In thinking about the choices any new presidential administration faces, something occurred to me about Donald Trump that may be worth considering by Democrats trying to cope with him, so I wrote about it at New York:
Having never lacked faith in himself, Donald Trump probably feels completely entitled to his 2024 election win, the governing trifecta it created, and the relatively high levels of popularity (for him, anyway) that made it all possible. But the odds are very high that between the weighty national problems he inherits and the controversial nature of some of the things he wants to do, he’s probably at the summit of his popularity. As Ross Barkan recently argued at New York, there may be nowhere to go but down:
“Now are the days of wine and roses for MAGA because Joe Biden is still president and Trump’s reign remains hypothetical. On January 20, the script flips: The inflation and affordability crises are Trump’s problems. So is governing, which he has never excelled at. While Trump’s second term may promise, in theory, less chaos than his first, there isn’t much evidence that his White House will evince the grim, rapacious discipline of the Bush-Cheney years, when Republicans actually dominated all policymaking at home and abroad.”
Trump does, however, have some control over how much popularity he is willing to lose. Like anyone who becomes president with some political capital and the ready means to use it (i.e., controlling Congress as well as the White House, and having a lot of friends on the U.S. Supreme Court too), the 47th president will have to decide whether to take some risks on policies that are very likely to reduce his popularity or, instead, play to the galleries. To put it even more simply, he can cash in some chips on stuff he wants to do that could offend or even shock some of the people who voted for him or keep building his stash for the future. Given Trump’s almost unlimited control over his troops in Washington, he can probably go in either direction, but that choice of direction could have an enormous impact on those of us who would greatly prefer a less ambitious MAGA agenda.
There are a lot of reasons Trump may not care if he remains popular while fulfilling his presidential goals. This is the final presidential term of a 78-year-old man; for him, the future really is right now. Yes, forcing unpopular measures through Congress might endanger the fragile Republican control of the House in the 2026 midterms. But history indicates it’s very likely Democrats will flip the House no matter what Republicans do, and let’s face it: The long-range future of the Republican Party may not be of great interest to the president-elect. Even after being nominated as its presidential candidate three straight times while gradually grinding down intraparty opposition to a fine dust, Trump still acts suspiciously toward his party’s Establishment and clearly views it as a vehicle rather than a cause. This is more speculative, but given his personality profile the 47th president may even prefer, or at least not mind, a falloff in the GOP’s electoral performance once he’s gone.
Add in Trump’s impulsiveness, which doesn’t suggest someone for whom delay of gratification comes naturally, and it seems a “go big, then be gone” attitude is likely. Beyond that, it’s unclear how sensitive this man is to changes in popularity: He’s never been in an election he didn’t think he’d won, and he has a tendency to ignore the polls that give him news he doesn’t want in favor of the one or two that show support for his agenda and message always remaining sky-high. If he did something that made his popularity crash, would he even notice it, and if not, would any of the sycophants around him break the bad — and possibly fake — news?
All in all, the best bet is that Donald Trump will pursue his maximum agenda with little regard to how anyone feels about it so long as he’s getting it done. Perhaps Republican officeholders (e.g., his vice-president) who have plans beyond 2028 can talk him into more prudent conduct; but in case you haven’t noticed, he’s stubborn, and it will probably take a lot of blatant, in-your-face adversity to change his course. Democrats can supply some of that, of course, but a stronger than usual popular backlash could matter most.
There’s nothing particularly exceptional in that statement, coming from a Democrat. And it’s hardly a seminal article or major address. Somebody is going to have to provide that, at some point, and do full justice to all the facts of the situation. There’s not a lot of of reliable stuff right now about:
(a.) What an off-the-rails nutcase the “American-educated” Saakashvili turned out to be.
(b.) Exactly how much persecution there has been of Russian minorities in Georgia by Georgians, or of Georgian minorities in the enclaves by Russian separatists.
(c.) How provocative (and impractical) Bush’s breakneck drive to put missile defense systems in Eastern Europe actually was.
(d.) How far Putin really intends to go to re-establish the Russian empire, and how many more heads of state and journalists he is willing to poison.
(e.) How much the Europeans will let themselves be blackmailed over oil.
(f.) Whether a European boycott of Russian oil (however unthinkable for Europe) would even hurt Russia.
(g.) etc., etc., etc.
For somebody of Nunn’s resume, “look before you leap” isn’t the sort of sage counsel that makes my eyes glaze with admiration. Not that I had much for Nunn anyway. I’m delighted the Obama people haven’t asked to look into his finances.
Nunn wasn’t around when Clinton finally decided to help Kossovo, and I don’t happen to know his position on that (it was the right thing to do, in my opinion, but it did help plant the seeds of the current crisis — especially when we recognized Kossovo’s independence much later).
I do know that he opposed the First Gulf War, and so I’ve never been sure that Nunn isn’t — not merely a walk softly type — but an actual appeaser. If it had been up to him, we wouldn’t just have Vladimir Putin sitting on a huge part of the world’s oil reserves, we’d have Saddam Hussein controlling those of Iraq, Kuwait, and maybe even Saudi Arabia.