Translate

Tupac Amaru Shakur — “I'm Losing It… We MUST Unite!”

Where To Start

Start Here Start at 1619. Move forward.

The Arc is the spine of this project: 40 essays, one chronological argument, five analytical lenses.

The 40 Arc Essays — Canon Index → Full reading order · 1619 to the present · All 40 essays live

This site should read like a structured archive, not a loose category list. The Arc is the entry point; the lenses help you move through it with intention. Empty sections stay hidden until they are live.

Monday, June 8, 2020

How to Be a Courageous Leader in the Post-Pandemic Era

courageous leadership

While some contest, or outright refute, whether or not former British Prime Minister Winston Churchill famously said “success is not final, failure is not fatal: It is the courage to continue that counts,” the power of that statement looms large irrespective of origin. Amid the wildly unforeseen fallout from the COVID-19 pandemic, this quote is rather prophetic. It speaks to prosperity not being taken for granted and the notion that failure in and of itself isn’t a death knell. Relative to business, specifically, it also evokes many questions about the very nature of “courage”—a concept oft characterized by the demonstration of “strength in the face of pain or grief.”

Of course, it’s presumed that successful leaders can and should inherently be courageous, but in what exact regard is courage a mission-critical managerial quality? To what extent should a leader exude courageousness versus humility? What actions, or results thereof, exemplify how courageous–or not–a leader is? Can a wholly well-intentioned show of courageousness backfire and end up doing more harm than good?

We’re currently living in an unprecedented, decidedly challenging point in time when courage seems to be the order of the day. In an attempt to garner some crystal clarity on how this is actually defined and perceived when in practice, I took these and other questions to an assortment of experts and leaders in the business community. The result of that outreach is as eye-opening as it is inspiring, with salient inputs including this top-line wisdom.

Stick to your guns.

By its very nature, the notion of courage connotes danger and evokes a sense of fear. Were there not peril, valor need not be required. To this point, Douglas A. Hicks, dean of Oxford College of Emory University, underscores that courage not only enables someone “to take risks that others fear in order to achieve something important,” but also that doing so requires a backbone. “Courage is not about sticking one’s finger in the air to see which way the wind is blowing, what others are saying. It requires both self-confidence and resolve. CEOs show courage when they commit to keep employees on the payroll in (the) face of recession and do whatever it takes to create long-term profitability,” he says.

Stacy Caprio of Her.CEO concurs, offering that “a courageous leader has the ability to look at the data and make decisions, even when these decisions go against the grain of public opinion, the media, and general public panic. Not many leaders have this ability, but a true leader is able to make decisions independent of mass fear and panic.”

For those businesses that aren’t exactly linear with some kind of denotable beginning and end, instead operating as a continuous, ever-evolving process (like health care, education, and financial management), Nicola Wealth Chairman and CEO John Nicola urges that “courage comes from the consistency of your message, your ability to support it and the loyalty of your people delivering it in all environments.”  Not only germane to one’s actions, Nicola points out that moxie also manifests in a passive sense by “choosing to do nothing in the face of unrelenting pressure to act.” This, as a courage of conviction, is based on principles of an individual leader, a leadership team or the company at-large.

Amid the ever-unfolding coronavirus-driven challenges, and during prior catastrophic events like the “dotcom crash” and the Great Financial Recession of 2008, Nicola has leaned on corporate ideology for sustenance. “During each of these periods we were under pressure to sell as markets dropped, to not rebalance and try and catch a falling knife, to go into cash and ride out the storm,” he said. Nicola instead mustered his courage and chose to “do what we believed the right thing to be was”—a decision he says ultimately resulted in significant performance benefits for his firm’s clients.

How important are these kinds of instincts? Southwestern Family of Companies CEO Dustin Hillis knows all too well, lamenting a time at the company when he had doubts about the sustainability of the business model. “Instead of having courage and actually boldly testing new models, and at the risk of my own income and reputation, I went against what my instincts were telling me. As a result, we went $1 million in debt and almost had to shut the business down. Making the pivot to change the model to what we ended up ultimately doing with coaching and consulting was twice as hard as it would have been two years earlier when I first had the thought. But I did not have the courage to actually take action on what the numbers, the feedback, and my instincts were telling me.”

With this, it’s understandable that Hillis currently defines courage as “being afraid and taking action anyway.” He also advocates owning and being daring amid that distress. “True leaders are the ones who acknowledge they are afraid and up against a significant challenge, and yet they persevere and double down on activity during the hardest of times,” he says.

Jennifer McCollum, CEO of leadership development firm Linkage Inc., further substantiates that courageous leaders stick steadfast to their personal standards. McCollum cites her firm’s research findings, which she says are drawn from 100,000 leadership assessments with data from more than 1 million leaders, revealing specific behaviors that make a leader courageous. One is acts in alignment with personal values in challenging, conflicting, or ambiguous situations.”  With courage as a character trait not to be discounted as a key determinant of a leader’s overarching achievements, McCollum clarifies that, through her firm’s study of over 30 years on what the most effective leaders do, “we know courage is a critical leadership practice that differentiates the most effective leaders from the rest.”

Embrace vulnerability.

According to Aaron Velky, CEO of Ortus Academy, courageous leadership includes the decision to be truthful and vulnerable. “Whether or not the truth is easy to share and whether or not you know what speaking the truth will create as an outcome, courage is the ability to offer up where you are and what is real so that someone can process it individually.” Bravely delivering hard messages is not enough, however, as Velky goes on to clarify that, “When we share truth we have to be prepared to listen, but listening is vulnerable, and that’s important, too. Courage is owning what we are experiencing. Vulnerability is sharing it—the good, bad, and emotionally jarring.”

Being able to admit and share regarding future uncertainties also speaks to vulnerability as a facet of courageous leadership. In fact, Velky says that the decision to acknowledge not only what is truthful and known, but also the unknown, is another distinct decision a brave leader makes. To demonstrate courage, Velky asserts that one needs to be fiercely committed to recognizing what and how much you don’t have figured out. “Stating the unknowns mitigates the toxicity that is felt when you hide fears and the reasons to have them. Fears are OK, the unknown is OK—once you acknowledge it.”

One business leader who’s walking that highly exposed walk of vulnerability is Mylen Yamamoto Tansingco, CEO of Cropsticks Inc.—a social- and environmentally-minded B Corporation operating in the food service and hospitality industry. “I do not have all the answers and I’m not going to pretend I do either,” she’s refreshingly quick to admit. Case in point, Tansingco publicly shared what Cropsticks is going through amid COVID-19. In her YouTube video, titled “Can my small business survive?,” she shared her company’s small business story in an endearing, unguarded, and highly personal form. “I’m hoping to keep our community motivated and feel seen during this time,” though she understands this is not without some level of risk. “I hope it doesn’t become a ‘courage fail’ after this is all over,” she says. Yet she took the leap of faith into that unknown anyway.

Fortune 500 speaker, writer, and coach Heather Coros contends that courage is contagious. She emphasizes that curiosity and innovation is only accessible in the brain when a sense of safety is present. “If you’re expecting your team to lean in, then they need something that feels safe to lean against. By being that safe space, you give the gift of strength and vulnerability to the entire team. And as we know, vulnerability is essential to highly preferred skills like transparency, clear communication, and team cohesion.” Perhaps most importantly in this post-pandemic era is Coros’ estimation that “courageous leadership creates a sense of stability amidst the chaos.”

