5

With current developments increasing the odds for a second Biden-Trump match-up, this question seems to becoming more relevant (especially for the future). U.S. politics contain so much bias, it is difficult to determine whether the 'experts' ranking presidents are actually making a fair assessment. For instance: Lincoln, Washington, Jefferson always float at the top of the rankings despite operating in a much different environment, whereas Trump was recently ranked as "Worst President in U.S. History".

As a non-U.S. citizen, I mostly dabble in international affairs from the United States and therefore am not able to pick up on most of the domestic affairs. After watching multiple videos and reports regarding foreign affairs, it seems to me as though the Trump administration was performing quite admirably. For example, it is my understanding that under the Trump administration:

  • no additional wars have been started
  • diplomacy with North Korea has been at least attempted (I mind my words carefully here)
  • Abraham Accords have somewhat stabilised the Middle East (or at least Arab-relations with Israel)
  • China has been under increasing pressure from the US: the Trump administration was rough on China especially in case of a future Taiwan conflict (severing the "One China Policy").

Taiwan was one of the only Asia-Pacific countries that favored a Trump reelection. In fact, on this last point, the Biden administration is actually building on top of the current U.S.-Taiwan relationship left by the preceding administration.

To conclude:

Was the Trump administration really that bad (especially when compared to the current state of the world with multiple ongoing conflicts)? Or has the political spectrum become too biased for an independent view? If so, what exactly made the Trump administration so bad (besides COVID)? Perhaps there is too little information for me to inspect.

2
  • 3
    Not sure why the question was downvoted, it's a perfectly legitimate question. I keep seeing people downvote for no reason and no intention to improve the questions.
    – Sayaman
    Feb 27 at 1:27
  • 5
    @Sayaman The reason why this question was downvoted and closed is probably because it is pure opinion. Whether a politician did good or bad during their tenure is a debate-question. We are a Q&A website, not a discussion forum.
    – Philipp
    Feb 27 at 9:59

1 Answer 1

3

no additional wars have been started

Depends exactly how you define that. Iran fired ballistic missiles straight from their territory on US troops (in Iraq) under Trump, after he ordered Soleimani killed. Yeah, the exchange didn't get further than that, but one could say it was a few-days war, ended as unofficially as it started.

Abraham Accords have somewhat stabilised the Middle East (or at least Arab-relations with Israel)

Quite debatable. Many have argued that the Hamas attack on Oct 7 was a direct consequence because Hamas could not tolerate a Saudi-Israeli deal. And indeed the prospect of that deal has been at the very least postponed by the war.

China has been under increasing pressure

Whether this is a good or bad thing depends on a lot of assumptions and details. (Maybe I'll get into this later. Did China purchase all that soy they IIRC promised to, in the last round of negotiations?)

As for weapons to Taiwan, how about (for "great justice"):

Russia has been under increasing pressure to start their full-scale invasion of Ukraine after Trump started deliveries of Javelins to Ukraine.

Or maybe that's that's the deep state's fault, given the details? But wasn't Trump the ultimate decider? Etc.

Trump [initially] said that Ukraine should pay for the weapons itself. The U.S. president said that Ukraine was capable of being a wealthy country if it wasn’t for corruption. Current and former officials told Foreign Policy that only when aides persuaded Trump of the business case to give Ukraine the Javelins did he sign off on the decision. They successfully argued that if the United States provided the missiles first as aid paid for by a U.S. grant, then the Ukrainians would come back later to buy more out of their own pockets.

So, not only did he apparently cave to the deep state and (one might claim) accelerated a full-scale war in Europe, but he did it for the most mercantile of reasons, to get the Ukrainians hooked on Javelins and start spending all their money on that.

My point is: there are infinite ways in which one can spin such events.

And did you forget the final legacy of his term? "The election was stolen". As for his lesser domestic MAGA accomplishments, even AP could not resist trolling him, frankly, with a fact check in 2020:

The Republican National Convention begged this question: Why are President Donald Trump’s most fervent supporters describing the state of his union as a hellscape?

It was perhaps the central paradox for voters wondering what to believe in the rhetoric, because it defied logic to believe it all. Are Americans living in a dystopia or in an America made great again by Trump?

Four years ago, candidate Trump promised that if he won, “The crime and violence that today afflicts our nation will soon come to an end. Beginning on January 20th, 2017, safety will be restored.”

Now? “I’ve never seen our streets go this bad so quickly,” Pat Lynch, representing tens of thousands of New York police officers, told the GOP proceedings. “We are staring down the barrel of a public safety disaster.” He said this in remarks singing Trump’s praises.

Cleary a one-day dictatorship will fix that though.

2

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .