Americans' Trust in Media Remains at Trend Low

Read all of those two paragraphs you posted about his job description again. No doubt his job had some political implications, being what it was, but I see nothing in that job description that indicates that politics was the main thrust of his job, unless you somehow see coordination between those agencies (most of which, other than congress, were agencies that had something to with science and health) as something that had to be spun politically. We would expect someone in such a position to be dedicated to facts, not change them for political expediency. Even congress would (or at least should) want to know the actual facts, not the spun versions, to base their positions and actions on.

As I said in my previous post, if he saw politics as job #1, he should have delegated the speaking on actual science to someone else, and he sure shouldn’t have said “I represent science.” Maybe he should have said “I adjust the science to be palatable for you rubes who don’t have any idea what’s going on,” since that’s clearly the attitude he projected.

Dave,

A political employee is first and foremost a political staff member, period. This is the very nature of federal bureaucracy.

What are facts? We spend our time on this board arguing over various studies that are all claiming facts. Those that believe the election was stolen have facts. Those that believe the election was not stolen have facts. Facts are not absolute. I don't remember Fauci stating anything that was not supported by some levels of facts at the time he stated it. Doesn't mean there weren't competing ideas, studies or facts. But I don't believe he stated anything that had already been proven wrong 100% of all other scientists and studies at the time that he stated it.

A political position must balance their regular work with the policy of the administration that they serve. Trump did not have the most consistent policy position, stating at one point looking at household disinfects being injected into a human, to promoting vaccines. What the president states, by default is policy. It is expected that political staff adhere to the policy of the branch that they serve.

Again, I think there is some naivity to believe that a politically appointed position is expected to rise above any politics and stand as a shining example of truth both in what they state at the time, but in hindsight.

>>Trump did not have the most consistent policy position, stating at one point looking at household disinfects being injected into a human, to promoting vaccines.<<

That is a common malicious twisting of what he said, though that’s par for the course with Trump quotes. Obviously, he was speaking as a non-scientist, and off the top of his head, but he said “there a way we can do something like that” [emphasis mine]. It’s quite obvious when you read the whole quote that he was talking something analogous to household disinfectant, not the exact item. I certainly won’t defend his (lack of) medical knowledge, but I can see when words are being put in someone’s mouth. I suppose you also believe he thought white supremacists were “very fine people.” And you call me naïve?

>>Again, I think there is some naivity to believe that a politically appointed position is expected to rise above any politics and stand as a shining example of truth both in what they state at the time, but in hindsight.<<

I already admitted some naïvete on my part, particularly regarding the levels of dishonesty (formerly) respected scientists and other experts will stoop to in the name of politics, especially as it seems much worse now then when I first started really caring about politics (Reagan era). However, the way you talk about appointees like Fauci (even if true) certainly gives me no reason to trust what such appointees say more, rather than less. Unfortunately, these days I can’t expect someone representing the scientific, disease, and health organizations of the U.S.A. to speak accurately regarding scientific knowledge, rather than just giving partial truths mixed with political misinformation, and I find that a shame.

Meanwhile our media is redefining what kind of plagiarism is acceptable based on political expediency.

"So supposing we hit the body with a tremendous — whether it's ultraviolet or just a very powerful light — and I think you said that hasn't been checked because of the testing," And then I said, supposing you brought the light inside the body, which you can do either through the skin or some other way, and I think you said you're going to test that, too."

"I see the disinfectant that knocks it out in a minute, one minute. And is there a way we can do something like that by injection inside or almost a cleaning? As you see, it gets in the lungs, it does a tremendous number on the lungs, so it would be interesting to check that."

“I would recommend it [vaccine] to a lot of people that don’t want to get it and a lot of those people voted for me, frankly.”

The first two comments were made in a public setting directed at Dr. Birx. The third quote was directed to the general public during an interview. When the president speaks he is setting policy. Most presidents view this as an important approach. Their voicing sets policy and their opinions guide the policy of the executive branch. Dr. Birx knew what he was saying, but she still nodded her head. She was a political appointing that was serving at the will of the President.

The President recommended vaccines, which sets the policy of the administration. This was echoed by different agencies within the federal government. It was mandated by the federal government to some federal employees. The President could set the policy, but he could not force it on the general public, it could only be a recommendation at that point.