Be undaunted, despite.

Uniquely drawing on her experiences as a stand-up comedian before entering the corporate world, Jennifer Jay Palumbo, CEO of Wonder Woman Writer L.L.C., feels that being a courageous leader is accomplished by having unwavering poise. “You have to believe in yourself and your idea no matter how the person in the room reacts or not,” and “trust that you’re talented and smart enough to figure it out and still accomplish the task at hand.”

Mike Zaino, president and CEO of TZG Financial, likens this kind of requisite resolve among organizational leaders to that of an underdog continuing to fight with relentless persistence despite prior outcomes. It’s “getting knocked down seven times, and standing up eight,” he says. Yet, such doggedness should not be above reproach, as Zaino further points out that it certainly takes courage to not just hear—but accept—constructive criticism. “You’re either learning or you’re dying,” he says.

The idea that courageous leadership requires a willingness and ability to fail and “get back up again,” no matter how many times it need be performed, is shared by Mercy Project Inc. CEO Chris Field. What particularly captures my imagination is Field’s belief that for courageousness to be a leadership asset it must be a concerted choice—a daily decision—rather than happenstance. “Courage is a muscle, one we must exercise and grow by being courageous … one decision at a time,” he says. “Courage takes many forms, but none of them happen by accident.”

While conveying courageousness certainly takes chutzpah, Women Presidents’ Organization CEO Camille Burns cautions that it’s important to exude confidence without arrogance. “I think people often confuse risk-taking with being courageous,” she says. “Taking a risk is a bold move. But it is even more courageous to fail, to accept that something you tried did not have the outcome you wanted or expected.”

Tim Chen, co-founder and CEO of NerdWallet, points out the prospect for growth moments during times of crisis—namely the one we’re currently immersed in. He appreciates the extent to which COVID-19 has ushered in a defining time for business leaders. “Even though we’re navigating unprecedented uncertainties, I see this as a huge opportunity for the type of courageous decision-making and smart risk-taking that leads to immense personal and professional growth,” he says. “In fact, I can track most of my greatest periods of personal growth to a prior crisis.”

Crises aside, Chen’s colleague Kelly Gillease, NerdWallet CMO, sees an opportunity for courageous risk-taking with frequency. “Great leaders exhibit courage in small ways every day by encouraging risks and bigger thinking or being vulnerable and empathetic when a situation calls for it,” she says. As for the afore-mentioned chutzpah, “having a willingness to call out the elephant in the room” is also courageous behavior that Gillease indicates she strives to model.

When endeavoring to connote courage, attitude is also the name of the game. It’s important to temper said chutzpah so that it doesn’t come across as overly audacious. A haughty demeanor is never one that’s particularly welcomed in business, but this kind of disposition can veritably doom an executive’s image—especially when attempting to navigate a gaffe. “When someone does not acknowledge what they do not know, or the mistake they have made, it is a courage fail,” Burns warns. “Sustained naivety is when you deny the fail, or when you try to blame it on someone else or block out the writing on the walls. If there is no learning derived from failure, there is no achievement. Then, it is a double failure.”

All told, it’s apparent that courageous business practices are guided not just by guts and grit, but also by focused and unwavering guidance that keeps a leader on course. Just ask Field, who muses, “Courage is knowing our North Star and regularly checking to make sure we’re still headed there.”


Forbes Business Council Official Member Merilee Kern, MBA is an internationally-regarded brand analyst, strategist, and futurist who reports on noteworthy industry change makers, movers, shakers, and innovators across all B2B and B2C categories. This includes field experts and thought leaders, brands, products, services, destinations, and events. Merilee is founder, executive editor and producer of “The Luxe List” as well as host of the nationally-syndicated Savvy Living TV show. As a prolific business and consumer trends, lifestyle and leisure industry voice of authority and tastemaker, she keeps her finger on the pulse of the marketplace in search of new and innovative must-haves and exemplary experiences at all price points, from the affordable to the extreme—also delving into the minds behind the brands. Her work reaches millions worldwide via broadcast TV (her own shows and copious others on which she appears) as well as a myriad of print and online publications. Connect with her at www.TheLuxeList.com and www.SavvyLiving.tv / Instagram www.Instagram.com/LuxeListReports / Twitter www.Twitter.com/LuxeListReports / Facebook www.Facebook.com/LuxeListReports / LinkedIN www.LinkedIn.com/in/MerileeKern.

This article originally appeared in Fast Company.



from Black Enterprise https://ift.tt/3dJZm4s

Meet Mike Bugembe, the Artificial Intelligence Expert Who Helped Boost a Company’s Value to $100 Million

artificial intelligence expert Mike Bugembe

Artificial intelligence seems like something out of a science fiction novel that will play a vital part in our lives in the future. But, according to Mike Bugembe, AI is already here and he has taken advantage of the knowledge he has gained in a way that has enabled to help increase a company’s value to more than $100 million.

Bugembe, the founder of data company lens.ai, spoke to Black Enterprise about his ability to utilize algorithms to help companies achieve more success.

You’re considered to be a thought leader in the world of data, analytics, and artificial intelligence. Why did you decide to enter the world of technology and what is it about artificial intelligence that sparked an interest?

I wrote my first code for a game when I was 9 years old as I was interested in how things work.

This led to my first degree in electronic engineering and it was my first introduction to artificial intelligence because I learned a lot about the mathematics that’s behind the algorithms that we use today. After that, I started my career with Accenture, where I was helping organizations use e-commerce and web technologies to bring their companies into the digital age, and it took off from there.

You were chief data officer for JustGiving and helped developed an algorithm that generated more than $20 million in a year and then the company was acquired for over $100 million. How were you able to achieve those accomplishments?

My journey with JustGiving started in 2010 and the brief was simple: they had millions of records of people doing fundraising activities like baking, but they did not know what to do with the data. I spent the first six months looking at what the data was telling us and discovered we could use machine learning to transform the company. We concluded that we wanted to move from a transactional platform to an engaging platform which would make giving more of a social activity that you would engage in over a longer period of time. I managed to secure a team and the implementation of the social features led to the high valuation of the company.

Seventy-five percent of organizations that invest in artificial intelligence fail to see any form of return, so I made it my mission to be in the top 25%.

What was the reason you decided to write the book Cracking the Data Code and what can people gain from reading it?

It was the fact that I was able to implement AI at JustGiving, which led to the $100 million valuation and was able to succeed where 75% of others had not. It was clear that the pattern I discovered was not visible for most. My mission was to see more people win. Cracking the Data Code helps people understand the data, what you can do with it, and how being data literate can enhance your career. This is a segue on to the six courses that I am putting together that will help people to see and understand data. There is a huge diversity gap, and there are not enough black people within the data space.

There are people who don’t ‘get’ the purpose of artificial intelligence. What would you tell them to make them understand the importance of this technology?

