Trump’s rendezvous with history
How the US President is Building His Legacy
According to the liberal media and social media platforms, he has simply gone mad. But even conservative commentators are asking: Does he know what he’s doing? His popularity ratings are low, with 70% of Americans opposing his actions regarding Greenland, and the GOP must prepare to lose control of the House of Representatives. However, there is another explanation: in his second and final term, Trump is thinking more about how he will be remembered by history and less about poll results.
Author: Maciej Kożuszek
“This is my last election. After this, I’ll have more flexibility,” Barack Obama told Dmitry Medvedev on March 26, 2012, assuming the microphones were off. In Poland, this statement is primarily remembered as a symbol of Obama’s “reset” with Russia. However, Obama also expressed an important truth about the American system concerning presidents who are elected for two terms. During the first term, thoughts turn to the second; during the second, thoughts turn to one’s presidential legacy and how to implement one’s political plan as efficiently as possible. Obama’s example shows that “greater flexibility” can have disastrous consequences: the implementation of his plan led to the creation of ISIS in the Middle East and the start of the war in Ukraine. However, Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize remained intact because it had been awarded well in advance…
Apart from Trump’s irrationality, a second diagnosis dominates among commentators: he is not as strong as previously thought. They predict that he will face an internal crisis, lose the midterm elections, see his ratings fall, and be further weakened by competition within his own party for the 2028 presidential nomination. This is a classic example of drawing false conclusions based on true premises. If the midterm elections were held today, it seems certain that the Democrats would take control of the House of Representatives. In the so-called generic ballot — polls measuring voter preferences without dividing them into congressional districts — Democrats enjoy a lead of about 5 percentage points.
In midterm elections, when Americans do not elect a president, voter mobilization is important because turnout is usually lower. Democrats have even more reason to be optimistic here, as they enjoy a 16-point lead among voters who say they are “certain to vote.” The fact that the overall level of trust in Democrats in Congress (28%) is lower than that in Republicans (35%) may be problematic, but only in 2028 when the deeply crisis-stricken party will have to decide whether to follow Zohran Mamdani’s radical leftist path. In House elections, Americans vote in districts. Progressive candidates are put forward in more progressive areas, while more centrist candidates are put forward in the center of America.
But why is the conclusion that Trump is weak false? He himself says that if the Democrats take control of the House, they will attempt to impeach him again. This is true insofar as Trump, like any politician, would prefer to have absolute power. However, sharing power with Congress has its advantages. First, the spectacle of impeachment—which obviously won’t lead to Trump’s removal from the White House—can be a great tool for mobilizing and uniting his supporters. Second, responsibility can be shared by using one of the oldest tricks in American politics. “I have a great plan, but Congress (or the president, in the Polish context) is making it difficult for me.” Thanks to this trick, Biden shifted all responsibility for delays in supporting Ukraine to Congress, even though the White House was actually responsible for many of them. Even obedient liberals, led by Donald Tusk, criticized the Republicans in the House, not the president. Third, Congress’s tools for stopping the president’s plans are limited, especially in his second term. “I have a pen, and I have a phone,” Barack Obama said in 2014 during his second term when Congress was not cooperating with him. “So, I can sign executive orders, and I can use the weight and importance of my office to convince people of my plans.”
The American system is designed so that the president is elected every four years. During his term, he is granted significant power, making it difficult to remove him from office. This is why midterm elections and polls are important, though they should not be fetishized. Harry Truman, the architect of the postwar system whom everyone is mourning now, holds the record for the lowest approval rating in modern U.S. history. In February 1952, only 22 percent of Americans approved of Truman’s performance. During Ronald Reagan’s eight years as president, Republicans never controlled the House of Representatives. In his last two years, 1987–1989, they also lost control of the Senate. However, history has forgotten these turbulent times in the case of both presidents, focusing instead on the legacy they left behind.
So, the real question is: What legacy does Trump want to leave behind? As a second-term president with a particular character, he has a much greater tolerance for domestic and international turbulence. This must be considered when answering the question: Are the steps taken by the Trump administration rational? The measure here is not the scale of the turmoil and endless episodes of liberal hysteria but whether Trump’s actions serve to implement his plan. Anyone who knows a little history knows that no one has complete control over it and that every plan crumbles when it comes into contact with reality. Moreover, the challenges Trump faces, as well as those facing the US and the West as a whole, are so great that the means used to achieve one goal may prove to be an obstacle to achieving others. For example, Trump would like Europe to clearly stand with the US against China and Russia. However, achieving this goal requires “maximum pressure” to be exerted on Europe. However, Europe, as we clearly saw in Davos, is reluctant to do so.
The paradox of our times is that many people essentially agree with some of Trump’s views. Does Europe have a problem with migration and other issues? Of course. Does Europe need to stop “free riding” when it comes to security? Absolutely! Is it necessary to reduce dependence on rare earth metals in the face of confrontation with China? Yes. Would greater U.S. involvement in Greenland, in terms of both security and economics, increase NATO’s security? Regardless of emotional attitudes, the answer is yes.
The problem is not the diagnoses; the problem is Trump. Europe agrees but would prefer a better atmosphere. However, Trump might respond by drawing on the experience of the Cold War and, above all, the Biden administration. When the atmosphere was good, Europe was satisfied and issued statements about its readiness to meet the challenges of the era. Still, it did nothing.
There is Hope for a European Renewal
The ultimate goal is the spiritual renewal of Europe, as expressed by Vice President Vance in the NSS in Munich and by President Trump in Davos. However, there is a problem with reconciling goals because the pressure Trump puts on Europe puts his potential allies in a difficult position in this renewal effort. This is why several right-wing parties and leaders in the West have distanced themselves from Trump in response to the Greenland crisis. A more realistic operational plan is to break European unity. Contrary to declarations about how united and assertive Europe was on the issue of Greenland, this is already happening. This is illustrated by leaked text messages from Macron proposing a bilateral meeting in Paris while the European Council was establishing a united anti-Trump front. Europe resembles gang members who emphasize “no cooperation” during their get-togethers while selling each other out, figuring on receiving lighter sentences.
Polish politicians, especially those on the right, must participate in this process in a way that considers Poland’s interests. President Nawrocki’s approach to Trump’s Peace Council proposal exemplifies this dilemma. So far, the most advantageous option has been chosen. In view of these choices, two principles must be kept in mind. First, it is the role of Polish politicians, not Trump, to look after our Polish interests. Second, we should take advantage of parts of his plan that align with ours. Breaking up European unity is one of them. If you know your history, you know that the road to greater “European” autonomy, as the view from Paris and Brussels, has always led through Moscow—and today, through Moscow and Beijing.
For the original in Polish, please access: https://niezalezna.pl/swiat/trumpa-randka-z-historia-jak-prezydent-usa-buduje-swoje-dziedzictwo/562686
