Was Trump a Consequential President?

[Torie]

The answer I think is yes, and not in the way you may think, i.e. to wit a sociopath who tried to bring the rule of law down, and coarsened the public square to its lowest and most ugly common denominator, and made it respectable to loathe the other. Yes, I think he did all of that, but that is not what makes him consequential, in fact arguably the most consequential one term president in history, although maybe one might think the guy who stole Mexico was more so, that Polk guy. Libertarians might pine for Coolidge. Good luck with that.

No, Trump was consequential because protectionism and populism is the new normal. Trump caused the GOP to toss their green eye shades into the trash, running up the debt is just fine, we don't touch entitlements, and we buy American, and use the tax code to encourage it.

But that alone is not what makes him so consequential. What does is, as David Brooks pointed out on NPR last night, is that the Dems, as manifested by Biden's SOU speech, have internalized it too - populism and protectionism, at least much of it. It's all there in his text. So the only think left that is different is how much we love or tolerate aggressive autocratic regimes abroad, and whether to raise the top marginal tax rate by a couple of percent (not to hot or not too cold, but just tepid enough for the Dems new elite zip code base, or some of it, cf Torie  ), and mess a bit when you have to recognize capital gains, and yeah immigration (which the same zip codes very much favor, as do I pretty much, particularly after seeing them all in action in the NYC area).

Oh, and the culture wars, which come and go. The stern parenthood types lose every time. I remember when long hair and beards were iffy. Now when I see a clean face type (the scuffies were the ones that invaded the Capitol and put their feet up on Pelosi's desk), I tend to suspect they're gay.  When politics is all about the culture ways, you know we will have reached absolute entropy. Good luck to all you kids out there. You may well need it.

Where was I? Oh yeah, even if Trump were ethical, Biden is not fungible with Trump, but he has come a long way baby, for better or worse.

What do you think? If you hate it all, blame Brooks not me. I am a mere conduit, and thus without sin. Thank you.

[OSR stands with Israel]

I would argue George W Bush was the most consequential politician in the post cold war era and both Obama and Trump in many ways were reactions to him. If George W Bush's 2nd term even was mediocre rather than a catastrophe , neither Obama or Trump become president and both Right Wing and Left populism would be far far less powerful today.

Even stuff like protectionism came to be cause we enabled China's Rise throughout the 2000s so now we need more drastic actions then we would have if we did not. The Culture Wars really went into override cause Mainstream Conservatism collapsed in the Bush 2nd term and with it their power in institutions completely crashed too.

[Ferguson97]

Yes. He fundamentally changed modern politics in terms of substance, behavior, and rhetoric. Everything is so much more nasty and personal. And he made politics a part of everyday life whereas you could mostly ignore it during the Bush and Obama years.

[T'Chenka]

Yes. He fundamentally changed modern politics in terms of substance, behavior, and rhetoric. Everything is so much more nasty and personal. And he made politics a part of everyday life whereas you could mostly ignore it during the Bush and Obama years.

This. It's okay to say the loud part quiet now, and MAGA culture became more galvanized under him. Alternative facts and fake news propaganda are more widely shared and widely believed than in the pre-Trump era. It was already a problem, but it's worse now.

[Unpoisoned Chalice]

Definitely consequential in the short-term. The extent to which he will be viewed as consequential long-term depends on if he gets a second term and whether or not future Republican administrations pursue a Schedule F style war against the civil service.

[Hermit For Peace]

I say, big deal. Everyone is consequential in ways. Everyone leaves a mark on society. Trump has left a negative mark, and if you want to call that consequential, your call, but it doesn't apply to my opinion of him.

[LBJer]

Yes, he definitely was.  His biggest impact was in revealing critical weaknesses in the U.S. system of government, including the fact that impeachment (and the trial which follows) is completely inadequate as a legal check on presidents unsuited to remain in office. 

[LostInOhio]

If he somehow manages to win again (unlikely), he’ll have been the most consequential and transformational president since Ronald Reagan. The GOP will be completely remade in his image and he’ll successfully purge it of all who oppose him

[Vosem]

Sure, in a couple of different ways. Firstly, since the politicization of the Supreme Court during the 1960s, there have been essentially three elections that have meaningfully altered the composition of the Supreme Court: 1968, 1986, and 2016. By appointing Gorsuch and Kavanaugh and Barrett, Trump has fixed a particular direction for American law for what is statistically likely to be decades; Dobbs is only the beginning of this legacy.

In a different way, he decreased the gap between Republican activists and Republican policy (although this may have been inevitable for any Republican President post-Tea Party). Under GWB, you saw an expansion of Medicare, continued expansion of federal regulation, and close relations with the media. Under Trump, you saw growth in regulation crawl to a halt (in spite of news stories about how disastrous it is), and actively hostile relations with media, which permitted openly holding priorities the media considered disastrous (on the positive side, like the repeal of Obamacare; but on the negative side, this obviously paved the way to lots of norm violations that culminated with 1/6). Priorities like expanding the use of the death penalty and backing US allies more firmly in international disputes (in spite of, yes, the opposite rhetoric) were pushed pretty forcefully. (In many ways I think the argument that Trump changed the GOP's ideology to be greatly exaggerated, but I think it is certainly true that he changed the way the leadership relates to this ideology, though you can also date this to 2010 or thereabouts).