It’s begun to change every career, and AI and automation will change the landscape of work and create more jobs. It’s about survival. Human intelligence is still superior but we need to find how we can work together with the machine, and that’s where it’s critical. Data and artificial intelligence have one purpose: decision making. For example, Amazon’s recommendation engine helps them to decide what other content shall I serve up to this user so that we can maximize basket size. Every decision requires information.

What should we look forward to in the future when it comes to this technology?

I’m concerned about the social aspect, like what we were able to do at JustGiving and unlock people’s generosity. I’m currently involved in two exciting projects: Children that are being excluded from school as young as 6. I thought this was just a problem for teenagers, but you have young children being expelled from school and are out of the schooling system. Two major problems occur: they become likely to end up in the prison system and they also have a high propensity to commit suicide. We can use AI to help teachers to identify some of these prospective kids. Imagine a system that can predict that a child is going to come in and throw a chair at a teacher? If the teacher has this information before the child comes to class, they can treat the child a little differently and prevent him from throwing the chair, so he does not end up in a vicious spiral. AI can also help to read exam papers, which removes the need for girls to give sexual favors to teachers for grades, which is something happening in Africa.

AI can remove corruption and improve inequality. It comes with a caveat: unless we increase the diversity of the programmers, AI will continue to be biased, racist, and prejudiced.



from Black Enterprise https://ift.tt/2ATTXZR

How to Be a Courageous Leader in the Post-Pandemic Era

courageous leadership

While some contest, or outright refute, whether or not former British Prime Minister Winston Churchill famously said “success is not final, failure is not fatal: It is the courage to continue that counts,” the power of that statement looms large irrespective of origin. Amid the wildly unforeseen fallout from the COVID-19 pandemic, this quote is rather prophetic. It speaks to prosperity not being taken for granted and the notion that failure in and of itself isn’t a death knell. Relative to business, specifically, it also evokes many questions about the very nature of “courage”—a concept oft characterized by the demonstration of “strength in the face of pain or grief.”

Of course, it’s presumed that successful leaders can and should inherently be courageous, but in what exact regard is courage a mission-critical managerial quality? To what extent should a leader exude courageousness versus humility? What actions, or results thereof, exemplify how courageous–or not–a leader is? Can a wholly well-intentioned show of courageousness backfire and end up doing more harm than good?

We’re currently living in an unprecedented, decidedly challenging point in time when courage seems to be the order of the day. In an attempt to garner some crystal clarity on how this is actually defined and perceived when in practice, I took these and other questions to an assortment of experts and leaders in the business community. The result of that outreach is as eye-opening as it is inspiring, with salient inputs including this top-line wisdom.

Stick to your guns.

By its very nature, the notion of courage connotes danger and evokes a sense of fear. Were there not peril, valor need not be required. To this point, Douglas A. Hicks, dean of Oxford College of Emory University, underscores that courage not only enables someone “to take risks that others fear in order to achieve something important,” but also that doing so requires a backbone. “Courage is not about sticking one’s finger in the air to see which way the wind is blowing, what others are saying. It requires both self-confidence and resolve. CEOs show courage when they commit to keep employees on the payroll in (the) face of recession and do whatever it takes to create long-term profitability,” he says.

Stacy Caprio of Her.CEO concurs, offering that “a courageous leader has the ability to look at the data and make decisions, even when these decisions go against the grain of public opinion, the media, and general public panic. Not many leaders have this ability, but a true leader is able to make decisions independent of mass fear and panic.”

For those businesses that aren’t exactly linear with some kind of denotable beginning and end, instead operating as a continuous, ever-evolving process (like health care, education, and financial management), Nicola Wealth Chairman and CEO John Nicola urges that “courage comes from the consistency of your message, your ability to support it and the loyalty of your people delivering it in all environments.”  Not only germane to one’s actions, Nicola points out that moxie also manifests in a passive sense by “choosing to do nothing in the face of unrelenting pressure to act.” This, as a courage of conviction, is based on principles of an individual leader, a leadership team or the company at-large.

Amid the ever-unfolding coronavirus-driven challenges, and during prior catastrophic events like the “dotcom crash” and the Great Financial Recession of 2008, Nicola has leaned on corporate ideology for sustenance. “During each of these periods we were under pressure to sell as markets dropped, to not rebalance and try and catch a falling knife, to go into cash and ride out the storm,” he said. Nicola instead mustered his courage and chose to “do what we believed the right thing to be was”—a decision he says ultimately resulted in significant performance benefits for his firm’s clients.

How important are these kinds of instincts? Southwestern Family of Companies CEO Dustin Hillis knows all too well, lamenting a time at the company when he had doubts about the sustainability of the business model. “Instead of having courage and actually boldly testing new models, and at the risk of my own income and reputation, I went against what my instincts were telling me. As a result, we went $1 million in debt and almost had to shut the business down. Making the pivot to change the model to what we ended up ultimately doing with coaching and consulting was twice as hard as it would have been two years earlier when I first had the thought. But I did not have the courage to actually take action on what the numbers, the feedback, and my instincts were telling me.”

With this, it’s understandable that Hillis currently defines courage as “being afraid and taking action anyway.” He also advocates owning and being daring amid that distress. “True leaders are the ones who acknowledge they are afraid and up against a significant challenge, and yet they persevere and double down on activity during the hardest of times,” he says.

Jennifer McCollum, CEO of leadership development firm Linkage Inc., further substantiates that courageous leaders stick steadfast to their personal standards. McCollum cites her firm’s research findings, which she says are drawn from 100,000 leadership assessments with data from more than 1 million leaders, revealing specific behaviors that make a leader courageous. One is acts in alignment with personal values in challenging, conflicting, or ambiguous situations.”  With courage as a character trait not to be discounted as a key determinant of a leader’s overarching achievements, McCollum clarifies that, through her firm’s study of over 30 years on what the most effective leaders do, “we know courage is a critical leadership practice that differentiates the most effective leaders from the rest.”

Embrace vulnerability.

According to Aaron Velky, CEO of Ortus Academy, courageous leadership includes the decision to be truthful and vulnerable. “Whether or not the truth is easy to share and whether or not you know what speaking the truth will create as an outcome, courage is the ability to offer up where you are and what is real so that someone can process it individually.” Bravely delivering hard messages is not enough, however, as Velky goes on to clarify that, “When we share truth we have to be prepared to listen, but listening is vulnerable, and that’s important, too. Courage is owning what we are experiencing. Vulnerability is sharing it—the good, bad, and emotionally jarring.”

Being able to admit and share regarding future uncertainties also speaks to vulnerability as a facet of courageous leadership. In fact, Velky says that the decision to acknowledge not only what is truthful and known, but also the unknown, is another distinct decision a brave leader makes. To demonstrate courage, Velky asserts that one needs to be fiercely committed to recognizing what and how much you don’t have figured out. “Stating the unknowns mitigates the toxicity that is felt when you hide fears and the reasons to have them. Fears are OK, the unknown is OK—once you acknowledge it.”

