). Perhaps one lesson to learn here is that accusations from decades ago are almost impossible to handle fairly.”
However, there is no question that most of the media treated the accusations very differently. Biden was properly accorded the presumption of innocence. Kavanaugh, not so much. What’s more, in 2018, a number of mainstream pundits noted th e hypocrisy of Kavanaugh taking umbrage at broad inquiries into his personal life despite the fact that in 1998, as part of Kenneth Starr’s prosecutorial team, he advocated extremely intrusive questioning of Bill Clinton about his sexual activities with Monica Lewinsky. Today, the issue of hypocrisy in Biden’s apparent “Believe women . . . except for my accuser” position has received little attention outside the conservative press. The best-case scenario is that we will come out of this scandal with a new respect for the presumption of innocence and a new understanding that taking accusations seriously does not require automatically “believing” anyone, as opposed to examining the evidence and weighing the facts. Unfortunately, a far more likely scenario is that we will continue to muddle down the road of partisan double standards.
You can (and should) read her whole piece here.


thebulwark--2020-04-29--Congress Needs to Solve the COVID-19 Liability Problem

As Jonathan V. Last observed last week , no government official can singlehandedly “ reopen ” the economy .
Never mind the president , whose rhetoric has far outpaced his actual powers .
But even the state governors and local mayors with actual legal power in local matters of public health and safety can only do so much : They can relax public health closings and stay-at-home orders but they can not actually require stores to open their doors , or require customers to walk through them .
Rather , the economy will reopen , slowly but surely , as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their businesses , going back to their jobs , or going out to shop and spend .
But in that process , some laws will play a significant role in shaping people ’ s expectations and apprehensions—especially laws assigning liability for customers or employees who get infected with COVID-19 while working or shopping .
Until America has developed immunity to COVID-19 , American businesses will want immunity to COVID-19 lawsuits .
And so business and insurance companies , increasingly worried about these risks , are already lobbying state and federal policymakers for “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from any legal responsibility for COVID-19 infections that their businesses might help to cause .
Their worries are understandable , in a nation full of plaintiffs ’ lawyers keen to file class-action lawsuits .
And the risk of litigation appears even more daunting when one considers how hard it can be to prove or disprove that a given person ’ s COVID-19 infection actually occurred at a particular place and time , when symptoms will not develop for days after the fact .
Any one infection could spur lawsuits against multiple businesses .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ of abusive lawsuits is not the only problem policymakers need to consider ; they need to take seriously the safety of employees and customers , both because it is the right thing to do and because it is necessary to make people feel comfortable entering the economy again .
But the problem with liability shields is that they are never big enough to protect everyone .
A liability shield simply shifts the costs of harm from one person to another .
When a government shields businesses from liability , they are imposing liability @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to bear the cost of the disease—either by paying medical bills or paying higher insurance bills , or both .
Congress needs to take these issues seriously and enact legislation balancing the interests of businesses , employees , insurers , and all other Americans .
Unfortunately , President Trump ’ s initial statements have been exclusively in favor of business owners .
In his April 20 press conference , in response to a reporter ’ s question about liability risks , the president said that although no businesses had asked him about liability @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in providing one : “ we have tried to take liability away from these companies , ” he said , urging that liability shields are necessary “ because we want the companies to open and to open strong.
” Days later , White House economic adviser Larry Kudlow told CNBC that “ businesses , particularly small businesses , ” need “ some confidence here that if something happens , and it may not be their fault—the disease is an infectious disease—if something happens , you can ’ t take them out of business.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ have joined the debate , according to the Washington Post .
“ Attorneys in the White House Counsel ’ s Office are reviewing the matter , but some administration officials have raised objections to the idea , ” in terms of both the risk that the federal government might assume legal liability , and also the broader political implications of the federal government erasing legal protections for American workers and consumers simply for the sake of jump-starting the election-year economy .
Congress needs to decide this issue , and not in the all-or-nothing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the important interests on all sides of the COVID-19 liability issue , Congress needs to legislate a framework that creates the right incentives for minimizing the risk of COVID-19 infections .
Congress or state legislatures can enact laws that remove liability from companies that take reasonable steps to keep infected employees and customers away , and to keep the businesses ’ own facilities as clean as possible .
The key is for Congress or state legislatures to actually make the hard choices of what we expect of businesses .
While no legislation on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ legislators can at least specify the types of protective measures that are required : testing employees and customers , or at least taking their temperatures , asking about other symptoms , and trying to keep the sick away ; distributing masks and gloves ; cleaning all surfaces a particular number of times per day ; and so on .
The key is to give businesses protections based on criteria that are as specific as possible , so that they can be as sure as possible that their activities satisfy the law ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ least some lingering legal uncertainty , but precise legislation can remove much of it , making businesses feel much more comfortable about reopening their doors .
And when those doors reopen , employees and customers will feel much more comfortable walking through them .
Yes , those employees and customers will bear more of the risk associated with catching COVID-19 , but they will at least have the reassurance that those businesses are taking significant steps to keep their premises and personnel as COVID-free as reasonably possible .
COVID-19 infection liability raises many @ @ @ @ @ @ @ balances between many interests for the sake of the overall public interest .
In other words , it is a job for a legislature .
Congress needs to do its job , so that Americans can return to theirs .

As Jonathan V. Last observed last week, no government official can singlehandedly “reopen” the economy. Never mind the president, whose rhetoric has far outpaced his actual powers. But even the state governors and local mayors with actual legal power in local matters of public health and safety can only do so much: They can relax public health closings and stay-at-home orders but they cannot actually require stores to open their doors, or require customers to walk through them. Rather, the economy will reopen, slowly but surely, as people begin to feel safe returning to their businesses, going back to their jobs, or going out to shop and spend.
But in that process, some laws will play a significant role in shaping people’s expectations and apprehensions—especially laws assigning liability for customers or employees who get infected with COVID-19 while working or shopping. Until America has developed immunity to COVID-19, American businesses will want immunity to COVID-19 lawsuits. And so business and insurance companies, increasingly worried about these risks, are already lobbying state and federal policymakers for “liability shields”—new laws freeing them from any legal responsibility for COVID-19 infections that their businesses might help to cause.
Their worries are understandable, in a nation full of plaintiffs’ lawyers keen to file class-action lawsuits. And the risk of litigation appears even more daunting when one considers how hard it can be to prove or disprove that a given person’s COVID-19 infection actually occurred at a particular place and time, when symptoms will not develop for days after the fact. Any one infection could spur lawsuits against multiple businesses.
