View Single Post
Old 08-24-2017, 08:40 AM   #9
detbuch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 2,643
Constantly being in campaign mode is not peculiar to Trump. His predecessor was criticized doing so. The two Presidents before that weren't averse to it, especially Bill Clinton. So called "strong" Presidents of the past did it. Both Roosevelt's, whom everyone describes as being "great" did it in terms of the more limited media outlets available to them at the time. And they bitched, and whined, threatened, and BULLIED. FDR threatened to add 9 more judges (of his choice, of course) to SCOTUS if the Court kept blocking his unconstitutional initiatives. Many Presidents of the past gave pardons that some considered controversial. Most have had problems and quarrels with Congress, even those Representatives and Senators of their own party.

I get that a lot of folks just don't like Trump, either as a person, or as a politician in general, certainly not as President. But that, as well as the above criticisms, are, as Yogi Berra would say, deja vous all over again. Maybe the hate for him (gee, I thought hate was supposed to be a bad thing by those who hate him) seems more intense than hate for Presidents of the past because there is a greater loss of journalistic objectivity (as has been happening over the last decade or two, but similar to the Press at the time of the founding) and the constant ginning up of its anti-Trumpism which all, intentionally, spills over into public opinion.

But "great" Presidents of the past were hated and vilified. A lot of popular history glosses over that and focusses on the supposed greatness. I can cite Reagan as a recent example, but there are many more.

I don't know what the standard is for being "presidential." Trump is, by his personality, different from other Presidents. But all Presidents were individually different. It's probably the toughest job in the world. But the notion that he is quirky, supposedly immoral (really?, compared to past, even "great," ones), a supposed bully (really? compared to some of the supposedly "great" ones of the past), means that he is not doing his job appears to me as a disconnect. He appears to me to be working very hard at his job. One of the most important aspects of that job is to earnestly advocate (some call it bullying). He is constantly advocating. That one may not like what he is advocating for does not make his advocacy null and void, make it a dereliction and absence of duty. Also he is making many changes in regulatory law which is in his purview to do. He is attending to military matters which are in his purview to do. He is negotiating international trade matters, attending to immigration problems, which are in his purview to do. But the many other things he advocates for but are not in his purview to accomplish, are being blocked or stalled by those who have the actual power to legislate.

I understand and expect that every President will be hated and scorned for various reasons. Some valid, most probably not. But for not being "presidential" seems pointless to me. If being "presidential" means acting like other Presidents of the past, then what is the standard if they all had their unique personalities and personal ways of doing their job. And it is more than pointless if he actually acts like many of the supposed "great" ones.
detbuch is online now   Reply With Quote