Russiagate didn't work; Ukraine didn't work; the economy is growing at a healthy rate. Nothing works against this president — but maybe the coronavirus will do it! That seems to be the attitude among liberals in the U.S. media. So what if a few million die a miserable death? We've finally got something that will stick.

After all, the coronavirus is Trump's fault!

That seems to be what liberals from Joe Biden to Elizabeth Warren are saying about this serious health threat — one that started in China and is certainly not the president's fault.

"China's coronavirus has revived global economic fears," headlined the N.Y. Times' Peter S. Goodman, a frequent critic of the president. Comparing the current outbreak to the 2002–3 SARS epidemic, Goodman quoted a source who said, "The economic effects may be much larger than SARS."

Meanwhile, NBC questioned whether the coronavirus would "derail China's ability to fulfill Trump's trade deal." Aside from the fact that it is not Trump's trade deal — it's a mutual trade agreement between China and the U.S. — the trade deal is a long-term agreement. The 2002–3 SARS epidemic lasted for eight months, after which the global economy fully recovered. As it was, the Chinese economy continued growing by 9%, dropping only 2% from its high. Things would have to be a lot worse than in 2002–3, when there were 8,098 cases and 774 deaths worldwide.

Never one to be left out of the Trump-trashing, CNN announced, "The world may be on the verge of the next global pandemic." CNN added that "the outbreak could be much worse than previously expected." Yes, or it could be less bad than previously expected. Fair and balanced, right?

It's the fear that things will get a lot worse that has sent markets down in recent days, and things may be worse this time. But is the Chinese handling of the coronavirus epidemic the fault of President Trump? Sure, it is. If Trump hadn't pressured China with crippling tariffs, China would have had the resources to control the coronavirus. Everything is the president's fault.

Democrat politicians wasted no time in pointing the finger at the president. Joe Biden said on Monday that the president is "the worst possible person" to handle the potential spread of the virus to the U.S. In a USA Today op-ed, Biden claimed that Trump's cuts to the NIH budget and other actions could make the epidemic worse. You can almost hear the liberal media sighing, If only we could get a real pandemic in the U.S.! After all, Dems have the president on record saying, "We have it totally under control" — just like Bush's "Mission Accomplished" before the worst of the fighting in Iraq, except that, at this point, the virus is under control in the U.S.

Citing the Obama response to the Ebola epidemic, for which the U.S. dispatched health officials to Africa, Biden called for an increased commitment to "global health security." Biden says he would already have sent emergency teams to China to assist in controlling the epidemic. President Trump has offered to do so three times — Biden was apparently oblivious to this fact — and the Chinese have refused the aid. So what would Biden do? Force the Chinese to accept U.S. medical expertise? Drop doctors and nurses into China with the help of the 101st Airborne?

Democrats seem to be licking their chops, hoping the epidemic will spread to the U.S. Certainly, Biden wasted no time in having published his nationwide op-ed. Elizabeth Warren, who has a "plan" for everything, came up on Tuesday with a hastily conceived plan for infectious disease control. Why just now, if she's so concerned about infectious diseases? Why not some time during the six years she's been in the Senate? And what does the plan contain that's not already being done? Elizabeth Warren is not just a Monday-morning quarterback; she's a quarterback whose signals are so patently political and self-serving as to make one sick.

Warren says she would "invest at home" and "build strong public health systems abroad" — like in China, right? So "Medicare for All" now includes 1.4 billion Chinese along with 340 million Americans? Warren's plan calls for establishing a "global health security corps" — one of many globalist approaches, like global courts and global climate change agreements, that Warren supports. Where would Warren's global health security corps be headquartered? In Brussels? Paris? Or maybe Beijing? And would that global health security corps have authority over the health decisions of every American? Maybe if the crisis gets bad enough, Americans will fall for it.

Mike Bloomberg likes to say he will "get it done," whatever "it" is. Bloomberg, who has his own plan for everything, says he would create a "Medicare-like public option" for health insurance — in other words, a "sorta" Medicare for All, not so far out as Bernie or Liz, but just enough to make Mike president. But how exactly would that plan prevent a virus from spreading from one person to another? Any person who thinks he might be infected can already go to any hospital or clinic and be treated. How will Mike's Medicare-like public option change that?

Bernie Sanders, who now leads in Iowa and New Hampshire, doesn't seem to have an opinion about the coronavirus, or if he does, he hasn't voiced it. He's happy to stick with socialism, just as he has for 50 years. At least he's consistent — maybe that's why he's winning. Unlike every other liberal in the country, he's not pulling for a global epidemic. He just wants to set up a Soviet-style centralized economy in the U.S.

Pelosi and Schumer have also been beating the coronavirus drum. They're calling for a "public health emergency" and increased funding for the Centers for Disease Control. Democrats under Nancy Pelosi have been in charge of the budget process in Congress from 2007 to 2011 and for the past two years. Why haven't they increased funding for the CDC? They seem to be interested in public health emergencies only when they think it will hurt President Trump. If they were really worried about public health emergencies, wouldn't they have done something already? And why aren't they doing anything now except trying to impeach the president?

The coronavirus is a serious health threat. It is spreading rapidly in China and has escaped to many other countries, including the U.S. The Trump administration is doing everything possible to contain the disease, but the president is not responsible for the coronavirus outbreak in China or for those cases where individuals have fallen ill after returning from China.

President Trump is considering a travel ban to China, a move that may be necessary. Individuals entering the U.S. from China and other affected countries are being screened, and the five known cases are being closely monitored. The president is busy addressing the threat — while Democrats are busy attacking the president.

No one can prevent the outbreak of disease — last year, there were 43 million flu cases and 61,200 flu-related deaths. No one talks much about flu-related deaths, but those numbers show how difficult it is to control the spread of a virus. Maybe Warren or Biden can come up with a plan to end the flu and the common cold as well. But it appears they aren't interested in public health as much as in grabbing the anti-Trump headlines.

If the coronavirus does spread in the U.S., the president will take the blame in the liberal media. The Dems will pounce, relishing the spectacle of thousands or tens of thousands of cases. But the Democrats have done nothing to improve public health — certainly not in this Congress, where they've done nothing at all. It's President Trump who is doing everything he can to keep us safe.

Jeffrey Folks is the author of many books and articles on American culture including Heartland of the Imagination: Conservative Values in American Literature from Poe to O'Connor to Haruf (2011).