By John Q. Hosedrinker 
President Donald Trump enters his State of the Union address with historically low approval ratings, significantly weaker than any president this century at a comparable point in their tenure. Polling indicates a net approval rating of minus 27 points, a decline particularly pronounced among independents, who now rate him at minus 47. This precarious political standing, worse than his own previous State of the Union addresses and that of recent predecessors like Obama and George W. Bush, presents a substantial challenge as the midterms approach. The White House, however, asserts that the true measure of support lies in the 2024 election results, where President Trump was overwhelmingly elected to continue his agenda. Future shifts in public opinion will depend on the impact of his address, economic developments, and ongoing political dynamics.
Read the original article here
The notion of Donald Trump being the weakest president of this century is gaining traction, as suggested by analyses from those who closely track public opinion. This perspective posits that despite outward displays of strength and an often aggressive rhetorical style, the underlying data suggests a significant deficit in genuine presidential power and influence, particularly when measured against historical precedents.
There’s a strong sentiment that Trump’s presidency was marked by a profound weakening of America’s standing on the global stage, contributing to a more fractured and less respected nation. This view holds that the country emerged from his term poorer, more divided, and with diminished international credibility compared to the period preceding his tenure. The idea is that instead of projecting strength, his actions sowed discord and eroded trust, both domestically and abroad.
A common thread in this assessment is the characterization of Trump as incredibly weak, not just in terms of policy outcomes or public approval, but also in a more fundamental, personal sense. This perceived weakness is seen as driving his more authoritarian tendencies, as he allegedly lacked the skill or the substance to achieve his goals through conventional means, resorting instead to shortcuts and perceived manipulation. The argument is that the bombastic persona masked a lack of genuine executive capability.
Furthermore, some observers feel that Trump’s presidency represents an unprecedented low point, not just within this century but historically. Comparisons are drawn to figures from past centuries, and even to international dictators, suggesting a level of dysfunction and corruption that transcends typical American presidential shortcomings. The damage to the Republican Party itself is also cited as evidence of a weak, albeit destructive, leadership style.
The idea of “weakness” also extends to Trump’s perceived inability to achieve policy goals through traditional legislative means, despite having significant control over the Republican party. Instead of leveraging his influence to enact popular policies that could benefit broad swathes of the population, like student loan relief or expanded healthcare access, the focus is seen as having been on divisive actions and alienating rhetoric, which ultimately serve to weaken his own long-term impact.
It’s argued that his business background, often touted as a strength, was in fact more about branding and name recognition than successful enterprise, further fueling the perception of a superficial strength that didn’t translate into effective governance. This narrative paints a picture of someone who mastered a particular kind of performance but lacked the substance required for presidential leadership.
The impact of Trump’s presidency is viewed by some as so detrimental that it transcends mere comparison with previous American leaders. Instead, the discourse shifts to potentially unparalleled figures of historical infamy, indicating a belief that his tenure pushed the boundaries of what constitutes acceptable or effective leadership in a modern democracy. This suggests that his actions and their consequences are seen as being in a category of their own, marking a distinct departure from the norms of presidential conduct.
The assertion of weakness is also linked to concerns about divisiveness and the erosion of democratic norms. The argument is that rather than uniting the country or strengthening its institutions, Trump’s presidency exacerbated existing divisions and undermined faith in the processes of government. This outcome, from this perspective, is a clear indicator of a presidency that was fundamentally weak in its ability to foster cohesion and progress.
Ultimately, the core of this viewpoint is that the outward projection of strength was a facade, and that the actual impact of Trump’s presidency was one of diminished power, increased division, and a tarnished international reputation. This analysis, often informed by polling data and historical context, paints a picture of a leader whose influence, while undeniably disruptive, was ultimately a manifestation of underlying weaknesses rather than genuine strength.