One business leader who’s walking that highly exposed walk of vulnerability is Mylen Yamamoto Tansingco, CEO of Cropsticks Inc.—a social- and environmentally-minded B Corporation operating in the food service and hospitality industry. “I do not have all the answers and I’m not going to pretend I do either,” she’s refreshingly quick to admit. Case in point, Tansingco publicly shared what Cropsticks is going through amid COVID-19. In her YouTube video, titled “Can my small business survive?,” she shared her company’s small business story in an endearing, unguarded, and highly personal form. “I’m hoping to keep our community motivated and feel seen during this time,” though she understands this is not without some level of risk. “I hope it doesn’t become a ‘courage fail’ after this is all over,” she says. Yet she took the leap of faith into that unknown anyway.

Fortune 500 speaker, writer, and coach Heather Coros contends that courage is contagious. She emphasizes that curiosity and innovation is only accessible in the brain when a sense of safety is present. “If you’re expecting your team to lean in, then they need something that feels safe to lean against. By being that safe space, you give the gift of strength and vulnerability to the entire team. And as we know, vulnerability is essential to highly preferred skills like transparency, clear communication, and team cohesion.” Perhaps most importantly in this post-pandemic era is Coros’ estimation that “courageous leadership creates a sense of stability amidst the chaos.”

Be undaunted, despite.

Uniquely drawing on her experiences as a stand-up comedian before entering the corporate world, Jennifer Jay Palumbo, CEO of Wonder Woman Writer L.L.C., feels that being a courageous leader is accomplished by having unwavering poise. “You have to believe in yourself and your idea no matter how the person in the room reacts or not,” and “trust that you’re talented and smart enough to figure it out and still accomplish the task at hand.”

Mike Zaino, president and CEO of TZG Financial, likens this kind of requisite resolve among organizational leaders to that of an underdog continuing to fight with relentless persistence despite prior outcomes. It’s “getting knocked down seven times, and standing up eight,” he says. Yet, such doggedness should not be above reproach, as Zaino further points out that it certainly takes courage to not just hear—but accept—constructive criticism. “You’re either learning or you’re dying,” he says.

The idea that courageous leadership requires a willingness and ability to fail and “get back up again,” no matter how many times it need be performed, is shared by Mercy Project Inc. CEO Chris Field. What particularly captures my imagination is Field’s belief that for courageousness to be a leadership asset it must be a concerted choice—a daily decision—rather than happenstance. “Courage is a muscle, one we must exercise and grow by being courageous … one decision at a time,” he says. “Courage takes many forms, but none of them happen by accident.”

While conveying courageousness certainly takes chutzpah, Women Presidents’ Organization CEO Camille Burns cautions that it’s important to exude confidence without arrogance. “I think people often confuse risk-taking with being courageous,” she says. “Taking a risk is a bold move. But it is even more courageous to fail, to accept that something you tried did not have the outcome you wanted or expected.”

Tim Chen, co-founder and CEO of NerdWallet, points out the prospect for growth moments during times of crisis—namely the one we’re currently immersed in. He appreciates the extent to which COVID-19 has ushered in a defining time for business leaders. “Even though we’re navigating unprecedented uncertainties, I see this as a huge opportunity for the type of courageous decision-making and smart risk-taking that leads to immense personal and professional growth,” he says. “In fact, I can track most of my greatest periods of personal growth to a prior crisis.”

Crises aside, Chen’s colleague Kelly Gillease, NerdWallet CMO, sees an opportunity for courageous risk-taking with frequency. “Great leaders exhibit courage in small ways every day by encouraging risks and bigger thinking or being vulnerable and empathetic when a situation calls for it,” she says. As for the afore-mentioned chutzpah, “having a willingness to call out the elephant in the room” is also courageous behavior that Gillease indicates she strives to model.

When endeavoring to connote courage, attitude is also the name of the game. It’s important to temper said chutzpah so that it doesn’t come across as overly audacious. A haughty demeanor is never one that’s particularly welcomed in business, but this kind of disposition can veritably doom an executive’s image—especially when attempting to navigate a gaffe. “When someone does not acknowledge what they do not know, or the mistake they have made, it is a courage fail,” Burns warns. “Sustained naivety is when you deny the fail, or when you try to blame it on someone else or block out the writing on the walls. If there is no learning derived from failure, there is no achievement. Then, it is a double failure.”

All told, it’s apparent that courageous business practices are guided not just by guts and grit, but also by focused and unwavering guidance that keeps a leader on course. Just ask Field, who muses, “Courage is knowing our North Star and regularly checking to make sure we’re still headed there.”


Forbes Business Council Official Member Merilee Kern, MBA is an internationally-regarded brand analyst, strategist, and futurist who reports on noteworthy industry change makers, movers, shakers, and innovators across all B2B and B2C categories. This includes field experts and thought leaders, brands, products, services, destinations, and events. Merilee is founder, executive editor and producer of “The Luxe List” as well as host of the nationally-syndicated Savvy Living TV show. As a prolific business and consumer trends, lifestyle and leisure industry voice of authority and tastemaker, she keeps her finger on the pulse of the marketplace in search of new and innovative must-haves and exemplary experiences at all price points, from the affordable to the extreme—also delving into the minds behind the brands. Her work reaches millions worldwide via broadcast TV (her own shows and copious others on which she appears) as well as a myriad of print and online publications. Connect with her at www.TheLuxeList.com and www.SavvyLiving.tv / Instagram www.Instagram.com/LuxeListReports / Twitter www.Twitter.com/LuxeListReports / Facebook www.Facebook.com/LuxeListReports / LinkedIN www.LinkedIn.com/in/MerileeKern.

This article originally appeared in Fast Company.



from Black Enterprise https://ift.tt/3dJZm4s

What we know about how Trump’s “law and order” message is going

President Trump’s push for “law and order” only led to more chaos in Washington, DC, on Monday night after police officers tear-gassed peaceful protesters. | Patrick Semansky/AP

Polling shows Joe Biden leading Trump as protests continue.

President Donald Trump is betting that his support for law enforcement is going to help him this November.

“I am your president of law and order,” Trump said last week in his first formal address on the subject of protests against police brutality. “Where there is no justice, there is no liberty. Where there is no safety, there is no future.”

It’s a strategy that resonated with some in 2016, but new, early polling raises doubts about whether it’ll be as effective a message as it was four years ago.

It’s worth noting that it’s too early to draw a definitive conclusion about how the current demonstrations will affect the 2020 election, which is five months away. But here’s what we know so far.

New polls show Joe Biden leading Trump as protests continue

Since protests began two weeks ago, multiple polls have found Trump continuing to trail Biden, both among voters overall and independent voters.

According to a Monmouth poll fielded between May 28 and June 1, 51 percent of independent voters support Biden while 35 percent back Trump. That’s a 4-point swing from a Monmouth poll conducted in early May, when 47 percent of independent voters backed Biden and 35 percent supported Trump. A Morning Consult survey conducted between May 25 and May 31 found a similar dynamic: In it, 38 percent of independent voters backed Biden while 33 percent supported Trump.

Most voters, 73 percent, also support the protests and, just 33 percent approve of Trump’s handling of them, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll conducted last week. In that same survey, 67 percent of independent voters backed the peaceful protests while only 28 percent approved of how Trump has handled them.