Podcast · August 15 2023 A.B. Stoddard: All the Ex-President’s Conspirators Donald Trump has been a low-rent mobster for his entire career, and now he’s getting…
At the same time, the risk of abusive lawsuits is not the only problem policymakers need to consider; they need to take seriously the safety of employees and customers, both because it is the right thing to do and because it is necessary to make people feel comfortable entering the economy again.
But the problem with liability shields is that they are never big enough to protect everyone. A liability shield simply shifts the costs of harm from one person to another. When a government shields businesses from liability, they are imposing liability on workers and customers by forcing them to bear the cost of the disease—either by paying medical bills or paying higher insurance bills, or both.
Congress needs to take these issues seriously and enact legislation balancing the interests of businesses, employees, insurers, and all other Americans. Unfortunately, President Trump’s initial statements have been exclusively in favor of business owners. In his April 20 press conference, in response to a reporter’s question about liability risks, the president said that although no businesses had asked him about liability shields yet, he was keenly interested in providing one: “we have tried to take liability away from these companies,” he said, urging that liability shields are necessary “because we want the companies to open and to open strong.” Days later, White House economic adviser Larry Kudlow told CNBC that “businesses, particularly small businesses,” need “some confidence here that if something happens, and it may not be their fault—the disease is an infectious disease—if something happens, you can’t take them out of business.”
White House lawyers and other officials have joined the debate, according to the Washington Post. “Attorneys in the White House Counsel’s Office are reviewing the matter, but some administration officials have raised objections to the idea,” in terms of both the risk that the federal government might assume legal liability, and also the broader political implications of the federal government erasing legal protections for American workers and consumers simply for the sake of jump-starting the election-year economy.
Congress needs to decide this issue, and not in the all-or-nothing terms offered by President Trump. Given the important interests on all sides of the COVID-19 liability issue, Congress needs to legislate a framework that creates the right incentives for minimizing the risk of COVID-19 infections. Congress or state legislatures can enact laws that remove liability from companies that take reasonable steps to keep infected employees and customers away, and to keep the businesses’ own facilities as clean as possible.
The key is for Congress or state legislatures to actually make the hard choices of what we expect of businesses. While no legislation on this subject can be perfectly precise, legislators can at least specify the types of protective measures that are required: testing employees and customers, or at least taking their temperatures, asking about other symptoms, and trying to keep the sick away; distributing masks and gloves; cleaning all surfaces a particular number of times per day; and so on. The key is to give businesses protections based on criteria that are as specific as possible, so that they can be as sure as possible that their activities satisfy the law’s requirements. There will always be at least some lingering legal uncertainty, but precise legislation can remove much of it, making businesses feel much more comfortable about reopening their doors.
And when those doors reopen, employees and customers will feel much more comfortable walking through them. Yes, those employees and customers will bear more of the risk associated with catching COVID-19, but they will at least have the reassurance that those businesses are taking significant steps to keep their premises and personnel as COVID-free as reasonably possible.
COVID-19 infection liability raises many difficult questions, and it requires striking balances between many interests for the sake of the overall public interest. In other words, it is a job for a legislature. Congress needs to do its job, so that Americans can return to theirs.


thebulwark--2020-04-29--The Stories Dan Crenshaw Tells Himself

The Stories Dan Crenshaw Tells Himself

In a new book out this month , a Republican member of Congress offers one of the most brutal and surgical eviscerations of President Trump ’ s leadership style that has been put to print .
“ The problem with today ’ s society is that it is swelling with the wrong role models , ” he writes .
“ Abandoning traditional heroes for new and exciting villains who represent self-indulgence , loud-mouthed commentary , angry fist-shaking activism , or insulting spitfire politics.
” This is , he says , infecting our entire society , which “ has grown out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ logic , decency , and virtue.
” We now “ mock virtue without considering how its abandonment accelerates our moral decay ” and “ don a mantle of fragility , of anger , of childishness , and are utterly shameless in doing so.
” “ A culture characterized by self-pity , indulgence , outrage , and resentment is a culture that falls apart , ” he argues .
On Earth 2 , this may have been the launching pad for a courageous and ambitious primary campaign that stands up for virtue in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ childish , shameless , self-indulgent , loud-mouthed , insulting , self-pitying , and resentful president .
Here on Earth 1 , the book is called Fortitude and its author is Rep. Dan Crenshaw , one of the most visible defenders of Donald Trump .
For starters , he is a Purple Heart recipient who , after being blown up by an IED , demanded that he walk himself to medical evacuation because he didn ’ t want to expose other servicemen to unnecessary enemy fire .
That makes him a badass who knows @ @ @ @ @ @ @ isn ’ t .
He ’ s also a bilingual graduate of Tufts and Harvard who is an insightful interlocutor on essentially any matter except the objective reality concerning the current president of the United States .
And then there ’ s the fact that before Crenshaw ’ s political fortunes required a baseline level of Trumpitude , he candidly assessed Trump ’ s failings himself , writing on Facebook that the then-candidate was an “ idiot ” whose rhetoric was “ insane ” and “ hateful.
” Such assessments are no longer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at first pitched himself to voters as a McCain-style antidote to the bitter partisanship that defines Trump ’ s Washington .
Eighteen short months later Crenshaw has found himself as part of a colloquy of pleasers jockeying for a spot at the pinnacle of Trump ’ s GOP with a path to succeeding the president in 2024 .
( That is , should Trump ’ s children or Trump himself take a pass on the race . )
He has ingratiated himself by putting on a masterclass in anti-anti Trumpism , using his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ worst excesses of the left and savage what he argues is media bias against Trump .
At key inflection points , such as the Charlottesville white supremacist rally , Crenshaw has risen to defend Trump and suggest that anyone who thinks that the leader of the free world ’ s words and behavior matter is lacking nuance and seriousness .
In Fortitude , a book ostensibly about courage in the face of adversity , Crenshaw demonstrates that the values instilled in him as a SEAL that he believes will save the country apply @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Crenshaw is fond of lecturing liberal journalists who ask him about the president with a riposte that is some version of the phrase “ conservatives can hold two ideas in their head at the same time.
” The two ideas Crenshaw alludes to are ( 1 ) that Trump has character flaws but ( 2 ) his administration is doing a good job .
This is a theory that might have some merit if both halves of the formulation were true .
They are not .
But what ’ s really striking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t even bring himself to hold to both parts of the false pairing .
That ’ s because it is no more possible for Crenshaw or any other non-Romney elected Republican to speak honestly about Trump ’ s character flaws than it would ’ ve been for members of the Soprano clan to speak the truth about Tony .
Nowhere is this more clear than in Crenshaw ’ s handling of Trump while he ’ s been hawking his book .
While Trump ’ s most essential character traits are savaged throughout @ @ @ @ @ @ @ name is mentioned but 9 times , while the “ media ” is mentioned 9 times in the first 8 pages alone .