Lastly, Trump shifted US politics to a different place attention-wise. In the early 2010s, the US had trends similar to those around the world, with turnout generally falling and the left becoming more 'neoliberal' while the right became more 'populist'. For better or worse Trump disrupted this; 2020 was the election with the highest turnout since 1900, even as 2014 had the lowest turnout since 1942. I still think that this is long-run unsustainable; trust for news organizations which cover politics is at an all-time low and as populations grow the distance between politicians and ordinary voters only increases. Incumbents are less accountable for their actions than ever (consider that, in 2022, in spite of lots of anger at both sides and little confidence...zero incumbent Senators lost in generals or primaries, for the first time ever). I think that it's still likely that turnout ultimately falls, as the trend of losing trust in institutions continues accelerating and eventually hooks people that, for one reason or another, would find supporting the actual Republican party unacceptable. (I think a cynical take on 'wokeness' would be that it is a movement designed to keep minorities or LGBTQ individuals with little institutional trust supporting political movements who are all about institutional trust.)

Definitely consequential in the short-term. The extent to which he will be viewed as consequential long-term depends on if he gets a second term and whether or not future Republican administrations pursue a Schedule F style war against the civil service.

Cannot imagine a future Republican administration, even one which isn't particularly 'Trumpy' at all, not doing this. Hostility to the federal civil service has been growing for a while; it's something Romney acknowledged and that was present in the Rubio/Cruz platforms as well. If the next Republican administration doesn't do this, it would be because the next Republican President doesn't just come from outside the organized party (a la Eisenhower/Trump) but runs against them in a much more deliberate way than Trump did. That's difficult to imagine, and it's particularly difficult to imagine a campaign doing this on 'the federal government is pretty nice, actually'.

[Del Tachi]

Like Reagan for television and FDR for radio, Trump will be remembered as the first president to use social media to its full potential:  messaging and narrative-setting completely divorced from establishment media gatekeepers.

[Unpoisoned Chalice]

Sure, in a couple of different ways. Firstly, since the politicization of the Supreme Court during the 1960s, there have been essentially three elections that have meaningfully altered the composition of the Supreme Court: 1968, 1986, and 2016. By appointing Gorsuch and Kavanaugh and Barrett, Trump has fixed a particular direction for American law for what is statistically likely to be decades; Dobbs is only the beginning of this legacy.

In a different way, he decreased the gap between Republican activists and Republican policy (although this may have been inevitable for any Republican President post-Tea Party). Under GWB, you saw an expansion of Medicare, continued expansion of federal regulation, and close relations with the media. Under Trump, you saw growth in regulation crawl to a halt (in spite of news stories about how disastrous it is), and actively hostile relations with media, which permitted openly holding priorities the media considered disastrous (on the positive side, like the repeal of Obamacare; but on the negative side, this obviously paved the way to lots of norm violations that culminated with 1/6). Priorities like expanding the use of the death penalty and backing US allies more firmly in international disputes (in spite of, yes, the opposite rhetoric) were pushed pretty forcefully. (In many ways I think the argument that Trump changed the GOP's ideology to be greatly exaggerated, but I think it is certainly true that he changed the way the leadership relates to this ideology, though you can also date this to 2010 or thereabouts).

Lastly, Trump shifted US politics to a different place attention-wise. In the early 2010s, the US had trends similar to those around the world, with turnout generally falling and the left becoming more 'neoliberal' while the right became more 'populist'. For better or worse Trump disrupted this; 2020 was the election with the highest turnout since 1900, even as 2014 had the lowest turnout since 1942. I still think that this is long-run unsustainable; trust for news organizations which cover politics is at an all-time low and as populations grow the distance between politicians and ordinary voters only increases. Incumbents are less accountable for their actions than ever (consider that, in 2022, in spite of lots of anger at both sides and little confidence...zero incumbent Senators lost in generals or primaries, for the first time ever). I think that it's still likely that turnout ultimately falls, as the trend of losing trust in institutions continues accelerating and eventually hooks people that, for one reason or another, would find supporting the actual Republican party unacceptable. (I think a cynical take on 'wokeness' would be that it is a movement designed to keep minorities or LGBTQ individuals with little institutional trust supporting political movements who are all about institutional trust.)

Definitely consequential in the short-term. The extent to which he will be viewed as consequential long-term depends on if he gets a second term and whether or not future Republican administrations pursue a Schedule F style war against the civil service.

Cannot imagine a future Republican administration, even one which isn't particularly 'Trumpy' at all, not doing this. Hostility to the federal civil service has been growing for a while; it's something Romney acknowledged and that was present in the Rubio/Cruz platforms as well. If the next Republican administration doesn't do this, it would be because the next Republican President doesn't just come from outside the organized party (a la Eisenhower/Trump) but runs against them in a much more deliberate way than Trump did. That's difficult to imagine, and it's particularly difficult to imagine a campaign doing this on 'the federal government is pretty nice, actually'.

I doubt that someone like Romney or Rubio would directly attempt to politicize (or from the right's perspective, "counter-politicize") the civil service in the way that Trump appeared to be headed before having to leave office. Of course they would run against the hated Washington bureaucrats, but I cannot see the generic GOP going through with a MAGA personnel coup like this: https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/presidential-actions/executive-order-creating-schedule-f-excepted-service/

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

He could be the last one in quite some time WI, MI, PA were only won by him on a split vote with Gary Johnson they are never gonna vote for an R Prez they didn't vote for Bush W