And when people were asked specifically about the impact of George Floyd’s death and the protests on their voting decision, a larger proportion of independents said recent events made them more likely to vote for Biden. According to a Morning Consult survey fielded between May 31 and June 1, 34 percent of independent voters said they were more likely to vote for Biden while 22 percent were more likely to vote for Trump.

In short, Trump’s recurring appeals to “law and order,” which have included a push to use military forces to quell the protests in various cities, do not seem to be connecting with a majority of voters this cycle.

“The race continues to be largely a referendum on the incumbent. The initial reaction to ongoing racial unrest in the country suggests that most voters feel Trump is not handling the situation all that well,” said Patrick Murray, director of the independent Monmouth University Polling Institute, in a statement.

The “law and order” message has appealed to Republicans and some independents in the past

There’s an obvious reason Trump is touting his support for law enforcement: The strategy has worked before.

Former President Richard Nixon, for example, rode that message to the White House in 1968. And in 2016, Trump consistently trumpeted that he backed law enforcement but did so in a manner that served as a racist “dog whistle” for many voters, according to a new paper from researchers Kevin Drakulich, Kevin Wozniak, John Hagan, and Devon Johnson.

“In this race for the White House, I am the law and order candidate,” Trump said at the Republican National Convention in 2016. “The crime and violence that today afflicts our nation will soon — and I mean very soon — come to an end. Beginning on January 20th, 2017, safety will be restored.” (Now, at a moment when many Americans are expressing anger at police, Trump has begun to make statements using similar dog-whistle phrases.)

Drakulich’s paper, which relied on data from more than 3,000 voters in 2016, examined whether support of Black Lives Matter and the police — as well as a person’s level of racial resentment — was tied to a voters’ ultimate choice in a candidate. (Levels of racial resentment were determined using a battery of questions that measured voter attitudes on race.) And he found that many Trump voters did have an affinity toward police.

“[Voters] who felt warmly toward the police, saw the police as unbiased, and felt coldly toward BLM were all substantially more likely to vote for Trump than were people who expressed the opposite feelings,” the paper notes.

But, Drakulich says that police support, alone, does not indicate whether a voter will back Trump. Drakulich and the rest of the team determined that a voter’s warmth toward police was associated with backing for Trump if that voter was also aligned with the GOP and had high levels of racial resentment. “Those who said they supported the police were more likely to vote for Trump, but this was because they also tended to be people who identified as Republican and felt racial resentment,” they write.

Among independents, the 2016 data was mixed, Drakulich notes: Those who had high racial resentments were more likely to vote for Trump, and those who were more likely to see the police as biased, were less likely to do so. Per his conclusions, liberals won’t be the only ones motivated by these protests and what Trump says about them come November — Republicans will be too.

“The protests will continue to raise awareness and motivate people who care about racial justice to vote, but they will also raise racial anxieties in other voters that can be exploited by politicians using ... pro-police rhetoric — as Donald Trump has been,” Drakulich told Vox.

Independent voters’ views on police are shifting

While promoting his ties to law enforcement has benefited Trump in the past, it is not clear doing so will continue to pay dividends with voters beyond his base. Perceptions about law enforcement have shifted over the last few years in the wake of growing scrutiny of police brutality — including among independents.

In 2016, Trump’s endorsements of police coincided with high respect for law enforcement. As Vox’s Matt Yglesias reported, respect for police was up by more than 10 points in 2016 among both white and nonwhite respondents in a Gallup poll, compared to 2015. Overall, 76 percent of people said they had a great deal of respect for police in 2016 versus 64 percent who said the same in 2015.

And though law enforcement remains broadly popular in America — 71 percent of respondents in the Monmouth poll are satisfied with the job they’re doing — public awareness of police bias and abuses has grown in the last few years. For example, 41 percent of independents agreed that black people were treated less fairly by police in a 2015 Gallup poll, while 52 percent did in 2018.

And as reported by the Washington Post’s David Fahrenthold, that same trend line holds in polling that’s been done about police use of force:

A new study from Monmouth University, released Tuesday, found that 57 percent of Americans today believe police are more likely to use excessive force against black people.

That represents an increase from the 34 percent of registered voters who said the same in 2016 following the police shooting of Alton Sterling in Louisiana, and the 33 percent who said so in 2014 after a grand jury did not indict a New York City police officer in the death of Eric Garner.

Since 2016, there’s been a slight shift in how much people trust police, too.

That year, 56 percent of people expressed overall confidence in the police, and in 2019, this number declined slightly to 53 percent, according to a recurring Gallup survey. A caveat: The decrease is within the 4 percent margin of error on the surveys conducted in both years.

Still, this dip could well reflect a slight change in attitude. For example, in the same time frame, confidence in the military stayed constant, with 73 percent of people who were polled expressing confidence in the institution in both 2016 and 2019.

“Until 2010, most people just had no idea what communities were going through,” says Georgetown law professor Christy Lopez, who previously worked in the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice. “Between the use of phone cameras and the movement for black lives making this information known, and the federal government bringing lawsuits investigating police violence, you couldn’t ignore it.”

The decline the Gallup survey found between 2016 and 2019 appears to have been spurred largely by Democrats, but independents saw a decrease as well. In 2016, 46 percent of Democrats had strong confidence in the police, a number that declined to 34 percent in 2019. Similarly, in 2016, 54 percent of independents had strong confidence in the police and that decreased to 50 percent in 2019.

The latter dip is small. But small changes in independent voters could swing electoral votes during the presidential election — particularly in battleground states like Pennsylvania and Michigan, both of which Trump carried by less than 1 percentage point in 2016.

Ultimately, too, Trump’s efforts to frame himself as a “law and order” president could backfire given his status as the incumbent and the crises the country currently faces in both addressing police violence and the pandemic. “When disorder is all around them, voters tend to blame the person in charge for the disorder—and, sometimes, punish those who exploit it for political gain,” writes Rick Perlstein for Mother Jones.

There are still questions about how the protests will affect voter preferences

Beyond anything said or done by the president, there are questions about whether the protests themselves will affect voter decisions.

Researchers have looked toward history for parallels, though much is unique about the current political climate, and Trump’s presidency. In his work, Princeton political scientist Omar Wasow found that the violence at civil rights protests in 1968 likely compelled some voters to support Richard Nixon, who campaigned heavily on “law and order.”

“If your county was proximate to violent protests, then that county voted six to eight percentage points more toward Nixon in November,” Wasow told the New Yorker’s Isaac Chotiner in a recent interview. His conclusions were based on an analysis of 137 protests that took place across the country following Martin Luther King Jr.’s assassination.

The protests in Ferguson, Missouri, in 2014, serve as a more recent example of protests against police violence that took place during an election year.

Based on the voter turnout rates between the 2014 and 2010 midterms, Charles Ellison, a political strategist and correspondent for WURD Radio, suggested that Democrats need to take serious steps to engage with protesters — and consider policy reforms that would energize them this fall — in order to prevent declines in turnout. He pointed to such decreases in 2014 as an example; that same year, Republicans retook the Senate and won a larger majority in the House.

“Following Ferguson, voter participation rates dropped several percentage points between the 2010 and 2014 midterms,” he told Vox. “It seems counter-intuitive for turnout to fall like that, but it reflects many people assuming traditional pathways of political and civic engagement aren’t working for them.”