Seven of the mentions of Trump are critiques of the media for being unfair to him .
One is about an encounter Crenshaw had with anti-Trump activists .
The final one is pushing back on right-wing conspiracies about the Deep State going after Trump .
So while Crenshaw might be holding two different thoughts about the president in his head , readers of Fortitude—a book that is marketed as being @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have no idea what sort of tough love Crenshaw would offer to the most important leader in the world today .
Some might say that Crenshaw ’ s views about Trump are implicit in the text .
Yet when he ’ s been asked about this directly , he either deflects or goes to stunning lengths to shower praise on the president for his leadership .
On the Bill Maher show , for example , Crenshaw offered a curious portrayal of the president as the type of calm and optimistic leader who would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ How this devotion to calm positivity squares with almost daily rants about how mean Jim Acosta is and ALL CAPS tweets about protesters liberating themselves from their duly elected government is .
.
.
interesting .
And whenever he ’ s asked about this incongruity , Crenshaw pivots to say that questions about Trump are unfair attacks by an outrage-driven media that should be asking him about more important things .
So when Maher pressed about Trump ’ s proclivity to “ pass the buck , lie , finger-point , shirk responsibility , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ really is holding two thoughts in his head .
It ’ s just that he only feels safe voicing one of them .
In a visit to The View to discuss his Washington Post op-ed that called for “ restoring civility to the public debate ” Crenshaw said that his baseline view was that politicians shouldn ’ t “ insult each other ” or “ make disingenuous attempts to undermine character.
” Abby Huntsman made the obvious retort : “ The president ’ s not listening to you.
” This may be true @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in general .
But if you bring it down to individual actors , it is demonstrably false .
Mitt Romney does not insult people .
Sherrod Brown does not insult people .
Tammy Duckworth and Pete Buttigieg and Joe Biden and Ben Sasse and Heidi Heitkamp and Jeb Bush do not , as matters of routine , mock and belittle others .
So it isn ’ t actually true-true—not in any real sense .
Because in the real sense , no other American president has even been in the same galaxy as Donald @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the behavior Crenshaw decries .
Why can ’ t Crenshaw just say this obviously true thing out loud ?
These sorts of evasions and half-truths are standard fare for the average elected Republican these days .
Disingenuousness and hypocrisy are no longer part of their considerations .
But Crenshaw isn ’ t your average elected Republican .
He ’ s made calls for “ good faith ” arguments that home in on “ the truth ” rather than “ outrage culture ” central to his brand .
He repeatedly galivants about on a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in argumentation and acting with honor in the public square .
And then hops out of the saddle the minute anyone asks him about Trump ’ s affront to these virtues .
The frustrating thing for Crenshaw ’ s opponents is that he ’ s really good at it .
Unlike many of the president ’ s defenders , who ’ ll inject themselves with any bleach the president tells them to , Crenshaw has chosen his spots and his “ nuanced ” defenses of Trump are designed to confound anyone who isn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of each administration scandal .
Crenshaw was a staunch defender on impeachment , going so far as to present his “ no vote ” to Trump in a really embarrassing display of suck-up-itude at a Charlie Kirk confab .
On The View he defended Trump ’ s Charlottesville comments , spreading the hoax that the president ’ s “ very fine people ” comment was about some other group of protesters , not the murdering white nationalists .
He ’ s defended the administration everywhere from the New York Times to late-night comedy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nature and both enjoys and sees value in sparring outside the friendly confines of Conservatism Inc. ( Though not universally so : I reached out to Rep. Crenshsaw ’ s office twice to see if he wanted to push back on my assessment for this article .
I received no response . )
Crenshaw ’ s skill in defending the Trumpian indefensible reached its apex this month when his video “ debunking ” criticisms of the Trump administration over COVID-19 preparedness was shared on social media by both the president and his large @ @ @ @ @ @ @ congressional offices to use as a model .
The video garnered about 8 million views on Twitter alone .
In the explainer-style video that Crenshaw brands as the “ truth ” about the administration ’ s response , he paints the picture of a president who was on the ball—or even ahead of the game !
—when it came to the virus .
To do so , he nutpicks the worst media takes about the virus from January and February , ignores everything the president said and did in March , shifts the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Obama administration and federal bureaucracy , and knocks down the straw man suggestion that we should ’ ve “ shut everything down ” in February .
( Which was not a widespread recommendation by public health experts . )
Aaron Blake has already done a thorough debunking of Crenshaw ’ s “ debunking.
” ( Because he is merciful , Blake didn ’ t bother dunking on Crenshaw ’ s shameless characterization that it was Trump who pushed for COVID-stimulus funds in February .
In fact Democratic leaders gave the president $ 6 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to be mocked by Trump as “ Cryin ’ Chuck ” who only wanted “ publicity.
” ) The actual truth—the true-truth—is Donald Trump downplayed the threat of the coronavirus long after every important politician save Bill de Blasio and a handful of MAGA governors .
The president was still comparing the virus to the flu and car accidents on March 23—an entire month after any of the media flubs Crenshaw highlights in the video .
If Crenshaw was actually trying to “ get the truth out there ” then he would at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ anyone in their right mind can see .
The fact that he doesn ’ t is the tell that he isn ’ t actually trying to get to the truth .
He ’ s not even trying to argue in good faith .
He ’ s just doing a more sophisticated form of MAGA propaganda that ’ s based on the idea of sleight-of-hand persuasion rather than bullying dominance .
The penultimate chapter of Fortitude is titled “ The Stories We Tell Ourselves.
” In it , Crenshaw writes that “ after every @ @ @ @ @ @ @ create a personal narrative to account for that moment .
We tell ourselves a story.
” Citing Jordan Peterson ’ s 12 Rules for Life , Crenshaw makes the case that people should not buy stories that remove personal responsibility—stories where people see themselves as a victim .
He writes that the “ most devastating mental state ” is one in which people consider themselves helpless in the face of adversity .
I suspect that this is what makes Crenshaw ’ s dilemma so agonizing for him .
In the story Dan Crenshaw @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a good man , a rational man , a man who can make the world a better place by staying in it and fighting for truth and virtue .
All of that may be true .
But there ’ s just one catch : The price of admission is that Crenshaw must put one large , but inconvenient , truth in a box over to the side .
And he must never open it , or even speak about it .
Because if he does , the insane , hateful idiot who leads @ @ @ @ @ @ @ excommunicate him and force him out of public life .
So this is Crenshaw ’ s choice : Say out loud the second part of the thoughts he holds in his head .
And be consigned to exile with Mia Love and Jeff Flake and Mitt Romney and the others .
