(Bloomberg Opinion) --
Give President Donald Trump credit: He’s been quick to jump on the idea of a major economic stimulus package in response to the coronavirus. Indeed, he seems more convinced that the economy needs help than he is that the epidemic is a public health problem, which doesn’t make much sense, but good for him anyway. Is he responding out of self-interest, because he wants to win re-election? I have no idea, but that’s as good a reason for presidents to take action as any. Representative democracy works because politicians try to keep constituents happy, not because politicians try to do the right thing.
Beyond the healthy impulse … well, he’s Donald Trump, isn’t he? On Monday, he came to the White House briefing room and promised he’d roll out a large stimulus package the next day. On Tuesday, he was a no-show. He did go to Capitol Hill to meet with Republican senators, but it seems likely that he’s going to get rolled on his preferred stimulus approach, which apparently consists of a payroll-tax cut plus bailouts for some industries. It turns out that his Monday announcement was more impulsive than part of any plan, as my Bloomberg News colleague Jennifer Jacobs reports. And of course even if Trump and Senate Republicans were on the same page, which they probably are not, there’s still the Democratic majority in the House of Representatives to deal with.
The good news there for Trump — and for the nation — is that Democrats, too, want to pass something quickly to deal with the macroeconomic and personal toll of the outbreak. But they have the upper hand here, and can (as Greg Sargent of the Washington Post suggests) drive a hard bargain. I wouldn’t be surprised if House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats wind up passing their ideal bill and letting Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and Republican senators have the next move, rather than trying to reach a comprehensive deal first. In part, that’s because Republicans are likely to be wary of negotiating for fear of being undercut by the impulsive and unpredictable president. It’s also because Trump himself is apparently reluctant to meet with Pelosi because he’s upset about impeachment.
Yes, this seems like a good opportunity to remind folks to order Dan Drezner’s new book about Trump as a toddler.
At any rate: Trump does have one other tendency that should help get to a deal, which is that he’s unlikely to care about substance. As long as he can brag about the results, he’ll probably accept anything that Congress gets to him. So as long as he doesn’t undermine the negotiations, I think it’s likely that Congress will deliver something soon, even if it’s likely to reflect Democratic priorities more than it will look like what Trump has talked about so far. His indifference to substance isn’t great for public policy, but it’s not nearly as bad in this context as having a president with firm ideological or other personal party preferences that would get in the way of getting something in place quickly. Especially given that experts, as my Bloomberg Opinion colleague Tyler Cowen argues, can’t supply much in the way of proven answers on the economic front. Given that situation, a president who just wants to get something done may be a lot better than one with strong views of what to do.
Trump is going to need some wins, because the bill is rapidly coming due on all of his “mission accomplished” moments so far. Especially since he can’t seem to stop bragging about how his early actions were so successful. We’ll see if it will start eroding his approval ratings, but with the total Covid-19 cases over 1,000 and climbing rapidly and all sorts of significant life disruptions on their way, not to mention the continued market turmoil, it’s likely that everyone except the president’s strongest supporters are going to notice that the results do not reflect Trump’s tone.
1. Dave Hopkins on the Democratic nomination contest.
2. Sean Trende on Trump’s bad week.
3. Karen Young at the Monkey Cage on Saudi Arabia and oil prices.
4. USA Today talks with Scott Gottlieb about the coronavirus.
5. My Bloomberg Opinion colleague Justin Fox looks back to a 2009 epidemic.
6. And Quoctrung Bui and Sarah Kliff on getting to universal health care.
To contact the editor responsible for this story: Jonathan Landman at jlandman4@bloomberg.net
This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of Bloomberg LP and its owners.
Jonathan Bernstein is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering politics and policy. He taught political science at the University of Texas at San Antonio and DePauw University and wrote A Plain Blog About Politics.
©2020 Bloomberg L.P.