Between 2010 and 2014, voter turnout for the general election declined from 41 percent to 36 percent.

There’s a lot we still don’t know about how voters will react in November

The key caveat in all this is that the November election is still several months away and it’s unclear how public opinion will change between now and then.

Right now, most independent voters support the protests. In the Morning Consult poll, fielded last weekend, 52 percent of independent voters said they backed the protests while 20 percent said they opposed them. The most recent Reuters/Ipsos survey also found that 53 percent of independent voters are sympathetic to the protesters while 40 percent approved of how police were handling them.

What is certain is that the protests have drawn attention to the problem of police violence in a way that will make the issue — particularly if demonstrations continue through the summer — a core one candidates will have to address.

Howard University law professor Justin Hansford, who was actively involved with the Ferguson protests, says this increased awareness is a direct byproduct. “I believe they would have never spoken about policing during a presidential debate if it wasn’t for this,” he told Vox.


Support Vox’s explanatory journalism

Every day at Vox, we aim to answer your most important questions and provide you, and our audience around the world, with information that has the power to save lives. Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment: to empower you through understanding. Vox’s work is reaching more people than ever, but our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources — particularly during a pandemic and an economic downturn. Your financial contribution will not constitute a donation, but it will enable our staff to continue to offer free articles, videos, and podcasts at the quality and volume that this moment requires. Please consider making a contribution to Vox today.



from Vox - All https://ift.tt/2UlBPPG

A detailed timeline of all the ways Trump failed to respond to the coronavirus

President Donald Trump at the Rose Garden for a bill signing ceremony on June 5. | Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

The federal coronavirus response shows a president dead set on avoiding responsibility for the pandemic.

A week and a half ago, the US coronavirus death toll surpassed 100,000 — the most in the world, and more than the next three countries combined.

That number has only grown in the days since. And in the face of that crisis, President Donald Trump has a message for the American people: It was China’s fault, and the only reason the US death toll isn’t worse is because of his quick action in banning travel from China.

In fact, there are many reasons the US death toll is so high, including a national response plagued by delays at the federal level, wishful thinking by President Trump, the sidelining of experts, a pointed White House campaign to place the blame for the Trump administration’s shortcomings on others, and time wasted chasing down false hopes based on poor science.

Often as not, though, rather than argue the merits of its response at home, the Trump administration has chosen to focus on its action against China as a benchmark for success — and that’s not accidental. In fact, Trump’s quick pivot to blaming China is a deliberate strategy, supposedly backed up by internal Trump campaign polling and designed to obfuscate the details of the truly inadequate US response. But in the early days of the novel coronavirus pandemic, Trump himself took a very different line on everything from China to the severity of the virus itself and how bad things might get in the US.

Though White House Coronavirus Task Force member Dr. Anthony Fauci admitted as early as March that the virus could kill 100,000 to 200,000 Americans, Trump has had his own ever-shifting goalposts for what counts as a successful response. On April 20, he predicted 50,000 to 60,000 dead from Covid-19. A week later, he revised his estimate to 70,000. On May 4, it was 80,000 to 100,000 people, and we now know it will continue to climb past that mark.

Throughout the pandemic, however, much of the Trump administration’s spin — regarding Trump’s own response, China’s role, and more — has been misleading, if not outright untrue. Here’s what Trump and the federal government have — and have not — done to respond to the virus.


2019

In late 2019, the coronavirus wasn’t on much of the world’s radar. President Trump was becoming the third president in US history to be impeached. We now know, however, that the first cases of the virus were cropping up as early as November. Here’s where things stood late last year:

November 17: Although it was not diagnosed as such at the time, researchers have now identified the first confirmed Covid-19 case as having been seen on November 17 in China’s Hubei province.

December 27: A man in France, who is now the first known Covid-19 patient outside of China, goes to the emergency room with a fever and difficulty breathing. At the time, Covid-19 was still unheard of outside of China.

December 31: The Wuhan Municipal Health Commission reports the first cluster of cases of a “pneumonia of unknown cause,” later identified as Covid-19, the disease caused by the novel coronavirus, now called SARS-CoV-2.

January 2020

Though new discoveries — such as the December case in France mentioned above — keep pushing the timeline of the virus back, much of the world began to take note of a mysterious pneumonia-like illness in China in January 2020, which at the time was mostly centered in the Hubei province. On January 5, the World Health Organization (WHO) published a preliminary news item about the then-unidentified disease; at the time, it was a relatively distant concern in the US, particularly given the country had yet to see any confirmed cases.

But the coronavirus’s threat was of concern to US national security officials, who, as the Washington Post reported in March, were warning Trump of the global danger posed by the virus in daily intelligence briefings as early as January.

Nonetheless, in public comments and tweets, the president consistently played down the fledgling pandemic even as the first US case was reported in Washington state. He also applauded China’s handling of the virus at several points in January, before taking action to protect the US in the form of a limited travel ban from China on January 31.

Here’s what things looked like in January.

January 11: The first death from a confirmed case of Covid-19 is reported in China.

January 16: A researcher in Germany develops the first coronavirus test.

January 19: Human-to-human transmission of the coronavirus is confirmed by the Chinese government.

January 21: The first confirmed Covid-19 case in the US is reported in Washington state.

January 22: While at Davos, Trump makes his first public comment on the coronavirus, downplaying the risk in comments to CNBC and CBS News correspondent Paula Reid.

To CNBC: We have it totally under control. It’s one person coming in from China, and we have it under control. It’s — going to be just fine.

To CBS: We do have a plan and we think it’s going to be handled very well. We’ve already handled it very well … We’re in very good shape and I think China’s in very good shape also.

January 24: Trump praises China’s “efforts and transparency” and thanks Chinese President Xi Jinping for his response to the virus.

January 29: Trump receives a briefing on the coronavirus, and asserts that the US is “on top of it 24/7.”

January 30: The WHO declares the coronavirus a global health emergency.

January 30: Trump suggests that the coronavirus is under control in remarks at a manufacturing plant in Michigan:

We have very little problem in this country at this moment — five [cases]. And those people are all recuperating successfully. But we’re working very closely with China and other countries, and we think it’s going to have a very good ending for us.

January 31: Trump suspends entry to the US for many — but not all — categories of people traveling from China, a move which some epidemiologists warned at the time was “more of an emotional or political reaction” than a public health decision. The Department of Health and Human Services declares the coronavirus a public health emergency.

February 2020

February started with a State of the Union address on February 4, and the first US Covid-19 death followed on February 6 in California’s Bay Area. The majority of the coronavirus messaging coming from the White House, however, continued to focus on downplaying the virus rather than bracing for the now-realized possibility that it could become a full-blown pandemic and a global public health crisis.

The Trump administration did take a few steps toward crafting a federal response, requesting emergency funding from Congress and setting up a task force with Vice President Mike Pence at its head. Meanwhile, Trump — and Fox News — leaned hard into portraying the coronavirus as under control, and even as a Democratic hoax.

As a result, February was by and large a lost month: Delays in developing a test kit were followed by testing shortages, and both issues meant the coronavirus was able to spread undetected and unabated in many parts of the country.