Fudge the truth about Trump and subject himself to the most devastating mental state he can imagine : One where he is helpless to stand up to someone who isn ’ t half the man he is , who is the embodiment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with our society , who in any other circumstance he would regard with disdain .
But have the chance to make a difference .
The story he tells himself is that his political life depends on choosing the latter and that the adversary is the media which doesn ’ t recognize his obvious goodness and forces him to answer for that choice .
The problem is that the story he tells himself isn ’ t one of political fortitude .
It ’ s a story of victimization , resentment , and helplessness .

In a new book out this month, a Republican member of Congress offers one of the most brutal and surgical eviscerations of President Trump’s leadership style that has been put to print.
“The problem with today’s society is that it is swelling with the wrong role models,” he writes. “Abandoning traditional heroes for new and exciting villains who represent self-indulgence, loud-mouthed commentary, angry fist-shaking activism, or insulting spitfire politics.”
This is, he says, infecting our entire society, which “has grown out of control often at the expense of logic, decency, and virtue.” We now “mock virtue without considering how its abandonment accelerates our moral decay” and “don a mantle of fragility, of anger, of childishness, and are utterly shameless in doing so.”
“A culture characterized by self-pity, indulgence, outrage, and resentment is a culture that falls apart,” he argues.
On Earth 2, this may have been the launching pad for a courageous and ambitious primary campaign that stands up for virtue in the face of our fragile, angry, childish, shameless, self-indulgent, loud-mouthed, insulting, self-pitying, and resentful president.
Here on Earth 1, the book is called Fortitude and its author is Rep. Dan Crenshaw, one of the most visible defenders of Donald Trump.
Podcast · August 15 2023 A.B. Stoddard: All the Ex-President’s Conspirators Donald Trump has been a low-rent mobster for his entire career, and now he’s getting…
Crenshaw surely understands this inherent contradiction.
For starters, he is a Purple Heart recipient who, after being blown up by an IED, demanded that he walk himself to medical evacuation because he didn’t want to expose other servicemen to unnecessary enemy fire. That makes him a badass who knows what courageous leadership is and what it isn’t. He’s also a bilingual graduate of Tufts and Harvard who is an insightful interlocutor on essentially any matter except the objective reality concerning the current president of the United States.
And then there’s the fact that before Crenshaw’s political fortunes required a baseline level of Trumpitude, he candidly assessed Trump’s failings himself, writing on Facebook that the then-candidate was an “idiot” whose rhetoric was “insane” and “hateful.”
Such assessments are no longer convenient for the former Navy SEAL who at first pitched himself to voters as a McCain-style antidote to the bitter partisanship that defines Trump’s Washington.
Eighteen short months later Crenshaw has found himself as part of a colloquy of pleasers jockeying for a spot at the pinnacle of Trump’s GOP with a path to succeeding the president in 2024. (That is, should Trump’s children or Trump himself take a pass on the race.)
He has ingratiated himself by putting on a masterclass in anti-anti Trumpism, using his considerable debate skills to spar with the worst excesses of the left and savage what he argues is media bias against Trump. At key inflection points, such as the Charlottesville white supremacist rally, Crenshaw has risen to defend Trump and suggest that anyone who thinks that the leader of the free world’s words and behavior matter is lacking nuance and seriousness.
In Fortitude, a book ostensibly about courage in the face of adversity, Crenshaw demonstrates that the values instilled in him as a SEAL that he believes will save the country apply to everything except his own political career.
Crenshaw is fond of lecturing liberal journalists who ask him about the president with a riposte that is some version of the phrase “conservatives can hold two ideas in their head at the same time.” The two ideas Crenshaw alludes to are (1) that Trump has character flaws but (2) his administration is doing a good job.
This is a theory that might have some merit if both halves of the formulation were true.
They are not.
But what’s really striking is that in practice, Crenshaw can’t even bring himself to hold to both parts of the false pairing. That’s because it is no more possible for Crenshaw or any other non-Romney elected Republican to speak honestly about Trump’s character flaws than it would’ve been for members of the Soprano clan to speak the truth about Tony.
Nowhere is this more clear than in Crenshaw’s handling of Trump while he’s been hawking his book.
While Trump’s most essential character traits are savaged throughout Crenshaw’s 250 pages, his name is mentioned but 9 times, while the “media” is mentioned 9 times in the first 8 pages alone. Seven of the mentions of Trump are critiques of the media for being unfair to him. One is about an encounter Crenshaw had with anti-Trump activists. The final one is pushing back on right-wing conspiracies about the Deep State going after Trump.
So while Crenshaw might be holding two different thoughts about the president in his head, readers of Fortitude—a book that is marketed as being about “tough love leadership”—would have no idea what sort of tough love Crenshaw would offer to the most important leader in the world today.
Some might say that Crenshaw’s views about Trump are implicit in the text. Yet when he’s been asked about this directly, he either deflects or goes to stunning lengths to shower praise on the president for his leadership.
On the Bill Maher show, for example, Crenshaw offered a curious portrayal of the president as the type of calm and optimistic leader who would’ve excelled commanding Navy SEALs.
When bullets are flying past my head, I don’t need to raise my voice . . . calm breeds calm, panic breeds panic. Exuding positivity and calmness in crisis is exactly how we ask our SEALs to lead.
How this devotion to calm positivity squares with almost daily rants about how mean Jim Acosta is and ALL CAPS tweets about protesters liberating themselves from their duly elected government is . . . interesting. And whenever he’s asked about this incongruity, Crenshaw pivots to say that questions about Trump are unfair attacks by an outrage-driven media that should be asking him about more important things.
So when Maher pressed about Trump’s proclivity to “pass the buck, lie, finger-point, shirk responsibility,” Crenshaw dodged:
Republicans always get asked this question. There’s this demand that we always have to answer, “What do you feel about him, don’t you want to comment on this latest tweet, the way he lashed out?” And no I don’t.
So maybe Crenshaw really is holding two thoughts in his head. It’s just that he only feels safe voicing one of them.
In a visit to The View to discuss his Washington Post op-ed that called for “restoring civility to the public debate” Crenshaw said that his baseline view was that politicians shouldn’t “insult each other” or “make disingenuous attempts to undermine character.”
Abby Huntsman made the obvious retort: “The president’s not listening to you.”
To which Crenshaw replied: “Nobody is.”
This may be true in the broadest possible sense about politics in general. But if you bring it down to individual actors, it is demonstrably false. Mitt Romney does not insult people. Sherrod Brown does not insult people. Tammy Duckworth and Pete Buttigieg and Joe Biden and Ben Sasse and Heidi Heitkamp and Jeb Bush do not, as matters of routine, mock and belittle others.
So it isn’t actually true-true—not in any real sense.
