Trump's Messaging on Stay-in-Place Orders: Delegating Support or Disrupting Governance?
With the recent messaging from President Donald Trump regarding the lifting of stay-in-place orders, it is worth examining whether this is an attempt to delegate support, or if it represents a more insidious disruption of state-level governance. The use of the term 'liberate' in these communications signals a shift in tone and potential objectives, which goes beyond mere support and may have significant implications for the future.
Delegating vs. Disrupting: The Role of Governors
The crux of the matter lies in the relationship between the federal government and state governors. Trump has now placed the responsibility for lifting stay-in-place orders on the shoulders of state governors, hoping that they will fail in the process of reopening. This strategy is rooted in a hope that public dissatisfaction with the governance efforts will lead to electoral benefits for the President in the upcoming re-election.
It is noteworthy that such a strategy is not without risks. By undermining the effectiveness of individual governors, Trump risks creating a situation where popular frustration leads to systemic failure. This approach hinges on the assumption that the President will appear more competent or well-intentioned in comparison. However, history shows that the public often holds the federal government responsible for the overall health of the nation, so this strategy may backfire.
Political Motivations Behind the Messaging
The current messaging from the White House can be understood as an attempt to shift the blame to the states for any issues that arise. By framing the situation as states failing, Trump may hope to deflect criticism and re-center the narrative around himself. This is evident in his use of press conferences, which have now lasted over three hours, as a means to dominate public discourse and spin various events to his advantage.
Specifically, Trump's push for stay-in-place order lifting in states like Minnesota, Michigan, and Virginia is not purely about public health but also about political strategy. These states, especially Pennsylvania, present key battlegrounds in the upcoming re-election. By causing unrest and dissatisfaction in these regions, Trump hopes to incite political division and shift the narrative towards himself.
Understanding the Messaging Through a Crisis Lens
During a crisis, leaders often need to claim enemies to gain support and deflect blame. In this case, the term 'liberate' is not merely a call for resolute action but a way to create a wedge between the federal government and the states. It implies a fight for principles, but the real stakes are political rather than public health.
The protests mentioned in the article are not merely about lifted orders but about a broader dissatisfaction with the circumstances of daily life. For instance, while some may rightly complain about mall stores remaining closed, the true issue is that the lifting of orders does not necessarily mean a return to normalcy. Companies like TJ Maxx, Marshals, and Burlington Coat Factory have taken principled managerial decisions to stay closed globally, not just in certain states. The fundamental issue is whether the public supports forced reopening and if it is being used as a political tool.
Conclusion
President Trump's messaging regarding stay-in-place orders is more about disrupting state-level governance and political strategy than about genuine support for public health and safety. The term 'liberate' is a clear indication of the political intentions involved. If this strategy backfires, it may lead to further public dissatisfaction and electoral challenges. The key lesson is that during crises, the focus should remain on public health and safety, rather than political maneuvering.