Here’s what things looked like in February.

February 4: Trump gives the annual State of the Union address and briefly mentions the US response to the coronavirus in his speech.

We are coordinating with the Chinese government and working closely together on the coronavirus outbreak in China. My administration will take all necessary steps to safeguard our citizens from this threat.

February 5: The Food and Drug Administration issues an emergency use authorization for a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) coronavirus test, clearing the way for it to be used in state labs.

February 6: The first death in the US from a confirmed case of Covid-19 is retroactively confirmed to have occurred in early February by the Santa Clara County medical examiner following an autopsy of the victim.

February 7: Trump again praises Xi’s response to the coronavirus.

February 15: The first death in Europe from a confirmed case of Covid-19 is reported in France.

February 23: Trump again claims that the coronavirus is “under control” in an impromptu South Lawn press conference with Marine One waiting to depart to Andrews Air Force Base ahead of a trip to India.

We’re very much involved. We’re very — very cognizant of everything going on. We have it very much under control in this country.

February 24: In a tweet, Trump reiterates his claim that the virus is “very much under control in the USA.”

February 25: Trump requests $2.5 billion in coronavirus response funding from Congress for vaccine development, testing, PPE, and more.

February 26: The first instance of community spread in the US is confirmed by the CDC.

February 26: Trump appoints Pence to lead the coronavirus task force; during the same press conference, he again downplays the virus.

And again, when you have 15 people, and the 15 within a couple of days is going to be down to close to zero, that’s a pretty good job we’ve done.

February 27: Trump predicts that the coronavirus will disappear “like a miracle.”

It’s going to disappear. One day it’s like a miracle, it will disappear.

February 28: Trump refers to the coronavirus as the Democrats’ “new hoax” at a rally in South Carolina.

The Democrats are politicizing the coronavirus… One of my people came up to me and said “Mr. President, they tried to beat you on Russia, Russia, Russia, that didn’t work out too well. They couldn’t do it. They tried the impeachment hoax that was on a perfect conversation. They tried anything, they tried it over and over, they’ve been doing it since you got in… And this is their new hoax.”

March 2020

In March, the coronavirus for the first time began to intrude on daily life in a major way. The NBA shut down on March 11, the same night Trump addressed the nation in primetime from the Oval Office, announcing a European travel ban and promising economic relief efforts.

Not long after that speech, California became the first state to implement a general stay-at-home order on March 19.

By the end of the month, more than 30 states had done the same, and those shutdowns — a public health necessity, in the opinion of most experts — brought the US economy to a screeching halt. As a result, it’s maybe not surprising that Trump, who has previously tied his reelection pitch directly to the economy, spent much of the month broadcasting an unwarranted optimism about the trajectory of the virus and promoting potential treatments like hydroxychloroquine — which the FDA has since warned against using for Covid-19 treatment or prevention, noting it can cause heart problems.

The growing severity of the pandemic, however, also led to a mid-March social distancing push from the White House. Shortly after his primetime address, Trump announced a new slate of guidelines advising against discretionary travel and against congregating in groups of more than 10 people.

And toward the end of the month, the growing death toll from the coronavirus — centered on New York, Trump’s longtime home — appeared to have an impact on the president. In a press conference, he acknowledged that the first half of April was “going to be a rough two-week period” and walked back previous statements downplaying the coronavirus by comparing it to the seasonal flu.

Here’s what things looked like in March.

March 5: Trump suggests that closing the US to travel from China helped to keep the number of Covid-19 cases low.

March 6: At the CDC headquarters in Atlanta, Georgia, Trump says falsely that “anybody that wants a test can get a test”; he also comments that he would rather have infected people who were trapped on a cruise ship stay there to keep the number of confirmed US cases low.

Anybody that wants a test can get a test ... they’re making millions of more as we speak. But as of right now and yesterday, anybody that needs a test — that’s the important thing — and the tests are all perfect, like the letter was perfect. The transcription was perfect, right? This was not as perfect as that, but pretty good.

...

I like the numbers being where they are. I don’t need to have the numbers double because of one ship that wasn’t our fault.

March 9: Trump compares the coronavirus to the common flu, a comparison which at that time had already been debunked by experts including Dr. Anthony Fauci.

March 11: The WHO officially labels the coronavirus a pandemic.

March 11: Trump makes an error-ridden primetime address from the Oval Office that coincides with Tom Hanks announcing his coronavirus diagnosis and the NBA suspending its season.

Testing and testing capabilities are expanding rapidly, day by day, we’re moving very quickly ... The vast majority of Americans, the risk is very, very low.

President Donald Trump gives an address from the Oval Office on the federal government’s response to the coronavirus.

March 13: Trump declares a national emergency in response to the coronavirus, freeing up billions in federal funding for the virus response.

March 16: Trump announces “15 Days to Stop the Spread” CDC guidelines, encouraging social distancing.

March 18: Trump and Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau mutually close the US-Canada border; Trump officially invokes the Defense Production Act (DPA) in order to push domestic manufacturing industries to produce badly needed medical supplies.

March 19: Trump incorrectly claims that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the antimalarial drug hydroxychloroquine for treating Covid-19.

The nice part is, it’s been around for a long time, so we know that if things don’t go as planned it’s not going to kill anybody. When you go with a brand new drug, you don’t know that that’s going to happen. It’s shown very very encouraging early results.

March 19: Trump labels the coronavirus the “Chinese Virus” in a press conference; photos show that he revised prepared remarks to add the xenophobic term.

March 20: Trump closes the US-Mexico border, saying:

[Unauthorized entries] threaten to create a perfect storm that would spread the infection to our border agents, migrants, and to the public at large. Left unchecked, this would cripple our immigration system, overwhelm our healthcare system, and severely damage our national security. We’re not going to let that happen.

March 20: Trump touts hydroxychloroquine, a malaria drug unproven as a Covid-19 treatment, at the White House Coronavirus Task Force daily briefing; in the same exchange, he attacks NBC News correspondent Peter Alexander as a “terrible reporter.”

Let’s see if it works. It might and it might not. I happen to feel good about it, but who knows, I’ve been right a lot. Let’s see what happens.

March 22: As the economic impact of coronavirus lockdowns becomes more apparent, Trump shies away from a prolonged shutdown following a historically bad day for the Dow Jones stock index the previous week.

March 24: Trump floats Easter Sunday, April 12, as a potential reopening date.

I would love to have it open by Easter. I will — I will tell you that right now. I would love to have that — it’s such an important day for other reasons, but I’ll make it an important day for this too. I would love to have the country opened up and just raring to go by Easter.

March 26: The US hits 1,000 reported Covid-19 deaths.

March 27: Trump attacks General Motors CEO Mary Barra on Twitter over ventilator manufacturing amid a desperate shortage of the machines, and threatens to “invoke ‘P’” — the Defense Production Act — to compel the company to make more, the first of many such threats made against companies producing essential materials.

March 27: Trump signs a $2.2 trillion coronavirus relief package that includes direct cash payments to Americans, additional funding for hospitals, and some $500 billion in loans for companies.

March 29: Trump extends CDC social distancing guidance through April 30; in the Rose Garden, he also says he believes his administration will have “done a very good job” if the US avoids the worst-case 2.2 million deaths predicted by London’s Imperial College.