Because in the real sense, no other American president has even been in the same galaxy as Donald Trump when it comes to engaging in the behavior Crenshaw decries.
Why can’t Crenshaw just say this obviously true thing out loud?
These sorts of evasions and half-truths are standard fare for the average elected Republican these days. Disingenuousness and hypocrisy are no longer part of their considerations.
But Crenshaw isn’t your average elected Republican. He’s made calls for “good faith” arguments that home in on “the truth” rather than “outrage culture” central to his brand. He repeatedly gallivants about on a high horse lecturing everyone else about fairness in argumentation and acting with honor in the public square. And then hops out of the saddle the minute anyone asks him about Trump’s affront to these virtues.
The frustrating thing for Crenshaw’s opponents is that he’s really good at it.
Unlike many of the president’s defenders, who’ll inject themselves with any bleach the president tells them to, Crenshaw has chosen his spots and his “nuanced” defenses of Trump are designed to confound anyone who isn’t fully versed in the particulars of each administration scandal.
Crenshaw was a staunch defender on impeachment, going so far as to present his “no vote” to Trump in a really embarrassing display of suck-up-itude at a Charlie Kirk confab. On The View he defended Trump’s Charlottesville comments, spreading the hoax that the president’s “very fine people” comment was about some other group of protesters, not the murdering white nationalists. He’s defended the administration everywhere from the New York Times to late-night comedy shows—his allies say he is competitive by nature and both enjoys and sees value in sparring outside the friendly confines of Conservatism Inc. (Though not universally so: I reached out to Rep. Crenshsaw’s office twice to see if he wanted to push back on my assessment for this article. I received no response.)
Crenshaw’s skill in defending the Trumpian indefensible reached its apex this month when his video “debunking” criticisms of the Trump administration over COVID-19 preparedness was shared on social media by both the president and his large adult son—and was sent to all GOP congressional offices to use as a model. The video garnered about 8 million views on Twitter alone.
In the explainer-style video that Crenshaw brands as the “truth” about the administration’s response, he paints the picture of a president who was on the ball—or even ahead of the game!—when it came to the virus.
To do so, he nutpicks the worst media takes about the virus from January and February, ignores everything the president said and did in March, shifts the responsibility for testing and PPE to the Obama administration and federal bureaucracy, and knocks down the straw man suggestion that we should’ve “shut everything down” in February. (Which was not a widespread recommendation by public health experts.)
Aaron Blake has already done a thorough debunking of Crenshaw’s “debunking.” (Because he is merciful, Blake didn’t bother dunking on Crenshaw’s shameless characterization that it was Trump who pushed for COVID-stimulus funds in February. In fact Democratic leaders gave the president $6 billion more than the administration asked for—only to be mocked by Trump as “Cryin’ Chuck” who only wanted “publicity.”)
The actual truth—the true-truth—is Donald Trump downplayed the threat of the coronavirus long after every important politician save Bill de Blasio and a handful of MAGA governors. The president was still comparing the virus to the flu and car accidents on March 23—an entire month after any of the media flubs Crenshaw highlights in the video.
If Crenshaw was actually trying to “get the truth out there” then he would at least acknowledge the obvious presidential failings that anyone in their right mind can see.
The fact that he doesn’t is the tell that he isn’t actually trying to get to the truth. He’s not even trying to argue in good faith. He’s just doing a more sophisticated form of MAGA propaganda that’s based on the idea of sleight-of-hand persuasion rather than bullying dominance.
That’s something? I guess?
The penultimate chapter of Fortitude is titled “The Stories We Tell Ourselves.” In it, Crenshaw writes that “after every failure, after every hardship, we create a personal narrative to account for that moment. We tell ourselves a story.”
Citing Jordan Peterson’s 12 Rules for Life, Crenshaw makes the case that people should not buy stories that remove personal responsibility—stories where people see themselves as a victim. He writes that the “most devastating mental state” is one in which people consider themselves helpless in the face of adversity.
I suspect that this is what makes Crenshaw’s dilemma so agonizing for him.
In the story Dan Crenshaw tells himself, he sees himself as a good man, a rational man, a man who can make the world a better place by staying in it and fighting for truth and virtue. All of that may be true. But there’s just one catch: The price of admission is that Crenshaw must put one large, but inconvenient, truth in a box over to the side. And he must never open it, or even speak about it.
Because if he does, the insane, hateful idiot who leads the political cult Crenshaw belongs to will excommunicate him and force him out of public life.
So this is Crenshaw’s choice:
Say out loud the second part of the thoughts he holds in his head. And be consigned to exile with Mia Love and Jeff Flake and Mitt Romney and the others.
Or:
Fudge the truth about Trump and subject himself to the most devastating mental state he can imagine: One where he is helpless to stand up to someone who isn’t half the man he is, who is the embodiment of everything that he thinks is wrong with our society, who in any other circumstance he would regard with disdain. But have the chance to make a difference.
The story he tells himself is that his political life depends on choosing the latter and that the adversary is the media which doesn’t recognize his obvious goodness and forces him to answer for that choice.
The problem is that the story he tells himself isn’t one of political fortitude. It’s a story of victimization, resentment, and helplessness.


thebulwark--2020-04-29--The Fault in Ourselves

The Fault in Ourselves

In the second week of April , with the nation locked up in quarantine and our medical system overwhelmed with the sick and dying , a screenshot made the rounds on one of those screamy finance shows on one of those screamy finance news networks .
It was a graphic illustrating the rise of the Dow with a cheery green uptrending EKG line—THE DOW ’ S BEST WEEK SINCE 1938—while the crawl at the bottom of the screen somberly declaimed : MORE THAN 16M AMERICANS HAVE LOST JOBS IN THREE WEEKS .
This was brought to American ’ s attention @ @ @ @ @ @ @ means that 46 percent of America immediately dismissed it .
She is a divisive messenger best derided and ignored .
So is Mitt Romney .
And Hillary too .
Not to mention Obama .
Marco Rubio goes without saying .
Bernie as well—and all of his followers .
Chris Hayes and Shepard Smith and—wait a minute .
.
.
If everyone is the wrong messenger , maybe that no longer reflects on the messengers .
Maybe it reflects on us .
Our disdain for the opposition players seems equaled only by our need @ @ @ @ @ @ @ least ever since JFK showed up on our tellies like a matinee idol , with that sweatless forehead , hundred watt smile , and movie star quiff .
And come on .
None of our leaders are JFK .
Hell , JFK wasn ’ t even JFK .
So no one is gon na convince anyone that Bernie is FDR reincarnated or that Trump is fit to fill Lincoln ’ s size 14s .
We know this .
And yet that ’ s what we tell ourselves we need .
It didn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Once upon a time , we knew better than to desire to be intoxicated by our leaders .
