Firstly, I would like to thank you for the read and I would thank you for your response, as well as your polite approach.
With regards to impeachment, while it may be true that it occupied his attention, the responsibility for how he responds to difficult circumstances. At the time, he was still the President. The moment he swore to defend the constitution, he accepted the full responsibility of the office, and he will carry it until he dies, is removed from office, or his term ends. That is the unspoken truth of the office, but it is one of its most fundamental components. Conversely, the fundamental purpose of the legislative branch is twofold: (1) to uphold the constitution and (2) to legislate. Whether or not Trump did anything worthy of impeachment is a separate debate, but the house believed he had and in opinion, when the house believes that it is seeing an abuse of power that threatens the constitution it swore to protect, that in its obligated to act on that belief. Even in the face of overwhelming odds.
“Agreed that the travel ban wasn’t nearly as effective as it could have been. But of course even that very mild travel ban was characterized as racist. Should we hold our breath waiting for the retractions?”
With respect to you, that was not why I mentioned the ban. The purpose was to point out that Rep. Crenshaw evaded the reasons for the ban being opposed by the WHO, which I explained when I said “In an interview with Vox, World Health Organization director-general, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, explained that bans like the ones Trump enacted do more harm than good, saying: Travel restrictions can cause more harm than good by hindering info-sharing, medical supply chains and harming economies.” Crenshaw completely ignores the logistics of the WHO’s argument and its reasoning, which is why I found it to be important to mention. Whether or not people will characterize something as racist was not the issue to me. Nor was it the reason for my criticism of the ban. Some may call the policy racist, but I doubt the President is willing to consider their reasons.
As for the advisors telling him that everything is fine, I would like to note that the article you cite from the WSJ seems to lay most of this on Azar, who was not the only one warning him. Furthermore, Azar would change his tune on January 30th, warning the President that a pandemic could occur, something I mention in my article.
As for those recommending stay at home orders, I would like to apologize. The article did have a citation that mentioned that President Trump was warned by the National Security Council, and they were the ones who raised the prospect of closing down the country. Medium seems to have deleted the hyperlink, but I managed to save it on my word document. I have since added the citation again. Hopefully, Medium doesn’t delete the citation again. Just in case, here is the article.
He Could Have Seen What Was Coming: Behind Trump's Failure on the Virus
An examination reveals the president was warned about the potential for a pandemic but that internal divisions, lack of…
Even if we exclude all the mistakes in January, we can see that Trump handled this poorly. Dr. Robert Kadlec was still trying to persuade Trump to close down in late February, wasting even more time (you can see that in the above article). And with regards to who would advise Trump to close (repetitive, I know), here is a quote from the article: “The exercise was sobering. The group — including Dr. Anthony S. Fauci of the National Institutes of Health; Dr. Robert R. Redfield of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and Mr. Azar, who at that stage was leading the White House Task Force — concluded they would soon need to move toward aggressive social distancing, even at the risk of severe disruption to the nation’s economy and the daily lives of millions of Americans.”
As for the Righteous Mind By Johnathan Heidt, I have read it, and have a copy in my room. I would agree that Crenshaw’s education plays a role in his commentary. It’s a very interesting take on political behavior.
I think we agree that Trump downplayed this thing, thought the issue seems to be to what degree. That said, I thank you for your time and I really appreciate your thoughtful commentary. Have a nice day.