March 31: Trump drops his comparison to the flu, saying the coronavirus is “vicious”:

It’s not the flu. It’s vicious. When you send a friend to the hospital, and you call up to find out how is he doing — it happened to me, where he goes to the hospital, he says goodbye. He’s sort of a tough guy. A little older, a little heavier than he’d like to be, frankly. And you call up the next day: “How’s he doing?” And he’s in a coma? This is not the flu.

April 2020

For all that Trump spent January and February praising China’s response to the coronavirus, April saw his White House execute an about-face as the human and economic toll of the pandemic in the US mounted. The president began to blame China, Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden, and the WHO for problems with America’s Covid-19 response. And Democratic governors, like Gretchen Whitmer of Michigan, who maintained lockdown orders and criticized the Trump administration’s response to the crisis, became targets of his ire.

Here’s what things looked like in April.

April 2: Trump employs the DPA to direct 3M and other companies to manufacture masks and ventilators:

Moments ago, I directed Secretary Azar and Acting Secretary Wolf to use any and all available authority under the Defense Production Act to ensure that domestic manufacturers have the supplies they need to produce ventilators for patients with severe cases of C-O-V-I-D 19. You know what that is, right? Become a very famous term: C-O-V-I-D — COVID.

April 4: Trump again invokes the DPA to combat the hoarding of medical supplies by “wartime profiteers.”

April 6: The US hits 10,000 reported Covid-19 deaths.

April 9: The Trump campaign releases a misleading ad attacking Biden’s record on China.

April 13: Trump claims to have the legal right to overrule governors’ shelter-in-place orders, asserting at a press conference that the president’s “authority is total.”

April 14: Trump announces plans to halt funding to the WHO, accusing the organization of “severely mismanaging and covering up the spread of the coronavirus.”

April 15: The US hits 25,000 reported Covid-19 deaths.

April 16: The Trump administration releases its reopening guidelines:

Every state is very different. They’re all beautiful. We love them all. But they’re very, very different. If they need to remain closed, we will allow them to do that. And if they believe it is time to reopen, we will provide them the freedom and guidance to accomplish that task — and very, very quickly — depending on what they want to do.

April 17: As small groups of — sometimes armed — protesters demonstrating against shelter-in-place orders begin to receive media coverage, Trump calls on his supporters, including those who attended these protests, to “liberate” Michigan, Minnesota, and Virginia, all of which have Democratic governors.

April 17: Trump attacks Biden and the Obama administration’s handling of the 2009 H1N1 pandemic.

April 22: Trump, who has spent the last few days promoting reopening, announces that he opposes Georgia reopening.

I told the governor of Georgia, Brian Kemp, that I disagree strongly with his decision to open certain facilities which are in violation of the phase one guidelines for the incredible people of Georgia ... I think it’s too soon.

April 23: Trump signs an executive order blocking green cards for most categories of prospective immigrants; at a daily press briefing, he also floats bleach as a potential coronavirus treatment:

And then I see the disinfectant, where it 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. Because you see it gets in the lungs and it does a tremendous number on the lungs.

April 24: The US hits 50,000 reported Covid-19 deaths.

April 28: The US hits 1 million confirmed Covid-19 cases.

April 30: The Trump administration allows federal “Stay at Home” guidelines to expire, ceding the field to state efforts.

May 2020

If April was focused on shifting the blame, May was the month the president pivoted to denying there was anything to be blamed for. Although the US death toll passed 100,000 on May 27, Trump nonetheless insisted that the US response had “met the moment.” The US began to lead the world in Covid-19 cases and deaths.

And the president continued his efforts to reframe recent events to cast himself in a favorable light. For instance, in May, Trump attributed his decision to limit travel from China as the major factor in avoiding a death toll numbering in the millions, though most of the coronavirus cases at the epicenter of the US outbreak — New York City — have been shown to originate from Europe.

And as states began to reopen nonessential businesses — despite experts warning premature reopening could lead to a second wave of infections — Trump also looked to put the crisis behind him. The president made multiple trips to battleground states in May, and his campaign is reportedly examining plans to resume holding Trump’s signature rallies.

Here’s how things looked in May.

May 3: Trump again revises his estimate on the number of Covid-19 deaths the US will suffer and predicts 85,000 to 100,000 fatalities during a Fox News virtual town hall.

Look, we’re going to lose anywhere from 75, 80 to 100 thousand people. That’s a horrible thing. We shouldn’t lose one person over this. This should have been stopped in China. It should have been stopped. But if we didn’t do it, the minimum we would have lost is a million-two, a million-four, a million-five. That’s the minimum. We would have lost probably higher than — it’s possible higher than 2.2.

May 7: The US hits 75,000 reported Covid-19 deaths; the New York Times reports that the Trump administration elected to shelve detailed reopening guidelines from the CDC.

May 8: Trump claims that the US is “the world leader” in responding to the coronavirus.

May 9: Although many states have yet to meet the minimum requirements for reopening based on the White House’s guidelines, Trump continues to push for the reopening of nonessential businesses, using the slogan “TRANSITION TO GREATNESS!”

May 10: Trump again goes after the Obama administration’s response to the 2009 swine flu pandemic, falsely calling it a “disaster.” As the Washington Post has explained, “some flaws in the system were discovered” in the Obama administration’s handling of the H1N1 pandemic, “but overall the government was praised for its response.”

May 11: Trump says that the US has “met the moment and we have prevailed” in responding to the coronavirus.

May 18: Trump tells reporters that he is taking hydroxychloroquine, an antimalarial drug that has been linked to an increased risk of death when used to treat coronavirus patients.

May 21: Trump claims falsely that he was “so early. I was earlier than anybody thought” in response to a Columbia University study suggesting that 36,000 lives could have been saved in the US alone by implementing social distancing measures just a week earlier. As noted above, the president reportedly ignored security briefings on the coronavirus for weeks and did not roll out a social distancing campaign until mid-March.

May 22: Trump at a press conference announces he is labeling churches as “essential” and calls for governors to allow their reopening, as well as threatening — without authority — to “override” any governors who fail to do so.

May 23: For the first time since March, Trump hits the links at his own golf course in Sterling, Virginia, as the US death toll edges toward 100,000.

May 24: Trump bans non-US citizens traveling from Brazil from entering the country.

May 26: Trump again favorably compares the death toll to an Imperial College projection that estimated the death toll had the US taken no steps to stop the spread of Covid-19, tweeting that “if I hadn’t done my job well, & early, we would have lost 1 1/2 to 2 Million People.”

May 27: The US hits 100,000 reported Covid-19 deaths.


Support Vox’s explanatory journalism

Every day at Vox, we aim to answer your most important questions and provide you, and our audience around the world, with information that has the power to save lives. Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment: to empower you through understanding. Vox’s work is reaching more people than ever, but our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources — particularly during a pandemic and an economic downturn. Your financial contribution will not constitute a donation, but it will enable our staff to continue to offer free articles, videos, and podcasts at the quality and volume that this moment requires. Please consider making a contribution to Vox today.



from Vox - All https://ift.tt/3eVthqq