We understood that they had a job to do , that they were imperfect proxies for our values rather than shining beacons in every possible facet of life .
They were sometimes heroic , yes , but also stodgy and competent and human , not necessarily our first choice to come to a dinner party , babysit our kids , or set the moral standard in all conceivable ways .
But these days we ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ someone sublime and preternaturally pure is at the helm , hand on the rudder , guiding us through turbulent waters .
And the more lost we feel , the more desperate and clingy we get .
We ’ re exhausted and panicked and despairing that not one candidate has ridden to our moral rescue on a white steed , polished and perfect with nary an ill-advised floor vote or potentially offensive joke in his past .
And so we bounce around the interwebs in quest of the mythical candidate .
At dinner parties @ @ @ @ @ @ @ One Who Will Save Us .
Why can ’ t just a single politician be as decent , moral , and clear-minded as we are ?
Well , it ’ s hard to figure out who that human person might be when our cultural discourse mostly functions to sharpen us against one another , the better to cut everyone down to size .
One imagines Alex Jones , red-faced and huffing on hands and knees , pointing beneath the Resolute Desk : “ Is that sissy Delano wearing leg braces ?
” Or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Moments from Closeted Lincoln ’ s Letters to Joshua Speed !
We pry into every aspect of our would-be leaders ’ lives and then are shocked—shocked—to discover that they ’ re human , just like us .
And that mirror is so unflattering that we retreat back to our respective camps to huddle together and reassure ourselves just how virtuous we are .
If we form a big enough mob and pick up enough stones , we might even be able to guard the glass house behind us .
We demand inhuman perfection @ @ @ @ @ @ @ demanding it be conveyed in the most marketable fashion possible .
We want Gandhi but we ’ d prefer him more meme-able .
Perhaps we could shoot him out of a cannon , khadi aflutter ?
“ Be the change you wish to see in the world ” is catchy , but could he rap it to draw in the millennial vote ?
It ’ s a simple ask of our potential leaders , really .
Be pristine but get down in the dirt and fight like they do .
Be larger than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can have a beer with .
Be profound enough to lead the world , but meet us where we are .
Okay .
So .
Where are we exactly ?
If you add up the entirety of the New York Times ’ s digital and physical circulation and throw in the Wall Street Journal for good measure , we approach six million .
There are one billion people on Facebook .
I know , I know , lamestream media and blah blah blah , but we ’ re talking attention span and interest @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as imperfect as said broadsheets can be , at least they ’ re not telling us that Hillary was running a child sex ring in the basement of the Comet Ping Pong .
Oh wait—that wasn ’ t Facebook .
That was Reddit , which clocks a mere 330 million users a month .
Compare that to something less important , like say a presidential race : 137 million Americans voted in 2016 in an election that , some might recall , comes only once every four years .
This particular one seemed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ well .
In contrast to that quadrennial turnout , there are 145 million users on Twitter a day .
But let ’ s not get snooty and dismissive and get-off-my-lawn Luddite-y .
Technologies and communications change .
People need to connect and communicate in different ways .
Fair enough .
However we ’ ve mostly agreed on the primary credo for our new mode of engagement : Don ’ t read the comments .
Which means that within the primary means of contemporary cultural and political discourse , we ’ ve created an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ enshrined an unspoken rule not to engage with our fellow citizens .
Imagine attendees scurrying to the exits after a Lincoln-Douglass debate , hands clapped over their ears , stovepipe hats toppling .
Or maybe—better ?
—they could flee to different taverns where only the not-unfriended could join for a malt liquor and make sure everyone agreed with one another even more .
Are we sure we want to be met where we are ?
Because what if where we are isn ’ t where we should be ?
Do we have a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ point to a different place ?
A place that is more civil , more honest , more compassionate ?
An environment that allows the possibility of finding real conversations and real solutions rather than one that wraps us up in the cozy blanket of our respective ideologies ?
To pause before each response , post , and engagement to search within ourselves and ask : “ Am I degrading our cultural discourse or leading by example for how we might fix it ?
” In short : Do we have a responsibility to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ demanding of our leaders ?
For better or worse , politicians and pundits form the constellation of our current national malaise .
But what if the fault , dear Bruti , is not in our stars but in ourselves ?

In the second week of April, with the nation locked up in quarantine and our medical system overwhelmed with the sick and dying, a screenshot made the rounds on one of those screamy finance shows on one of those screamy finance news networks. It was a graphic illustrating the rise of the Dow with a cheery green uptrending EKG line—THE DOW’S BEST WEEK SINCE 1938—while the crawl at the bottom of the screen somberly declaimed: MORE THAN 16M AMERICANS HAVE LOST JOBS IN THREE WEEKS.
This was brought to American’s attention by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, which of course means that 46 percent of America immediately dismissed it.
She is a divisive messenger best derided and ignored. So is Mitt Romney. And Hillary too. Not to mention Obama. Marco Rubio goes without saying. Bernie as well—and all of his followers. Chris Hayes and Shepard Smith and—wait a minute . . .
If everyone is the wrong messenger, maybe that no longer reflects on the messengers.
Maybe it reflects on us.
Podcast · August 15 2023 A.B. Stoddard: All the Ex-President’s Conspirators Donald Trump has been a low-rent mobster for his entire career, and now he’s getting…
Our disdain for the opposition players seems equaled only by our need to venerate our own contenders, at least ever since JFK showed up on our tellies like a matinee idol, with that sweatless forehead, hundred watt smile, and movie star quiff. And come on. None of our leaders are JFK. Hell, JFK wasn’t even JFK. So no one is gonna convince anyone that Bernie is FDR reincarnated or that Trump is fit to fill Lincoln’s size 14s. We know this.
And yet that’s what we tell ourselves we need.
It didn’t used to be this way. Once upon a time, we knew better than to desire to be intoxicated by our leaders. We understood that they had a job to do, that they were imperfect proxies for our values rather than shining beacons in every possible facet of life. They were sometimes heroic, yes, but also stodgy and competent and human, not necessarily our first choice to come to a dinner party, babysit our kids, or set the moral standard in all conceivable ways.
But these days we’re desperate to have that tucked-in-safely-at-night feeling—that someone sublime and preternaturally pure is at the helm, hand on the rudder, guiding us through turbulent waters.
And the more lost we feel, the more desperate and clingy we get. We’re exhausted and panicked and despairing that not one candidate has ridden to our moral rescue on a white steed, polished and perfect with nary an ill-advised floor vote or potentially offensive joke in his past. And so we bounce around the interwebs in quest of the mythical candidate. At dinner parties we bemoan the lack of this perfect One Who Will Save Us.
Why can’t just a single politician be as decent, moral, and clear-minded as we are?
