[Goose]

However, this is where leadership comes in.  Someone willing to take what might look like an unpopular stance could have gotten people to take the virus seriously earlier.  Maybe even instituting a mandatory lockdown while it still looks like an overreaction would have resulted in a lot of grumbles, and some defiance, but most people would have actually followed the advice.  If you wait until the people are "ready" and voluntarily social distancing, then the actual lockdown orders are going to make much less of a difference than if they are instituted before people are ready.

I agree that leadership can be extremely important in advancing good ideas that are not necessarily popular at the moment. However, I think that we have many examples of leaders getting "out in front" of the general populace too soon and losing their credibility. It can harden positions to the point moving ahead at all becomes impossible. FDR  had this happen to him on several issues, as did Wilson. The trick for good leadership is to determine what is possible in terms of moving ahead, doing that, and NOT doing more.

The other issue is how sure the leader is of his ground. I think in this case, even if the leaders was someone other than Trump, it would have been a very difficult call to recommend SIP in February. A travel ban to/from China for non-citizens is inconvenient, but it doesn't really "bite" into the economy that much. Closing all the US borders does significantly do so. SIP is a "nuclear" option for the economy. A leader has to be damn sure it is necessary, and even more sure that he can pull it off, before he can do/suggest these things. I see no way that SIP could have been credibly suggested on January 31. March 1 is a different point, but even then I doubt it could have been done. Most states had essentially no cases. At that point, getting buy in to the idea that spread was inevitable would have been very hard.

[Goose]

However, this is where leadership comes in.  Someone willing to take what might look like an unpopular stance could have gotten people to take the virus seriously earlier.  Maybe even instituting a mandatory lockdown while it still looks like an overreaction would have resulted in a lot of grumbles, and some defiance, but most people would have actually followed the advice.  If you wait until the people are "ready" and voluntarily social distancing, then the actual lockdown orders are going to make much less of a difference than if they are instituted before people are ready.

I agree that leadership can be extremely important in advancing good ideas that are not necessarily popular at the moment. However, I think that we have many examples of leaders getting "out in front" of the general populace too soon and losing their credibility. It can harden positions to the point moving ahead at all becomes impossible. FDR  had this happen to him on several issues, as did Wilson. The trick for good leadership is to determine what is possible in terms of moving ahead, doing that, and NOT doing more.

The other issue is how sure the leader is of his ground. I think in this case, even if the leaders was someone other than Trump, it would have been a very difficult call to recommend SIP in February. A travel ban to/from China for non-citizens is inconvenient, but it doesn't really "bite" into the economy that much. Closing all the US borders does significantly do so. SIP is a "nuclear" option for the economy. A leader has to be damn sure it is necessary, and even more sure that he can pull it off, before he can do/suggest these things. I see no way that SIP could have been credibly suggested on January 31. March 1 is a different point, but even then I doubt it could have been done. Most states had essentially no cases. At that point, getting buy in to the idea that spread was inevitable would have been very hard.