I think Trump did some amazing things during COVID. But to say he had a well thought out and cohesive policy that was easy for career beuracrakts to navigate, is again, not reflective of the facts.

I think you may be reaching some to expect "truth" around medical policy. I would like to know how someone arrives at truth in space. It is always changing.

Thank you for the larger quotes that include the “like that” phrase. Trump spoke off the cuff, and clearly without knowledge, but honestly, it seemed to me at the time he was just brainstorming. We do that at my work all the time, and lot of bad ideas are proposed and winnowed out, particularly from managers who want a quick way to make customers happy. Maybe when presidents do this, some people take it as immediate policy suggestions (so maybe he shouldn’t do it in public), but I think he was just hoping for a magic bullet that would take care of the issue. The fact it didn’t exist didn’t mean he was seriously telling people to sit under UV light or inject bleach.

>>I think you may be reaching some to expect “truth” around medical policy. I would like to know how someone arrives at truth in space. It is always changing.<<

Well, I believe medical policy should be arrived at by sound science regarding medical treatments, etc. Of course science changes, because it’s always learning new things (or should be, if the types who scream “consensus” once their preferred policy is reached are silenced). However, what is true can certainly be given as it is known. We don’t hold Newton responsible for Newtonian physics needing updating as more discoveries were made, for example. The same was true with Covid. As more was learned, the ideas of lockdown and keeping kids out of schools made much less sense, but people couldn’t admit that their first ideas needed work. People can disagree on what the policies should be, but they shouldn’t be fighting over the basic facts.

You don't brainstorm in a national televised event discussing scientific steps that his administration was taking. I don't stand in front of a board of directors and brainstorm around items that I know nothing about. You can say it is all harmless, but tell that to Arizona man that injested chloroquine and died after his wife told reporters that her and her husband tried it after they heard Trump mentioning that it was a good idea. Trump stated in the WH briefing that he felt good about chloroquine. When pressed by the press corps, he called the reporter a "terrible reporter". Then Fauci had to stand up at the briefing and tell the press there was no proof around the cure that Trump had just stated a few seconds before.

Again, tons and tons of politics and misinformation. Trump screamed at Fauci, swore at him and called him all kinds of names according to people who witnessed it. The arguments that Fauci deceived people is just a bunch of finger pointing from different people who have different ideas or views of what he said.

I would never say any action taken by a leader in a situation like this will be harmless, even off the cuff non-thinking actions. But sure, let’s recognize as a tragedy that someone actually ingested chloroquine (on his own, without medical advice) because the president talked off-the-cuff. I’d be tempted to call it more a case for the Darwin awards, but any death is tragic. But’s then let’s also discuss the hundreds of deaths caused by the early error of forcing elderly Covid sufferers back into nursing homes turning those locations into incubation wards.

Trump is certainly no medical or scientific expert, but he does know business. And what his science/medical experts were telling him to do was something he understood in his gut was nearly the single worst possible “solution” that could be suggested, both for the economy and individuals. You can say your stock did well over the last 3.5 years, but it clearly tanked during most of 2020 (although the Dow, for example, actually recovered to levels above early 2020 just before Biden was sworn in), but no matter how well the economy did for you, look at what it did to many regular employees who lost their jobs due to the lockdown. Trump obviously wanted to see if there were other possible solutions out there, and justifiably so, IMO.

It certainly didn’t help that the same scientific experts calling for lockdown were resistant to any evidence contrary to their “consensus” that might have changed the recommendations, and labeling them MAGA or conspiracy theorists. And guess what, the thinking that lockdowns were terrible has been shown to be true, both with people losing their jobs and never re-entering the job market, as well as school children, who testing has shown have been set back years by the school closure policies.

I agree with you that brainstorming in public is not a great idea. But I also very much understand the desire to find a different solution to the one that turned out to be in many ways worse than the disease itself.

I’m not here to defend Trump’s character (which has been hashed out on SI ad nauseum) or his expertise in matters of science. But just as you claim for Fauci, he was trying to navigate a fast-moving virus and do it in such a way as to not be really bad for our country. If you can give Fauci that benefit of the doubt, I can certainly do the same for the president, even if I certainly don’t agree with everything he did.