Well, it’s hard to figure out who that human person might be when our cultural discourse mostly functions to sharpen us against one another, the better to cut everyone down to size. One imagines Alex Jones, red-faced and huffing on hands and knees, pointing beneath the Resolute Desk: “Is that sissy Delano wearing leg braces?” Or BuzzFeed trending: The 10 Must-See Gayest Moments from Closeted Lincoln’s Letters to Joshua Speed!
We pry into every aspect of our would-be leaders’ lives and then are shocked—shocked—to discover that they’re human, just like us. And that mirror is so unflattering that we retreat back to our respective camps to huddle together and reassure ourselves just how virtuous we are.
If we form a big enough mob and pick up enough stones, we might even be able to guard the glass house behind us.
We demand inhuman perfection from our politicians and candidates while also demanding it be conveyed in the most marketable fashion possible. We want Gandhi but we’d prefer him more meme-able. Perhaps we could shoot him out of a cannon, khadi aflutter? “Be the change you wish to see in the world” is catchy, but could he rap it to draw in the millennial vote?
It’s a simple ask of our potential leaders, really. Be pristine but get down in the dirt and fight like they do. Be larger than life, but also a gal I can have a beer with. Be profound enough to lead the world, but meet us where we are.
Okay. So. Where are we exactly?
If you add up the entirety of the New York Times’s digital and physical circulation and throw in the Wall Street Journal for good measure, we approach six million.
There are one billion people on Facebook.
I know, I know, lamestream media and blah blah blah, but we’re talking attention span and interest and some version of vetting. And as imperfect as said broadsheets can be, at least they’re not telling us that Hillary was running a child sex ring in the basement of the Comet Ping Pong.
Oh wait—that wasn’t Facebook. That was Reddit, which clocks a mere 330 million users a month. Compare that to something less important, like say a presidential race: 137 million Americans voted in 2016 in an election that, some might recall, comes only once every four years. This particular one seemed to have some stakes to it as well. In contrast to that quadrennial turnout, there are 145 million users on Twitter a day.
But let’s not get snooty and dismissive and get-off-my-lawn Luddite-y. Technologies and communications change. People need to connect and communicate in different ways. Fair enough. However we’ve mostly agreed on the primary credo for our new mode of engagement: Don’t read the comments. Which means that within the primary means of contemporary cultural and political discourse, we’ve created an environment so toxic that we’ve enshrined an unspoken rule not to engage with our fellow citizens.
Imagine attendees scurrying to the exits after a Lincoln-Douglass debate, hands clapped over their ears, stovepipe hats toppling. Or maybe—better?—they could flee to different taverns where only the not-unfriended could join for a malt liquor and make sure everyone agreed with one another even more.
Are we sure we want to be met where we are?
Because what if where we are isn’t where we should be?
Do we have a responsibility as citizens to move the gathering point to a different place? A place that is more civil, more honest, more compassionate? An environment that allows the possibility of finding real conversations and real solutions rather than one that wraps us up in the cozy blanket of our respective ideologies? To pause before each response, post, and engagement to search within ourselves and ask: “Am I degrading our cultural discourse or leading by example for how we might fix it?”
In short: Do we have a responsibility to demand of ourselves what we are busy demanding of our leaders?
For better or worse, politicians and pundits form the constellation of our current national malaise.
But what if the fault, dear Bruti, is not in our stars but in ourselves?


thebulwark--2020-04-30--We Need to Protect Our Meat-Processing Workers

The president ’ s latest executive order declaring that meat-processing plants must remain open through the pandemic puts both workers and the meat companies they work for at risk , which this administration has done next to nothing to prepare for .
I know something about meat processing , having served on the board of what was for a time the largest poultry producer in the nation , Pilgrim ’ s Pride .
The company , badly hurt by the 2008 stock market collapse , went into bankruptcy from which it emerged when JBS SA , a Brazilian-based company , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ JBS USA is now one of the biggest meat companies in the world and owner of many of the plants infected by COVID-19 .
During my time on the Pilgrim ’ s Pride board , I learned a lot about how chickens get from farms—many of them relatively small , family-owned businesses in rural areas—to grocery stores and restaurants across the country .
It is a vital but not always pretty process , with literally hundreds of thousands of low-paid workers doing the difficult and often dangerous work cutting up carcasses along a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ plants .
During my time on the board , I visited the company ’ s plants in Texas , where employees worked in shifts that sometimes went round-the-clock .
They showed up to work , punched in , donned their gear ( at the time , overalls , gloves , and hairnets ) in locker rooms with little space to spread out at a safe social distance .
They stood shoulder-to-shoulder on the line that fed carcasses or chicken parts to be cut up , de-boned , internal organs removed from the cavities @ @ @ @ @ @ @ depending on the customer , with excess skin and stray bits dumped in large plastic vats at the end of the line to be used in preparing those fried nuggets kids crave .
Hands moved with such rapidity it was hard to imagine how the workers managed not to cut off fingers—and workplace injuries , including repetitive movement stress were far from uncommon .
When I visited the plants in Texas , most of the workers were Hispanic , often immigrants who spoke little English .
Although Pilgrim ’ s Pride was an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ government program that allows employers to check applicants ’ eligibility to work under our immigration laws before they are hired , many of the company ’ s workers were undocumented .
Most of these had fake Social Security numbers or had been hired before 2003 when the federal government expanded E-Verify nationwide .
An ICE raid on several of our plants in 2008 resulted in some 400 arrests , dealing a heavy blow to operations and accelerating bankruptcy when attempts to hire suitable replacement workers largely failed .
All of which is to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , companies won ’ t have an easy time finding others to take their jobs .
As of this week , large outbreaks of COVID-19 have infected hundreds of workers and killed at least 22 in plants across the country , according to a report by USA Today and the Midwest Center for Investigative Reporting .
Some jurisdictions have forced the plants to close temporarily while companies scrambled to put in place a more protective environment .
At some plants , companies have erected plastic barriers between workers to help mitigate the risk @ @ @ @ @ @ @ addition to their regular gear , but the most significant protection for workers is sorely lacking—namely , testing .
Until companies can test every worker who walks through its doors in real time , workers will continue to be put at undue risk .
And yet , the president has no plans in place to ensure that the tests will be made available at the worksites , along with the personnel to administer them quickly and reliably .
The president claims that meat processors are a vital part of the critical infrastructure during @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been slow to invoke the Defense Production Act in other crucial areas , including producing protective equipment and testing supplies .
And his refusal to take responsibility on these fronts is what makes his actions now even more irresponsible .
