I’m definitely interested in exploring a fourth perspective, or even beyond if necessary.
Douthat: To kick things off, let’s acknowledge that Trump isn’t wildly popular, and it’s likely his appeal will continue to drop, especially if the stock market takes a hit and fears of a recession start looming. While he maintains strong support within his party, even at his peak, Trump’s approval ratings barely crossed the 50% mark.
Moving on, Americans lived through Trump’s first term, a period often painted with dramatic ‘sky-is-falling’ scenarios. Yet, most people didn’t really feel a crisis until the pandemic struck. Following that, during Biden’s presidency, the media somewhat eased off the crisis narrative, though problems like surging inflation, border issues, and global instability persisted, topped off with concerns about the president’s capabilities. So, while it’s easy to argue that things might be different now—with Trump allegedly more empowered and dangerous—many Americans will likely demand concrete evidence impacting their lives before they buy into the old crisis rhetoric from his first term.
Brooks: Let me remind you of films like Clint Eastwood’s “Dirty Harry” from 1971 or Charles Bronson’s “Death Wish” from 1974. These movies came out during times of social unrest and revolve around characters who disregard rules to bring back order. To this day, a significant number of Americans feel the system is broken and needs someone unafraid to defy convention to fix it. That’s the sentiment that’s resurging.
Moreover, what’s troubling is how there’s usually a grain of truth in Trump and his supporters’ criticisms. Arguably the most damaging thing they’ve done is dismantle U.S.A.I.D. While this decision could lead to countless deaths, it’s also true that the agency was fraught with bureaucratic inefficiencies. For years, administrators have tried to reform it, but they faced roadblocks, largely because members of Congress established many of these entrenched positions and resist change. Thus, Trump’s policies aren’t entirely without merit; they’re just excessive, opting to obliterate agencies rather than correct and preserve their useful functions.
Stephens: If you’re not residing within a stone’s throw from Capitol Hill, chances are you’re unfazed by whether foreign aid—a topic some deem mishandled—is managed by U.S.A.I.D. or directly via the State Department. Similarly, you might not see it as a catastrophe that government employees occasionally face layoffs, a reality the broader American workforce knows all too well. Moves that seem seismic to Washington insiders often leave Trump’s supporters feeling indifferent or even satisfied.
