Editor's Note: (Lincoln Mitchell teaches in the political science department at Columbia University. His most recent book is "San Francisco Year Zero: Political Upheaval Punk Rock and a Third Place Baseball Team." (Rutgers University Press, 2019) Follow him on Twitter @LincolnMitchell. The opinions expressed here are his own. Read more opinion at CNN. )
(CNN) It's already summer and we still have no answer to the question of how to reopen schools in the fall, but at least most of us are familiar with the conundrum. Children mostly may not experience the worst of Covid-19 it seems, but they can bring it home to their parents, grandparents and others family members who may be more vulnerable. Similarly, there are real health concerns for adults who work in schools, particularly those who are older or have preexisting conditions. There is also a conflict between the economic reality that the economy cannot recover if children cannot go to school and the biological reality that if school reopens many more Americans could die.
Reopening schools is a challenge that is not unique to the US. All over the world shutdowns in spring led to schools being cancelled or moving online -- and all over the world governments are trying to find the best and safest ways to start school in the fall. However, in the US not only is the pandemic still worse than in many countries, but the needed debate and process to arrive at a policy solution around reopening schools has not yet happened -- and is very unlikely to occur.
The primary reason for that is Donald Trump's approach to policy making, which boils down to tweets or executive orders that are either irrational or in service of short-term political goals and ultimatums aimed at keeping his base mobilized. This creates an enormous barrier to thoughtful policy making. Whatever discussion that occurs in Washington about the safest way to manage school reopening is set back by Presidential tweets that dismiss CDC guidelines for schools as being "very impractical" or threaten "may cut off funding (for schools) if not open!" The schools question is only the most proximate example -- this dynamic has existed throughout Trump's presidency on issues like healthcare, climate change and the environment. Trump's actions preclude real policy discourse because he is both unwilling to do the hard work of policy making, and unable to stay out of the discussion and let the process move forward on its own. This not only creates a near permanent state of political chaos, but also of policy-making dysfunction.
Not that long ago, liberals and conservatives debated, and sometimes even compromised, on these issues, which are different from intensely partisan matters like gun reform or addressing systemic racism, where doing nothing or very little is consistent with the Republican platform. However, the Trump era has seen the President boasting, with no policy follow up, that his plan would provide the best health care, asserting that climate change is a hoax and red-baiting "socialist" political rivals.
Crafting effective public policy at a time of high political polarization, intensely competitive elections and a pandemic would be extremely challenging under any circumstances, but it's made even more difficult by a President who is at best a major distraction in a White House that appears to be focused more on keeping him happy than on addressing problems.
That could change if Trump loses in the November election, but the situation is too dire to simply wait for a Biden administration. However, there are ways for Congress and even the administration to govern in spite of the Trump obstacles. We can learn some lessons, for example, from the early days of the pandemic, when Congress quickly debated and passed an economic relief package. That compromise was reached by the Democratic-led House and the Republican-led Senate with Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin negotiating on behalf of the administration. While imperfect, it has helped many Americans survive this economic downturn.
A rough outline for how to make policy despite Trump's unconstructive role has several components. First, to the extent possible, members of Congress and others directly involved in policy should avoid making statements that make issues like reopening schools feel personal for Trump. The corollary to this is that, when possible, ignore the President's statements and tweets on the issue at hand. Second, provide the President with legislation that he can just sign, rather than bring him into the process. Trump has only vetoed eight bills and, like his two immediate predecessors, is inclined to sign almost anything that gets through Congress.
Lastly, although the best way to handle this crisis would have been a strong federal response, pushing decisions down to the state and local level is also a valuable governance strategy. Not all governors have handled the current crisis well, but many have -- and others have begun to learn from their early mistakes.
It is an extraordinary and discouraging statement about the state of governance in America that solving problems means finding ways to work around a President who too frequently sees every policy issue in overly personal terms. But his malignant distractions on difficult questions like the reopening of schools are sadly emblematic of an America suffering through a pandemic and a recession without any proper leadership from its chief executive. It is a sorry reflection of America in 2020 that keeping the President on the policy periphery is the key to successfully solving the problems facing the country.