Instead of taking direct action to guarantee testing and protective equipment for workers , the president punted to the Department of Agriculture to ensure companies operate “ consistent with the guidance for the operations of meat and poultry processing facilities jointly issued by the CDC and OSHA.
” This “ guidance ” is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that companies should follow , with no enforcement mechanism if they don ’ t .
And by requiring the companies remain open , even if there are further outbreaks—which there are bound to be—the president is essentially depriving local officials of the ability to shut down plants that pose a threat not just to workers but the community at large .
The threat of a shutdown is the most effective way to ensure companies act responsibly .
But what does acting responsibly even mean when the president of the United States orders companies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Colorado , local officials shut a JBS plant on April 11 after some 277 workers became infected , and the plant was originally to stay closed until April 27 , but instead it reopened on April 24 .
The company appears to have followed the CDC guidance , checking workers ’ temperatures before they entered the plant and asking that they wear masks , in addition to having deep-cleaned the facility and installed plastic shields between stations .
But given the fact that many patients are asymptomatic , some of the returning @ @ @ @ @ @ @ infect others .
A company spokesman said that the federal government had provided 50,000 masks for employees but not tests .
JBS purchased its own tests—but not enough to test all workers on a repeated basis—and a union representative for the workers claimed on MSNBC that the company quit testing front-line workers after as many as 40 percent of managers tested positive at the company ’ s test site over the Easter Sunday weekend .
Companies like JBS want to do right by their employees .
It has been my experience in nearly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ management understands that the success of the company depends on its workers ’ well-being .
But companies need the right tools to do the right thing , and President Trump and his administration aren ’ t helping .
The president is putting the cart before the horse in forcing meat plants to stay open before he can guarantee they have the tests to ensure it is safe to do so .

The president’s latest executive order declaring that meat-processing plants must remain open through the pandemic puts both workers and the meat companies they work for at risk, which this administration has done next to nothing to prepare for. I know something about meat processing, having served on the board of what was for a time the largest poultry producer in the nation, Pilgrim’s Pride. The company, badly hurt by the 2008 stock market collapse, went into bankruptcy from which it emerged when JBS SA, a Brazilian-based company, purchased it in 2009. Its subsidiary JBS USA is now one of the biggest meat companies in the world and owner of many of the plants infected by COVID-19. During my time on the Pilgrim’s Pride board, I learned a lot about how chickens get from farms—many of them relatively small, family-owned businesses in rural areas—to grocery stores and restaurants across the country. It is a vital but not always pretty process, with literally hundreds of thousands of low-paid workers doing the difficult and often dangerous work cutting up carcasses along a fast-moving assembly line in large, frigid plants.
During my time on the board, I visited the company’s plants in Texas, where employees worked in shifts that sometimes went round-the-clock. They showed up to work, punched in, donned their gear (at the time, overalls, gloves, and hairnets) in locker rooms with little space to spread out at a safe social distance. They stood shoulder-to-shoulder on the line that fed carcasses or chicken parts to be cut up, de-boned, internal organs removed from the cavities and repackaged, and sometimes skinned, depending on the customer, with excess skin and stray bits dumped in large plastic vats at the end of the line to be used in preparing those fried nuggets kids crave. Hands moved with such rapidity it was hard to imagine how the workers managed not to cut off fingers—and workplace injuries, including repetitive movement stress were far from uncommon.
Podcast · August 15 2023 A.B. Stoddard: All the Ex-President’s Conspirators Donald Trump has been a low-rent mobster for his entire career, and now he’s getting…
When I visited the plants in Texas, most of the workers were Hispanic, often immigrants who spoke little English. Although Pilgrim’s Pride was an early adopter of E-Verify, the voluntary government program that allows employers to check applicants’ eligibility to work under our immigration laws before they are hired, many of the company’s workers were undocumented. Most of these had fake Social Security numbers or had been hired before 2003 when the federal government expanded E-Verify nationwide. An ICE raid on several of our plants in 2008 resulted in some 400 arrests, dealing a heavy blow to operations and accelerating bankruptcy when attempts to hire suitable replacement workers largely failed. All of which is to say, when meat processors get sick, companies won’t have an easy time finding others to take their jobs.
As of this week, large outbreaks of COVID-19 have infected hundreds of workers and killed at least 22 in plants across the country, according to a report by USA Today and the Midwest Center for Investigative Reporting. Some jurisdictions have forced the plants to close temporarily while companies scrambled to put in place a more protective environment. At some plants, companies have erected plastic barriers between workers to help mitigate the risk and required workers to wear masks in addition to their regular gear, but the most significant protection for workers is sorely lacking—namely, testing. Until companies can test every worker who walks through its doors in real time, workers will continue to be put at undue risk. And yet, the president has no plans in place to ensure that the tests will be made available at the worksites, along with the personnel to administer them quickly and reliably.
The president claims that meat processors are a vital part of the critical infrastructure during a national crisis, though he has been slow to invoke the Defense Production Act in other crucial areas, including producing protective equipment and testing supplies. And his refusal to take responsibility on these fronts is what makes his actions now even more irresponsible. Instead of taking direct action to guarantee testing and protective equipment for workers, the president punted to the Department of Agriculture to ensure companies operate “consistent with the guidance for the operations of meat and poultry processing facilities jointly issued by the CDC and OSHA.” This “guidance” is just that, nothing more than suggestions that companies should follow, with no enforcement mechanism if they don’t. And by requiring the companies remain open, even if there are further outbreaks—which there are bound to be—the president is essentially depriving local officials of the ability to shut down plants that pose a threat not just to workers but the community at large. The threat of a shutdown is the most effective way to ensure companies act responsibly. But what does acting responsibly even mean when the president of the United States orders companies stay open, period?
In Greeley, Colorado, local officials shut a JBS plant on April 11 after some 277 workers became infected, and the plant was originally to stay closed until April 27, but instead it reopened on April 24. The company appears to have followed the CDC guidance, checking workers’ temperatures before they entered the plant and asking that they wear masks, in addition to having deep-cleaned the facility and installed plastic shields between stations. But given the fact that many patients are asymptomatic, some of the returning workers may well be infected and will infect others. A company spokesman said that the federal government had provided 50,000 masks for employees but not tests. JBS purchased its own tests—but not enough to test all workers on a repeated basis—and a union representative for the workers claimed on MSNBC that the company quit testing front-line workers after as many as 40 percent of managers tested positive at the company’s test site over the Easter Sunday weekend.
Companies like JBS want to do right by their employees. It has been my experience in nearly 30 years serving on corporate boards that management understands that the success of the company depends on its workers’ well-being. But companies need the right tools to do the right thing, and President Trump and his administration aren’t helping. The president is putting the cart before the horse in forcing meat plants to stay open before he can guarantee they have the tests to ensure it is safe to do so.